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.

9 results for “disallowance”+ Section 80Iclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai118Delhi98Ahmedabad32Kolkata25Chennai20Bangalore9Karnataka8Telangana6Indore6Surat6Dehradun4Chandigarh2Jaipur2Kerala1Rajkot1Amritsar1

Key Topics

Section 80I44Section 10A11Deduction9Section 808Section 1487Section 54F6Section 35D4Section 80A(1)4Addition to Income3Disallowance

M/S. BRIGADE ENTERPRISES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(3), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 2364/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Brigade Enterprises Ltd., 26/1, 30Th Floor Wtc, The Dy. Commissioner Of Dr. Rajkumar Road, Income-Tax, Malleshwaram, Circle-2(3), Rajajinagar, Bengaluru. Vs. Bengaluru-560 100. Pan – Aaacb 7459 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri P.C Kincha, C.A Revenue By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 20-07-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 11-10-2021 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 30/08/2019 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-11, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2013-14 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. General Ground 1.1. The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) ["Cit(A) For Short Hereinafter"] To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. 2. Disallowance Under Section 14A R.W. Rule 8D 2.1. The Learned Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle - 2(3), Bangalore ["Ao" For Short Hereinafter] Has Erred In Making A Disallowance Of Rs. 2,02,22,837/- Under Se Tion 14A Comprising Of Disallowa,,Ø-1S. 1,73,98,969/- Under Rule 8D(2)(Ii) & Rs. 28,23,868/- Under Rule 8D(2)(Iii) & The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Said Disallowance.

For Appellant: Shri P.C Kincha, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 14ASection 35DSection 36
3
Section 2502
Exemption2
Section 36(1)(iii)
Section 80

disallowance of deduction claimed under section 80 IB of the Act. 6.1 Following two issues arises from these grounds: Issue (a) Whether loss of one eligible undertaking is to be set off against the profits of another eligible undertaking? Issue (b) Whether the deduction claimed can be only against the business profits or can it be against the other heads

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S NSL SUGARS LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the revenue in ITA No

ITA 37/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Nov 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Shri A K Garodiaassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri B.S. Balachandran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C.H. Sundar Rao, CIT(DR-I), ITAT, Bangalore
Section 70Section 72Section 80A(1)Section 80CSection 80I

80I(6) of the Act. 11. We have given a careful consideration to the rival submissions. In the decision of Synco Industries Ltd.(supra) rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the facts were that the Assessee was engaged in the business of oil and chemicals. It had a unit for oil division at Sirohi District, Rajasthan. It had also

M/S NSL SUGARS LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the revenue in ITA No

ITA 1228/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Shri A K Garodiaassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri B.S. Balachandran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C.H. Sundar Rao, CIT(DR-I), ITAT, Bangalore
Section 70Section 72Section 80A(1)Section 80CSection 80I

80I(6) of the Act. 11. We have given a careful consideration to the rival submissions. In the decision of Synco Industries Ltd.(supra) rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the facts were that the Assessee was engaged in the business of oil and chemicals. It had a unit for oil division at Sirohi District, Rajasthan. It had also

M/S MANJUNATHA LAND DEVELOPERS AND CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose, whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 642/BANG/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Nov 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri. Abraham P. George & Shri. Vijaypal Raoi.T.A No.642/Bang/2014 (Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/S. Manjunatha Land Developers & Constructions Pvt. Ltd, No.849, 1St Floor, 12Th Cross, 4Th Main, 1St Stage, Indiranagar, Bangalore 560 038 .. Appellant Pan : Aadcm9356M V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle -12(1), Bangalore .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Prashanth G. S, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjay Kumar, CIT -III
Section 234BSection 80I

80I(B) claim of the assessee had to be disallowed / rejected.” 08. It is an admitted position that area of land where assessee was having the projects measured 3 acres and 36 guntas. Financial statements of the assessee for the relevant previous year placed at paper book pages 3 to 34 at schedule 14, has shown income from sale

JCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S ABB INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 441/BANG/2014[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Sept 2016AY 1998-99

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavanshri Inturi Rama Raoita No.441 /Bang/2014 (Asst. Year 1998-99) The Jt. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Ltu), Bengaluru. . Appellant Vs. M/S Abb India Pvt. Ltd., Khanija Bhawan, Race Course Road, Bangalore. . Respondent Appellant By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit Respondent By : Shri T Suryanarayana, Advocate

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri T Suryanarayana, Advocate
Section 10BSection 271(1)(c)Section 80Section 80I

80I and 80HH? 5. Thus the issue being a debatable issue, the non-allocation of common corporate expenditure resulting in reduction of deduction u/s 80IA, in our opinion, cannot be the basis for levying penalty on account of a wrong claim for deduction. A long as the Assessee had ITA No.441/B/14 4 explained the reason for claiming deduction

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE vs. M/S.EAGLETON PROPERTY HOLDINGS CIRCLE, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 190/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Jan 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2010-11 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Eagleton Property Holdings, Income Tax #4, Model House Street, Circle -7(2)(1), Basavanagudi, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 004. Pan : Aabfe 9867 C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Arun Kumar, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Respondent By : None Date Of Hearing : 7.1.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 7.1.2021 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Arun Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: None
Section 14Section 80Section 801Section 80I

disallowance of the claims of the assessee under Section 80IB(10). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who by an order dated 14.11.2012 allowed the claim of the assessee for deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Act. On further appeal by the revenue the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal by an order dated 21.03.2014 upheld the order

LOKESH TALANKI ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 261/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Deepesh Waghale CAFor Respondent: Shri Shehnawaz Ul Rahaman Addln CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234BSection 54F

disallowing the claim u/s. 54F and recomputed the income of the assessee at Rs. 2,50,88,284. Aggrieved Page 4 of 23 the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT (A) challenging the re- opening of assessment and also the re-computation of capital gains. The CIT(A) held that the re-opening is valid and also confirmed

TATA ELXSI LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER INCOMER TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1152/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Tata Elxsi Ltd., The Deputy 126, Itpb Road, Commissioner Hoody, Of Income Tax, Whitefield, Circle – 7(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 048. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaact7872Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT DR
Section 10ASection 10A(9)Section 250

disallowed the deduction u/s.80IB(9) of the Act for A.Y. 2013-14, similar claims in earlier year was decided in favour of the assessee by the ITAT for A.Y.2012-13 and hence, the appeal raised by the assessee for A.Y.2013-14 on this ground i.e. ground No.4 in ITA No.7299/Mum/2017 is covered. 108. Now, the assessee contends that in light

M/S. TATA ELXSI LIMITED., ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 927/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Kincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 10ASection 30Section 80ASection 80H

disallowed the deduction u/s.80IB(9) of the Act for A.Y. 2013-14, similar claims in earlier year was decided in favour of the assessee by the ITAT for A.Y.2012-13 and hence, the appeal raised by the assessee for A.Y.2013-14 on this ground i.e. ground No.4 in ITA No.7299/Mum/2017 is covered. 108. Now, the assessee contends that in light