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.

120 results for “disallowance”+ Section 80Gclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai476Delhi292Pune199Ahmedabad133Kolkata133Bangalore120Chennai108Jaipur51Hyderabad44Chandigarh26Indore25Lucknow25Surat14Rajkot12Cuttack11Ranchi9Raipur7Visakhapatnam6Cochin6Jodhpur5Nagpur4Amritsar3Telangana2Allahabad1Dehradun1Guwahati1Punjab & Haryana1SC1Jabalpur1Karnataka1Agra1Panaji1

Key Topics

Section 80G110Addition to Income57Disallowance54Deduction50Section 1146Section 37(1)39Section 143(3)32Section 12A29Section 15424Exemption

M/S. GOLDMAN SACHS SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE-3, BANGALORE

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

ITA 2355/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jun 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.2355/Bang/2019 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S. Goldman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd., Wing A, B & C, Helios Business Park, 150, Orr, Kadubeesanahalli, Bangalore-560103 ….Appellant Pan Aaccg 2435N Vs. Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Special Range 3, Bangalore. ……Respondent.

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (D.R)
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

section 80G of the Actwherein there is no explicit provisions under the law to disallow the claim under section 80G

Showing 1–20 of 120 · Page 1 of 6

24
Section 10A23
Transfer Pricing23

NORTHERN OPERATING SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,ARGON SOUTH TOWER vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 5 (1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1565/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2020-21 M/S. Northern Operating Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, 2Nd Floor Rmz Ecopace, Circle – 5(1)(1), Campus 1C, Bengaluru. Sarjapur Outer Ring Road, Bellandur, Bengaluru – 560 103. Pan : Aaccn 1652 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Divya Motwani, Ca. Revenue By : Shri. D. K. Mishra, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 26.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.09.2024

For Appellant: Ms. Divya Motwani, CAFor Respondent: Shri. D. K. Mishra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 135Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 234BSection 270ASection 274Section 80G

section 80G of the Act. The AO disallowed the claim of deduction under section 80G of the Act. The solitary

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)

Section 80G of the Act. The TPO/A.O. has disallowed substantial portion of donation under Section 80G of the Act on the ground

ANUGRAHA EDUCATION TRUST,SULLIA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS), BANGALORE

ITA 23/BANG/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Apr 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaiana Bhatia, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Srinandini Das, D.R
Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(2)

Section 80G(5) if the institution is found to be misapplying receipts or violating conditions of approval. 2. Rejection of Donor's Claim: The Income Tax Department may disallow

FINASTRA SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 189/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No. 189/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Finastra Software Solutions (India) Pvt. Ltd., 4Th To 6Th Floor, Virgo The Deputy Building, Bagmane Commissioner Of Constellation Income Tax, Business Park Outer Circle – 3 (1)(1), Ring Road, Vs. Bangalore. Dodanekundi, Bangalore. Pan: Aaack9067G Appellant Respondent : Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Assessee By Advocate Revenue By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 01-03-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-05-2023 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 27.01.2022 For A.Y. 2017-18 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Impugned Final Assessment Order Dated 27.01.2022 Was Not Communicated In The Manner Prescribed Under The Income-Tax Act, 1961 & The Rules Made Thereunder & Therefore The Proceedings Are Null & Void.

For Respondent: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar
Section 115JSection 40A(7)Section 43BSection 80GSection 92B

disallowance under Section 80G of the Act of Rs. 5,50,000/- as being contributions made by the Appellant towards

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

FINASTRA SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 268/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.It(Tp)A No. 268/Bang/2021 (Assessment Year: 2016-17)

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 80G

disallowance of the claim made by the assessee under Section 80G, on the ground that the expenses incurred were in furtherance

FIRST AMERICAN (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1762/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Years : 2016 – 17

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Chandekar, JCIT - DR
Section 135Section 143Section 234CSection 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 80Section 80GSection 80G(1)Section 80G(2)

section 80 G of the Act. 4. Ld.AO thus disallowed the deduction claimed u/s 80G of the Act. 5. Aggrieved

M/S. FNF INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1565/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jan 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri K R Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 135Section 135(5)Section 143(3)Section 80G

Section 80G of the Act. Therefore, the assessee submitted that it is eligible to claim deduction and the AO has wrongly disallowed

M/S. ALLEGIS SERVICES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)- 1, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 1693/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016 – 17

