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.

1,524 results for “disallowance”+ Section 56clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai4,748Delhi4,018Bangalore1,524Chennai1,387Ahmedabad1,084Kolkata1,031Hyderabad735Pune612Jaipur604Indore414Chandigarh405Cochin317Surat261Raipur216Nagpur182Cuttack161Visakhapatnam158Rajkot153Amritsar150Lucknow124Agra106Karnataka84Guwahati68Panaji66Jodhpur63Ranchi57Allahabad55Calcutta55SC36Patna31Varanasi31Telangana29Dehradun25Jabalpur18Kerala13Orissa6Himachal Pradesh4Punjab & Haryana4Rajasthan2

Key Topics

Section 143(3)85Section 153A72Addition to Income69Section 80P(2)(a)60Disallowance58Section 80P49Deduction44Section 25036Section 153C35

SRI. RAVI SHANKAR SHETTY,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 28/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Oct 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai , Jm Ita No.28 /Bang/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Ravi Shankar Shetty, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of #289, 1St Floor, 15Th Main, Rmv Income-Tax, Circle-6(3)(1), Extension, Bengaluru Bengaluru-560 080. [Pan:Asups 9568B]

Section 234ASection 56(2)(ix)

section 56(2)(ix) of the I.T. Act in respect of liability shown in the name of M/s. Metro Corp at Rs.20.11 crores and M/s. Metro Infrastructure Ltd. at Rs.1 crore. In the financial statement for the year under consideration, this amount was treated by the AO as income of I.T.A. No. 28/Bang/2020 the assessee and confirmed

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

Showing 1–20 of 1,524 · Page 1 of 77

...
Section 80P(2)(d)30
Section 14A27
Depreciation13
ITA 718/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: Disposed
ITAT Bangalore
28 Nov 2022
AY 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

56 Deduction for State Taxes paid Not Pressed Relief under section 91 for state taxes 57 Not Pressed paid outside India Interest on IT Refund granted under section 143(1) but subsequently 58 & 59 AO to verify and allow as per law. recovered on completion of assessment proceedings is allowable as deduction Interest levied under section 234B and 60 Consequential

M/S UNITED BREWERIES LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 481/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.K.Sankar Ganesh, JCIT –DR
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 43B

Disallowance under section 43B 49,27,979 Foreign royalty 16,56,488 Brand promotion expense 13,76,00,000 3. The A.O. also

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

section 80JJAA being disallowed. 17.1. The Ld.AR submitted that copy of the Audit report under section 80JJAA, being Form No. 10DA was submitted to the Ld.AO vide submission dated 28.5.2014. The Ld.AO thereafter called upon assessee to justify the allowability of deduction under section 80JJAA. The assessee explained in detail as to why deduction under section 80JJAA should be allowed

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

section 80JJAA being disallowed. 17.1. The Ld.AR submitted that copy of the Audit report under section 80JJAA, being Form No. 10DA was submitted to the Ld.AO vide submission dated 28.5.2014. The Ld.AO thereafter called upon assessee to justify the allowability of deduction under section 80JJAA. The assessee explained in detail as to why deduction under section 80JJAA should be allowed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. INFOSYS LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 245/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Sri Padam Chand Khincha – CAFor Respondent: Smt. Srinandini Das – CIT - DR
Section 1Section 10ASection 155Section 250

disallowance made under section 10AA of the Act ignoring that since no new master service agreement was made, the benefit of claim u/s 10AA from the old SEZ cannot be allowed. 5. The CIT(A) erred in remitting the matter to assessing officer on issue relating to section 80G of the Act ignoring that in instant case assessee

ACIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S JUPITER CAPITAL (P) LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, ITA No. 60/Bang/2012 and 253/Bang/2014 of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and ITA

ITA 282/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessee’S Appeal

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. M. K. Biju, JCIT
Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 37Section 8D(2)(iii)

section 37 of the Act state that, unless the expenditure is capital or personal in nature, which is prohibited by law for the purpose which are an offence, can be allowed. The AO has not established any of the above parameters laid down by the Act but yet choose to disallow the appellant’s claim. 4.5 The material available

JUPITER CAPIAL P. LTD. vs. CIT, BANGALORE

In the result, ITA No. 60/Bang/2012 and 253/Bang/2014 of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and ITA

ITA 253/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessee’S Appeal

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. M. K. Biju, JCIT
Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 37Section 8D(2)(iii)

section 37 of the Act state that, unless the expenditure is capital or personal in nature, which is prohibited by law for the purpose which are an offence, can be allowed. The AO has not established any of the above parameters laid down by the Act but yet choose to disallow the appellant’s claim. 4.5 The material available

M/S JUPITER CAPITAL (P) LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, ITA No. 60/Bang/2012 and 253/Bang/2014 of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and ITA

ITA 60/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessee’S Appeal

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. M. K. Biju, JCIT
Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 37Section 8D(2)(iii)

section 37 of the Act state that, unless the expenditure is capital or personal in nature, which is prohibited by law for the purpose which are an offence, can be allowed. The AO has not established any of the above parameters laid down by the Act but yet choose to disallow the appellant’s claim. 4.5 The material available

