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.

2,323 results for “disallowance”+ Section 40(1)(i)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai7,594Delhi6,480Chennai2,417Bangalore2,323Kolkata2,218Ahmedabad1,672Pune1,154Hyderabad1,077Jaipur996Indore596Chandigarh541Surat502Visakhapatnam384Cochin383Raipur308Cuttack298Rajkot280Nagpur266Karnataka240Amritsar237Lucknow155Guwahati122Ranchi100Allahabad97Panaji95Agra67Patna67Telangana64Jodhpur63Calcutta59SC57Dehradun53Jabalpur46Kerala30Varanasi28Orissa5Punjab & Haryana5Rajasthan4Gauhati2Himachal Pradesh1J&K1Tripura1Uttarakhand1ANIL R. DAVE AMITAVA ROY L. NAGESWARA RAO1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)74Addition to Income72Disallowance59Section 4058Deduction40Section 10A38Section 143(1)37Section 14A33Section 153A32Section 148

ROBERT BOSCH ENGINEERING AND BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) /OSD , BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1689/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri Percy Padiwala, Sr
Section 201Section 201(1)Section 40

disallowed the expenditure cannot now turn around and say that there was no liability to deduct tax at source. 8. He thus submitted that the disability under section 40(a)(i)/(ia) and the liability under section 201(1

ROBERT BOSCH ENGINEERING AND BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PRIAVTE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) /OSD LTU , BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Showing 1–20 of 2,323 · Page 1 of 117

...
28
Section 25027
TDS18
ITA 1690/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri Percy Padiwala, Sr
Section 201Section 201(1)Section 40

disallowed the expenditure cannot now turn around and say that there was no liability to deduct tax at source. 8. He thus submitted that the disability under section 40(a)(i)/(ia) and the liability under section 201(1

M/S DELL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTPU , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2846/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92C(3)

disallowed under section 40(a)(i)/(ia) on the basis of the audit report of the Chartered Accountant, the same amount cannot be subject to the provisions of TDS under section 201(1

DELL INDIA P LTD,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS), LTU, BANGALORE

In the result the appeals filed by assessee and revenue for A

ITA 1644/BANG/2014[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 201

1,07,90,215/- under Section 201(1A) of the Act. 2.1. During the assessment year 2012-13 in ITA no.1151, the assessee created aggregate provision of Rs. 49,16,35,934/- towards various expenses. While computing the total income assessable for the assessment year 2012-13, the assessee suo moto disallowed the entire provision so created under Sections 40

INCOME TAX OFFICER, BANGALORE vs. M/S.DELL INDIA PVT.LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result the appeals filed by assessee and revenue for A

ITA 2035/BANG/2016[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 201

1,07,90,215/- under Section 201(1A) of the Act. 2.1. During the assessment year 2012-13 in ITA no.1151, the assessee created aggregate provision of Rs. 49,16,35,934/- towards various expenses. While computing the total income assessable for the assessment year 2012-13, the assessee suo moto disallowed the entire provision so created under Sections 40

DELL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result the appeals filed by assessee and revenue for A

ITA 1151/BANG/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 201

1,07,90,215/- under Section 201(1A) of the Act. 2.1. During the assessment year 2012-13 in ITA no.1151, the assessee created aggregate provision of Rs. 49,16,35,934/- towards various expenses. While computing the total income assessable for the assessment year 2012-13, the assessee suo moto disallowed the entire provision so created under Sections 40

M/S. CENTURY SILICON CITY,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2)(1, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 1100/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, D.R
Section 143(3)

disallowed under section 36(1)(iii). Section 40 is not a standalone section, it has to be read with section

M/S. CENTURY SILICON CITY,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2)(1, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 1102/BANG/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, D.R
Section 143(3)

disallowed under section 36(1)(iii). Section 40 is not a standalone section, it has to be read with section

CENTURY SHELTORS,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 1074/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, D.R
Section 143(3)

disallowed under section 36(1)(iii). Section 40 is not a standalone section, it has to be read with section

M/S. CENTURY SILICON CITY,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2)(1, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 1101/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, D.R
Section 143(3)

disallowed under section 36(1)(iii). Section 40 is not a standalone section, it has to be read with section

CENTURY SHELTORS,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 1073/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, D.R
Section 143(3)

disallowed under section 36(1)(iii). Section 40 is not a standalone section, it has to be read with section

CENTURY SHELTORS,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 1075/BANG/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, D.R
Section 143(3)

disallowed under section 36(1)(iii). Section 40 is not a standalone section, it has to be read with section

M/S VIJAYA BANK ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU , BANGALORE

Accordingly the grounds raised by the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 321/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahum/S. Bank Of Baroda Vs. Addl. Cit, Ltu, (Erstwhile Vijaya Bank) Bmtc Building 7Th Floor, Central Accounts 6Th Block, Koramangala Bengaluru 560095 Dept., 41/2, M.G. Road Bengaluru 560001 Pan – Aaacvo3787 (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Circle - 2(1)(1) Vs. M/S. Bank Of Baroda Room No. 561, 5Th Floor (Erstwhile Vijaya Bank) Aayakar Bhavan 7Th Floor, Central Accounts M.K. Road Dept., 41/2, M.G. Road Mumbai 400020 Bengaluru 560001 Pan – Aaacvo3787 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ananthan, Ca& Smt. Lalitha Rameswaran, Ca Revenue By: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.04.2023 M/S. Bank Of Baroda