For Appellant: Shri C Narayan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Chndrashekar,JCIT -DR
Section 135Section 143Section 253Section 37(1)Section 80Section 80GSection 80G(2)(iv)

disallowance of donation under section 80 G of the Act by holding it to be CSR expenses. 7. He submitted that out of total CSR expenses, sum amounting to Rs.16,80,000/- was eligible for deduction under section 80G

JSW INDUSTRIAL GASES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4(3)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU

ITA 1382/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37Section 80G

disallowance of CSR expenditure under explanation 2 to section 37(1) of the Act applies only in the context of determining its income from business and does not preclude an assessee from claiming deduction under Chapter VIA (which includes section 80G

M/S. SLING MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 197/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Hari Prasad Nayak, CAFor Respondent: Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 32(1)(iia)Section 37Section 80Section 80G

Section 80G of the Act The conclusions of the lower authorities in making addition and the reasons, basis, rationale in support of the impugned conclusion is contrary to facts, bad in law and liable to be quashed. (Tax effect being Rs 11,12,120) 3. The Lower authorities erred in disallowing

M/S. INFINERA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE- 3, BANGALORE

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

ITA 2589/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.2589/Bang/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 80G

section 80G forms part of CSR payments(keeping in mind ineligible deduction expressly provided u/s.80G), the same would already stand excluded while computing, Income under the head, “Income form Business and Profession”. The effect of such disallowance

M/S. PEAK XV PARTNERS ADVISORS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

ITA 2045/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Respondent: Sri Kanchan Kaushal, A.R
Section 135Section 143(2)Section 234ASection 250Section 37Section 80G

80G of the Act for donations/contributions made towards its corporate social responsibility especially when the assessee company suo-motto disallowed the claim of expenditure U/s 37 of the Act. 3. Before us, ld. A.R. of the assessee vehemently submitted that the assessee company has already made the voluntary disallowance as per explanation 2 to section

M/S. PEAK XV PARTNERS ADVISORS PRIVATE LIMITED, ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

ITA 2046/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 135Section 143(2)Section 234ASection 250Section 37Section 80G

80G of the Act for donations/contributions made towards its corporate social responsibility especially when the assessee company suo-motto disallowed the claim of expenditure U/s 37 of the Act. 3. Before us, ld. A.R. of the assessee vehemently submitted that the assessee company has already made the voluntary disallowance as per explanation 2 to section

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

disallowed the set off of short -term capital loss arising from STT-paid transactions. As a result, the taxable income increased and the deduction under section 80G

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

ITA 2195/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 80G

disallowed the set off of short -term capital loss arising from STT-paid transactions. As a result, the taxable income increased and the deduction under section 80G

SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC IT BUSINESS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU, CIRCLE-2, BANGALORE

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

ITA 185/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.185/Bang/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Tiwari, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 92D

80G of the Act. 5.1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and the law, the Ld. AO/ Ld. DRP erred in proposing disallowance of INR 24,733,027/- towards claim under section

M/S BOSCH LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU CIRCLE-1 , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1629/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14 Bosch Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Hosur Road, Adugodi, Of Income Tax, Ltu, Bangalore – 560 030. Circle 1, Pan: Aaacm 9840P Bangalore. Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Advocate Respondent By : Shri V S Chakrapani, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 01.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S.2. This Appeal Is Against The Order Of The Cit(Appeals), Bangalore-9, Bangalore Dated 31.3.2018 For The Assessment Year 2013- 14. 3. The Assessee Raised Grounds Pertaining To The Following Issues:- Deduction U/S. 35(2Ab) Computed On Net Expenditure As Opposed To Gross Expenditure Disallowance Of Provision For Bad & Doubtful Debts I) Disallowance Of Provision For Long Term Service Award Disallowance Of Expenditure U/S. 14A Of The Act Ii) Page 2 Of 67

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V S Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 14ASection 35Section 37Section 43BSection 80J

80G are quite different', 'but nonetheless the two sections are not mutually exclusive'. Thus, there are overlapping areas between the donations given by the assessee and the business expenditure incurred by the assessee. In other words, there can be certain amounts, though in the nature of donations, and nonetheless, these amounts may be deductible under section 37(1) as well

NADATHUR ESTATES P LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1434/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.K. Srihari, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 14ASection 14A(1)Section 14A(2)Section 234BSection 80G

80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’] from gross total income of Rs 5,99.81.035/- The gross total income was arrived at after adjusting loss under the head ‘Profits and gains of business or profession’ [Rs. 5,11,01,752] against income under the head ‘income from house property