BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

609 results for “disallowance”+ Section 35(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,900Delhi2,506Chennai716Bangalore609Ahmedabad549Jaipur542Hyderabad527Kolkata450Pune359Chandigarh291Raipur265Indore239Rajkot193Surat190Cochin140Amritsar140Visakhapatnam139Lucknow95Nagpur83SC65Cuttack60Guwahati55Ranchi53Allahabad50Patna43Jodhpur42Panaji27Agra18Dehradun18Jabalpur16Varanasi6MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1ANIL R. DAVE AMITAVA ROY L. NAGESWARA RAO1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)62Addition to Income61Disallowance51Deduction35Section 153C31Section 153A31Section 25030Section 10A29Section 80P(2)(d)29

CANARA BANK,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE, BENGALURU

ITA 1154/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nITA No.210/Bang/2024\nAssessment Year: 2017-18\nM/s Canara Bank\nFM wing, Head Office,\n112, J.C. Road\nBangalore 560002\nVs.\nDCIT\nCircle-2(1)(1)\nBangalore\nPAN NO : AAACC6106G\nAPPELLANT\nRESPONDENT\nITA No.222/Bang/2024\nAssessment Year: 2017-18\nDCIT\nCircle-2(1)(1)\nBangalore\nVs.\nM/s Canara Bank\nFM wing, Head Office,\n112, J.C. Road\nBangalore 560 002\nAPPELLANT\nRESPONDENT\nITA No.1154/Bang/2023\nAsses

For Appellant: Sri Abarana &Anantham, A.RsFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 38(1)

disallows certain expenditure\nincurred to earn exempt income from being deducted from other\nincome which is includable in the total income for the purposes of\nchargeability to the tax. It is equally well settled that expenditure is a\npay out, in order to attract applicability of section 14-A of the Act, there\nhas

Showing 1–20 of 609 · Page 1 of 31

...
Section 1126
Section 13224
Exemption11

M/S. BHARAT BEEDI WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all the four A

ITA 643/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K. (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Chythanya .K, SrFor Respondent: Shri E. Shridhar, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

disallowance made by the Learned AO under Section\n14A without recording the satisfaction is bad and invalid.\n7.\nBased on the above submissions, it is humbly prayed that the\nimpugned order for AY 2017-18 may be quashed.\n Assessment Years 2018-19 to 2020-21:\n1.\nIt is submitted that the Assessee's Appeal in ITA Nos.645

M/S. BHARAT BEEDI WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, MANGALURU

ITA 644/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Apr 2025AY 2019-20
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

disallowance made by the Learned AO under Section\n14A without recording the satisfaction is bad and invalid.\n7.\nBased on the above submissions, it is humbly prayed that the\nimpugned order for AY 2017-18 may be quashed.\n Assessment Years 2018-19 to 2020-21:\n1.\nIt is submitted that the Assessee's Appeal

M/S. MICRO LABS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4/BANG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri S. Parthasarathi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Nisha Padma, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115JSection 14ASection 35Section 35(2)(AB)

disallowed under Section 35 of the Act. The AO is precluded from examining the correctness or otherwise of the certificate issued by the prescribed authority on the grounds that it is either being contrary to facts or contrary to the express provisions of the Act. When the taxpayer files the report issued by the prescribed authority under Section 35

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 290/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 250Section 254Section 37Section 90

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer by sustaining the denial of weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act in respect of expenditure of ₹2

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 292/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 250Section 254Section 37Section 90

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer by sustaining the denial of weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act in respect of expenditure of ₹2

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 293/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 250Section 254Section 37Section 90

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer by sustaining the denial of weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act in respect of expenditure of ₹2

M/S. BHARAT BEEDI WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, MANGALURU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 645/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Apr 2025AY 2020-21
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

35 of 74\nITA Nos.642 to 645/Bang/2024\n3\n[2023] 155\nTaxmann.Com 606\n(Delhi)\nPrincipal\nCommissioner\nof\nIncome-Tax-7\nV.\nOptimal Media\nSolutions Ltd.\nThe case law citied by the\nAssesse, The Head Note\nwhich reads below Section\n14A of the Income-tax Act,\n1961, read with rule 8D of\nthe Income-tax Rules,\n1962 - Expenditure incurred

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

ITA 1053/BANG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2024AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Bharadwaj SheshadriFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT – DR
Section 80PSection 80P(4)