For Appellant: Shri Ananthan, CA&For Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 194JSection 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

40,708/- u/s 36(1)(viia). 4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 58,30,00,000/- u/s 36(1)(viii). 5. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in holding that Rs. 1,38,11,847/- paid to NPCI is in the nature of technical

ADDL/JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (LTU) , BANGALORE vs. M/S VIJAYA BANK , BANGALORE

Accordingly the grounds raised by the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 528/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahum/S. Bank Of Baroda Vs. Addl. Cit, Ltu, (Erstwhile Vijaya Bank) Bmtc Building 7Th Floor, Central Accounts 6Th Block, Koramangala Bengaluru 560095 Dept., 41/2, M.G. Road Bengaluru 560001 Pan – Aaacvo3787 (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Circle - 2(1)(1) Vs. M/S. Bank Of Baroda Room No. 561, 5Th Floor (Erstwhile Vijaya Bank) Aayakar Bhavan 7Th Floor, Central Accounts M.K. Road Dept., 41/2, M.G. Road Mumbai 400020 Bengaluru 560001 Pan – Aaacvo3787 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ananthan, Ca& Smt. Lalitha Rameswaran, Ca Revenue By: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.04.2023 M/S. Bank Of Baroda

For Appellant: Shri Ananthan, CA&For Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 194JSection 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

40,708/- u/s 36(1)(viia). 4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 58,30,00,000/- u/s 36(1)(viii). 5. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in holding that Rs. 1,38,11,847/- paid to NPCI is in the nature of technical

M/S. KARNATAKA BANK LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. CIRCLE- 2(1), MANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1107/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K., Judciial Member Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Ananthan S. & Smt. Lalitha Rameswaran, CAsFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115JSection 14ASection 234BSection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40Section 41(4)

Section 36(1)(vii) by Finance Act, 2013 has not changed the proposition of law as it existed before introduction of such explanation. 2.5.1. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that Explanation 2 was introduced to prevent double deduction in the case of same debt for which deduction was allowed u/s 36(1)(viia). 2.6 The learned

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2(1), MANGALORE vs. KARNATAKA BANK LIMITED., MANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 161/PAN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K., Judciial Member Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Ananthan S. & Smt. Lalitha Rameswaran, CAsFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115JSection 14ASection 234BSection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40Section 41(4)

Section 36(1)(vii) by Finance Act, 2013 has not changed the proposition of law as it existed before introduction of such explanation. 2.5.1. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that Explanation 2 was introduced to prevent double deduction in the case of same debt for which deduction was allowed u/s 36(1)(viia). 2.6 The learned

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

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

ITA 718/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year M/S. Infosys Ltd., The Assistant Electronic City, Commissioner It(Tp)A No. Hosur Road, Of Income Tax, 2012-13 718/Bang/2017 Bangalore – 560 Circle – 100. 3(1)(1), Pan: Bangalore. Aaaci4798L : Shri Padamchand Khincha, Assessee By Ca : Shri K.V. Arvind & Shri Dilip, Revenue By Standing Counsels For Dept. Date Of Hearing : 15-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of Final Assessment Order Dated 28/02/2017 Passed By The Ld.Acit, Circle – 3(1)(1), Bangalore For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: General & Legal Grounds 1. The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer & The Directions Of Hon’Ble Drp To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. Grounds On Denial Of Deduction Claimed Under Section 10Aa In Respect Of 4 Sez Units Viz., Chennai – Unit 1, Chandigarh, Mangalore - Unit 1 & Pune Unit 1 2. The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Denying Deduction Claimed Under Section 10Aa In The Return Of Income Totally Amounting To Rs. 2227,82,65,630 In Respect

Section 10ASection 14ASection 2Section 2(24)Section 40

disallowance No 228/2013 dated 11.7.2018 under section 40(a)(i) CIT v Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd [2011] 330 ITR 175 CBDT Circular No. 37 of 2016 dated 2.11.2016 Without prejudice, demand arising from the order passed under section 201(1

M/S UKN PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2012/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kannan Narayanan, D.R
Section 10Section 14ASection 40

1 June 1976 and was hit by the doctrine of 'impossibility of performance'." The additional grounds raised by the assessee are not new issues but an additional plea/argument raised by the assessee regarding the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under Section 40

M/S. MOBILY INFOTECH INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 313/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: FixedITAT Bangalore07 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sankarganesh K. Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40

1)(iii), the same should be allowed as a business loss under section 28. 3.0 Grounds relating to disallowance under section 40

M/S. HICAL INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), RANGE- 1, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 313/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sankarganesh K. Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40

1)(iii), the same should be allowed as a business loss under section 28. 3.0 Grounds relating to disallowance under section 40