M/S. TUV RHEINLAND NIFE ACADEMY PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(1)(2),, BENGALURU

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2015-16

ITA 3160/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Feb 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanand Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Tuv Rheinland Nife Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Academy Pvt. Ltd., Ward-7(1)(2), No.27/B, 2Nd Cross, 13, Bengaluru. Konappan Agrahara, Begur Hobli, Electronic City, Bangalore – 560 100. Pan : Aaect 8703 A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Kavitha P, CAFor Respondent: Shri. C. H. Sundar Rao, CIT-DR-I
Section 143(3)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

disallowing the bad debts claimed of Rs.46,70,166/- without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case and the applicable law. 3. That the Learned ITO while making additions u/s 56(2) (viib) of the Act, disregarded the facts and circumstances of the case and has concluded Assessment in a mechanical manner without application of mind. 4. That

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)

disallowance was made in the Assessee’s case for assessment year 2012-13 on the basis of the order for assessment year 2010-11. She submitted that this Tribunal vide its order dated 14.11.2022 in Dell International Services India Private Limited, (for the merged entity Dell India Private Limited) v. JCIT for the assessment year

M/S. GMR ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(2), BANGALORE

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

ITA 2310/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am It(Tp)A No.2310/Bang/2019 : Asst.Year 2015-2016 M/S.Gmr Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. The Dy.Commissioner Of (Successor To Gmr Holdings P.Ltd) Income-Tax, Central Circle 2(2) V. Bangalore. No.25/1 Skip House, Museum Rd. Bangalore – 560 025. Pan : Aaccr1554R. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Yogesh Thar, Ca Respondent By : Sri.Sumer Singh Meena, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 28.10.2021 Date Of Hearing : 25.10.2021 O R D E R Per Bench:- This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 14.10.20199 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2015-2016. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Five Grounds & Various Sub Grounds. The Assessee By Its Application Dated 13.07.2020 Has Also Raised An Additional Ground. The Learned Ar During The Course Of Hearing Submitted That Grounds No.Ii & Iii May Be Adjudicated & The Other Grounds May Be Left Open. Therefore, Grounds No.Ii & Iii Are Reproduced Below:-

For Appellant: Sri.Yogesh Thar, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-DR
Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 56(2)(viib)

section 56(viib). Hence, the proposed disallowance is upheld.” 4.2 Aggrieved, the assessee has raised this issue before the Tribunal

GOLDMAN SACHS SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 298/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 144C(10)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

Disallowance under section 40(a)(i) of the Act towards reimbursement of salary cost: 3.1 The Honorable DRP and the Learned AO have erred in law and on facts in treating the reimbursement of salary costs of INR 105,56

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)

56,557/- 4,89,13,370/- 3. 2015-16 (-) 9,15,43,286/- 5,36,92,085/- Total 15,06,05,455/- (ii) Century Silicon City, Bangalore: Sl.No. Assessment Declared income Claim of year (Loss) (Rs.) payment of interest

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)

56,557/- 4,89,13,370/- 3. 2015-16 (-) 9,15,43,286/- 5,36,92,085/- Total 15,06,05,455/- (ii) Century Silicon City, Bangalore: Sl.No. Assessment Declared income Claim of year (Loss) (Rs.) payment of interest

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)

56,557/- 4,89,13,370/- 3. 2015-16 (-) 9,15,43,286/- 5,36,92,085/- Total 15,06,05,455/- (ii) Century Silicon City, Bangalore: Sl.No. Assessment Declared income Claim of year (Loss) (Rs.) payment of interest

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)

56,557/- 4,89,13,370/- 3. 2015-16 (-) 9,15,43,286/- 5,36,92,085/- Total 15,06,05,455/- (ii) Century Silicon City, Bangalore: Sl.No. Assessment Declared income Claim of year (Loss) (Rs.) payment of interest

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)

56,557/- 4,89,13,370/- 3. 2015-16 (-) 9,15,43,286/- 5,36,92,085/- Total 15,06,05,455/- (ii) Century Silicon City, Bangalore: Sl.No. Assessment Declared income Claim of year (Loss) (Rs.) payment of interest

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)

56,557/- 4,89,13,370/- 3. 2015-16 (-) 9,15,43,286/- 5,36,92,085/- Total 15,06,05,455/- (ii) Century Silicon City, Bangalore: Sl.No. Assessment Declared income Claim of year (Loss) (Rs.) payment of interest

DCIT, CIRCLE 3(1)(1), BENGALURU, BMTC BUILDING, KORAMANGALA vs. GTR ALUMINIUM PRIVATE LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 165/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Sri Monish Sowkhar, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Balusamy N., D.R
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253Section 263Section 56(2)(viib)

section 56(2)(viib) amounting to Rs.33,71,77,500 pertaining to share premium collected when assessee had been incurring huge loss and there was no justification provided for fixing such high share value and ignoring findings recorded in assessment order that common director of the assess-company and investor-company namely, M/s UKN Properties Ltd had given a statement