2)(a)(i)/(d) in accordance with law. Needless to\nsay the proper opportunity of being heard must be granted to the\nassessee.\nAccordingly grounds raised on this issue for all the\n assessment years under consideration in grounds mentioned\nherein above stands allowed for statistical purposes.\nPage 34 of 48\nITA Nos. 1052 to 1060/Bang/2023\n18. DISALLOWANCE OF GUARANTEE

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

ITA 1058/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2024AY 2017-18
For Appellant: \nShri K. Sheshadri, CA &For Respondent: \nShri D.K. Mishra, CIT – DR
Section 80PSection 80P(4)

disallowed the claim under section 43 B, by invoking clause\n(a) covering "tax, duty, cess or fee, by whatever name called,\nunder any law for the time being in force."\n\n18.2 The Ld.AR submitted that, the guarantees in the present\ncase were extended by the Government to the assessee as a part\nof the executive power

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

ITA 294/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2021-22
For Appellant: \nShri Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: \nShri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 250Section 254Section 37Section 90

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer by sustaining\nthe denial of weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act in\nrespect of expenditure of ₹2

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

ITA 291/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2018-19
For Appellant: \nShri Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: \nShri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 250Section 254Section 37Section 90

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer by sustaining\nthe denial of weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act in\nrespect of expenditure of ₹2

IBM GLOBAL SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 3464/BANG/2004[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2024AY 2000-2001

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2000-2001

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 10A(2)Section 10A(2)(ia)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

disallowance made in the assessment order was denying exemption claimed u/s. 10A of the act on the ground that, the export turnover brought into India does not amount to 75 percent of the total turnover of the STP unit. It was submitted by the assessee that, it treated export credits of the bank account maintained

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. M/S. BANGALORE CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result both the appeals of the Revenue as well as\nCos of the Assessee for the Asst

ITA 2347/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2025AY 2018-19
Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

Disallowance of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the\nIncome Tax Act, 1961.\n\n13.1 The ld. A.R. submitted that the interest income from\ninvestments in various co-operative societies and banks are entitled\nfor deduction u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. The details of the interest\nfrom investments in Co-operative Banks are as follows:\n\nParticulars

INTACT DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

Accordingly, the appeals of the assessee for the AY 2015-16\nto AY 2017-18 are allowed

ITA 825/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Nov 2025AY 2017-18
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 234ASection 250

section 148 of the Act.\n6. The ld. AO erred in not issuing notice u/s 143(2) of the I.T. Act.\n7. Without prejudice to the above grounds, the Id. AO erred in disallowing\nthe business expenditure aggregating to Rs.28,60,000/- and the Id.\nCIT(A) erred in confirming the same

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S INFOSYS LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee as well as by revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 809/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.735/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Sreenivas T. Bidari, D.R
Section 11Section 14ASection 194JSection 234BSection 40Section 80J

35,11,127. On facts and circumstances of the case and law applicable, impugned disallowance should be deleted in entirety and deduction under section 80JJAA should be allowed as claimed in the return of income. Disallowance of payments made to overseas subsidiaries under section 11. 40(a)(i) — The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action

M/S INFOSYS LTD ,BANGALOR E vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee as well as by revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 735/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.735/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Sreenivas T. Bidari, D.R
Section 11Section 14ASection 194JSection 234BSection 40Section 80J

35,11,127. On facts and circumstances of the case and law applicable, impugned disallowance should be deleted in entirety and deduction under section 80JJAA should be allowed as claimed in the return of income. Disallowance of payments made to overseas subsidiaries under section 11. 40(a)(i) — The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action

BHARAT ELECTRONICS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LARGE PAYERS TAX UNIT, CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1067/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Feb 2024AY 2018-19
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 250Section 35Section 37

disallowance of Rs.7,32,05,792/-\nexpenditure made under section 35(2AB) of the Act.\nxii.\nThe learned AO & CIT(A) has erred in making additions under section under\nsection 35(2AB) which were not the subject matter of scrutiny notice\nissued under section 143(2

INTACT DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

ITA 824/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Zain Ahmed Khan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Balusamy N, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 234ASection 250

section 148 of the Act. 6. The ld. AO erred in not issuing notice u/s 143(2) of the I.T. Act. 7. Without prejudice to the above grounds, the ld. AO erred in disallowing the business expenditure aggregating to Rs.28,60,000/- and the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the same

INTACT DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

ITA 823/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Zain Ahmed Khan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Balusamy N, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 234ASection 250

section 148 of the Act. 6. The ld. AO erred in not issuing notice u/s 143(2) of the I.T. Act. 7. Without prejudice to the above grounds, the ld. AO erred in disallowing the business expenditure aggregating to Rs.28,60,000/- and the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the same