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.

11 results for “disallowance”+ Section 55Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai96Delhi31Kolkata13Bangalore11Ahmedabad9Surat7Pune7Raipur6Chandigarh4Jaipur3Lucknow3Rajkot3Chennai3Hyderabad2Indore1SC1Nagpur1Karnataka1

Key Topics

Section 697Section 143(3)7Addition to Income7Disallowance7Section 546Section 116Section 142A6Deduction6Section 1485Section 143(1)

DIVYA DINESH ,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2194/BANG/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2026AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Sudheendra B.R, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N, JCIT
Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 80G

disallowance of set off of short-term capital loss, the gross total income increased. As per section 80G(4) of the Act, the donation in excess of 10% of the gross total income has to be ignored while computing the deduction. Since the gross total income was recomputed, the allowable deduction under section 80G was correctly restricted

5
Section 148A4
Capital Gains4

SRI MOHAN PURI ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-7(2)(2), BANGALORE

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

ITA 2925/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.R.E.Balasubramaniyan, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni. JCIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 48Section 54Section 69A

section 54 in respect of essential modifications made to the new asset purchased without appreciating the fact that the appellant had furnished full details of the expenditure incurred in respect of the same. The appellant prays for leave to add, delete, modify and / or adduce additional ground at any time before the appeal is disposed off. 3 Late Mohan Puri

SRI. K. SATISH KUMAR,BENGALURU vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-9, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1988/BANG/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Aug 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 133A(1)Section 143(3)Section 234Section 234A

disallowance (if any) has to be made in the year the expenses have been claimed. Hence, Ld. CIT(A) held that the addition of Rs. 13,88,76,800 was upheld on substantive basis. Findings:- 7. In this case, there was survey u/s 133A of the Act. During the course of survey in the business premises of the assessee

VAZHOOR SUDARSANAN THAMPI,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), WARD-2(1), BENGALURU

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 893/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan Ka. Y. 2015-16 Appellant Respondent Vazhoor Sudarshanan The Income Tax Officer Thampi International Taxation Vazhoor House, Ward 2 (1) T C 5/1892Valappad Bangalore Vallapad Beach Thrissur Kerala 680567 Pan Afxpt6193D For Appellant Shri Sidhesh N Gadi, Ca For Respondent Dr. Divya K J Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 19-08-2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28-08-2025

Section 142Section 143Section 144Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69

disallowance of capital loss on transfer of the shares is also not proper. 15. With respect to the non-granting of the refund of ₹ 108 lakhs, it was submitted that assessee has not claimed any deduction but is claiming refund of income tax out of the income shown in the return of income filed under section

M/S SHETTY CONSTRUCTIONS ,KALABURAGI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-(1), KALABURAGI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 286/BANG/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Feb 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodiaita No.286(Bang)/2019 (Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/S Shetty Constructions, Shetty Enclave, Aland Road, Kalaburagi-585 103 Panno.Aaffs1811G Appellant Vs The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-(1), Kalaburagi Respondent Appellant By : Shri Sreehari Kutsa, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Manjeet Singh, Addl.Cit

For Appellant: Shri Sreehari Kutsa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjeet Singh, Addl.CIT
Section 133ASection 142ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 69

55A, 142(1), 131 and 133(6) was held as infirm in the said judgment. However, the law has been amended by the Finance Act No. 2, 2004 inserting section 142A with effect from November 15, 1972 enabling the Assessing Officers to make reference to Valuation Officer for the purposes of making an assessment or reassessment under

M/S. MANGALORE ROUND TABLE TRUST,MANGALORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2472/BANG/2019[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Feb 2020AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodiaita No.286(Bang)/2019 (Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/S Shetty Constructions, Shetty Enclave, Aland Road, Kalaburagi-585 103 Panno.Aaffs1811G Appellant Vs The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-(1), Kalaburagi Respondent Appellant By : Shri Sreehari Kutsa, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Manjeet Singh, Addl.Cit

For Appellant: Shri Sreehari Kutsa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjeet Singh, Addl.CIT
Section 133ASection 142ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 69

55A, 142(1), 131 and 133(6) was held as infirm in the said judgment. However, the law has been amended by the Finance Act No. 2, 2004 inserting section 142A with effect from November 15, 1972 enabling the Assessing Officers to make reference to Valuation Officer for the purposes of making an assessment or reassessment under

PRITHVIRAJ LEKKAD MALLIKARJUN,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(2)(1), BENGALURU

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

ITA 1050/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Prashanth, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 226(3)Section 50CSection 54Section 55(2)(b)Section 55A

disallowing the indexed cost of acquisition of Rs.11,52,67,650/- by holding that the appellant has not furnished any details or evidence for cost of acquisition under the facts and circumstances of the case. b) The authorities below failed to appreciate that the cost of acquisition of the property acquired prior to 01.04.2001 has to be adopted

MR.RAHIL MAHESH KUMAR NIZAMUDDIN ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 892/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri K.Y. Ningoji Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V.S. Chakrapani, D.R
Section 48Section 54FSection 55A

disallowance of deduction of the sum of Rs.11,54,250/- paid by the Appellant towards the Brokerage for sale of Poojanahalli Lands u/s 48 (i) of the Act by misconstruing the decisions in Goetz Case and in Unique Shelters case. 1,97,96,567/- 7 The Learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the act of the Assessing Officer in refusing

OAKNET HEALTHCARE PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2097/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)

disallowance of depreciation is highly excessive and is required to be substantially reduced. 8. The learned Assessing officer/DRP were not justified in ignoring the fact that the assets acquired were pursuant to the receipt of approval /consent from the regulatory authorities who have verified and vetted the transaction and consequently passed a perverse order on the facts and circumstances

A.SHAMA RAO FOUNDATION ,MANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-1 , MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1165/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan, Vice Presidnet & Shri B.R Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri Balram R Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)

disallowing the claims of “repayment of loan” as application of income in all the three years and also by assessing the sale consideration arising on sale of capital assets in AY 2008-09 and 2010-11 as income of the assessee. ITA Nos.1165, 1166, 1167, 1405, 1406 & 1464/Bang/2018 Page 6 of 18 6. In the appellate proceedings

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS) WARD-1 , MANGALURU vs. M/S MEDICAL RELIEF SOCIETY OF SOUTH KANARA , MANIPAL

In the result, the appeals of the revenue for AY 2008-09 and 2010-11 are partly allowed and the appeal relating to AY 2009-10 is allowed

ITA 160/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Oct 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)For Respondent: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, Advocate
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 45

disallowing the claims of “repayment of loan” as application of ITA No.160, 161 & 737 /Bang/2018 Page 3 of 10 income in all the three years and also by assessing the sale consideration arising on sale of capital assets in AY 2008-09 and 2010-11 as income of the assessee. 6. In the appellate proceedings, the Ld CIT(A) directed