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.

1,564 results for “disallowance”+ Section 56(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai4,850Delhi4,056Bangalore1,564Chennai1,430Kolkata1,061Ahmedabad679Hyderabad513Jaipur426Pune347Indore295Chandigarh260Surat214Raipur188Cochin173Nagpur160Rajkot144Amritsar120Lucknow115Visakhapatnam105Agra85Karnataka84Cuttack71Panaji61Jodhpur56Calcutta55Guwahati51Allahabad39SC36Patna34Varanasi31Ranchi30Telangana29Dehradun24Jabalpur15Kerala13Orissa6Punjab & Haryana4Himachal Pradesh4Rajasthan2

Key Topics

Section 143(3)90Section 153A70Addition to Income63Section 80P(2)(a)56Disallowance46Deduction40Section 14835Section 80P30Section 10A29Section 250

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. 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

Showing 1–20 of 1,564 · Page 1 of 79

...
27
Section 80P(2)(d)26
Depreciation13
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

THE KARNATAKA STATE COOPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT BANK LIMITED ,BANGLAORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BENGALURU

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

ITA 1821/BANG/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Apr 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri Bhardwaj Sheshadri, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Subramanian, JCIT (DR)
Section 250Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

56 of the Act. . Page 8 of 38 7.11 In conclusion, the assessee submitted that the AO wrongly disallowed deduction under section 80P of the Act by adopting an unduly restrictive interpretation of the provision. It was contended that either the entire amount of ₹19,20,74,941/- is eligible for deduction under section 80P(2

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

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

ITA 1052/BANG/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2024AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri K. Sheshadri, CA &For Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT – DR
Section 80PSection 80P(4)

disallowance of guarantee commission under Section 43B was set aside, remanding the issue to the AO.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "80P(2)(a)(i)", "80P(2)(d)", "80P(4)", "43B", "56

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

ITA 1055/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2024AY 2014-15
For Appellant: \nShri Bharadwaj SheshadriFor Respondent: \nShri D.K. Mishra, CIT – DR
Section 80PSection 80P(4)

56 of the Act (emphasis drawn from\nparas 10-11 of the judgment).\n17.2 Now coming to the merits of the disallowance made u/s.\n80P(2)(d) by the authorities below, the word 'attributable' used in\nthe said Section

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 1059/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2024AY 2018-19
For Appellant: \nShri K. Sheshadri, CA &For Respondent: \nShri D.K. Mishra, CIT – DR
Section 80PSection 80P(4)

56 of the Act (emphasis drawn from\nparas 10-11 of the judgment).\n17.2 Now coming to the merits of the disallowance made u/s.\n80P(2)(d) by the authorities below, the word 'attributable' used in\nthe said Section

INCOMETAX OFFICER, WARD 1, UDUPI, UDUPI vs. BRAHMAVARA VYAVASAYA SEVA, BRAHMAVARA

In the result, the appeals filed by Revenue are allowed and the COs\nfiled by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 667/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 May 2024AY 2018-19
Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

disallowance under\nsection 80P(2)(d) of the Act.\n5.\nAs regards the Assessment Years 2018-19 and 2020-21, the AO\nnoticed that the assessee had claimed deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i)\nof the Act for the interest income earned from investments with co-\noperative banks. The AO was of the view that the aforesaid interest income

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 1060/BANG/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2024AY 2020-21
For Appellant: \nShri K. Sheshadri, CA &For Respondent: \nShri D.K. Mishra, CIT – DR
Section 80PSection 80P(4)

56 of the Act (emphasis drawn from\nparas 10-11 of the judgment).\n17.2 Now coming to the merits of the disallowance made u/s.\n80P(2)(d) by the authorities below, the word 'attributable' used in\nthe said Section

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 1057/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2024AY 2016-17
For Appellant: \nShri K. Sheshadri, CA &For Respondent: \nShri D.K. Mishra, CIT – DR
Section 80PSection 80P(4)

56 of the Act (emphasis drawn from\nparas 10-11 of the judgment).\n17.2 Now coming to the merits of the disallowance made u/s.\n80P(2)(d) by the authorities below, the word 'attributable' used in\nthe said Section

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)

56 of the Act (emphasis drawn from\nparas 10-11 of the judgment).\n17.2 Now coming to the merits of the disallowance made u/s.\n80P(2)(d) by the authorities below, the word 'attributable' used in\nthe said Section

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)

56 of the Act (emphasis drawn from\nparas 10-11 of the judgment).\n\n17.2 Now coming to the merits of the disallowance made u/s.\n80P(2)(d) by the authorities below, the word 'attributable' used in\nthe said Section

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, UDUPI, UDUPI vs. BRAHMAVARA VYAVASAYA SEVA, BRAHMAVARA

In the result, the appeals filed by Revenue are allowed and the COs\nfiled by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 668/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 May 2024AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Ms. Akshaya K. S, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

disallowance under\nsection 80P(2)(d) of the Act.\n5. As regards the Assessment Years 2018-19 and 2020-21, the AO\nnoticed that the assessee had claimed deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i)\nof the Act for the interest income earned from investments with co-\noperative banks. The AO was of the view that the aforesaid interest income

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 1054/BANG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2024AY 2013-14
Section 80PSection 80P(4)

56 of the Act (emphasis drawn from\nparas 10-11 of the judgment).\n17.2 Now coming to the merits of the disallowance made u/s.\n80P(2)(d) by the authorities below, the word 'attributable' used in\nthe said Section

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 1056/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2024AY 2015-16
For Appellant: \nShri K. Sheshadri, CA &For Respondent: \nShri D.K. Mishra, CIT – DR
Section 80PSection 80P(4)

56 of the Act (emphasis drawn from\nparas 10-11 of the judgment).\n17.2 Now coming to the merits of the disallowance made u/s.\n80P(2)(d) by the authorities below, the word 'attributable' used in\nthe said Section

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

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

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, UDUPI, UDUPI vs. BRAHMAVARA VYAVAYASAYA SEVA, BRAHMAVARA

In the result, the appeals filed by Revenue are allowed and the COs\nfiled by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 656/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 May 2024AY 2017-18
Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

disallowance under\nsection 80P(2)(d) of the Act.\n5. As regards the Assessment Years 2018-19 and 2020-21, the AO\nnoticed that the assessee had claimed deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i)\nof the Act for the interest income earned from investments with co-\noperative banks. The AO was of the view that the aforesaid interest income

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)

section 56(2)(viib) of the Act read with Rule 11UA(2) of the Rules the Ld. AO had no jurisdiction to adopt a different method than the one adopted by the assessee, and if for any reason the AO has any doubt recording such valuation report and does not agree with the same is bound to make a reference

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

M/S. DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE -1, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 948/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects do not involve carrying