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.

78 results for “disallowance”+ Section 928clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai296Delhi178Bangalore78Ahmedabad75Kolkata62Chennai46Hyderabad37Chandigarh20Jaipur19Pune15Cuttack9Indore8Cochin7Surat7Jodhpur6Visakhapatnam5Guwahati5Panaji4Karnataka3Amritsar3Rajkot3Lucknow2Ranchi2Nagpur2Patna1Punjab & Haryana1Telangana1Raipur1SC1

Key Topics

Section 14A76Section 153A56Addition to Income56Deduction42Section 143(3)40Disallowance40Section 10A32Comparables/TP26Section 1023Section 32(1)(ii)

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

ITA 718/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 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

Showing 1–20 of 78 · Page 1 of 4

20
Section 5719
Transfer Pricing19

disallowed the commission paid to non residents amounting to Page 41 IT(TP)A No. 718/Bang/2017 Rs.23,68,35,533/- under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for non deduction of tax at source. 13.4. The Ld.AR at the outset filed a list showing break up of commission paid to non residents during the year was as under: Vendor

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

GMR POWER CORPORATION LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ADDL.C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal viz

ITA 1556/BANG/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijay Pal Rao & M/S.Gmr Power Corporation Ltd. 25/1, Skip House, Museum Road, Bangalore. … Appellant Pan:Aaacg 6037 G Vs. 1. Addl.Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Range-11, Bangalore. 2. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 3(1)(2), Bangalore … Respondent & (By The Revenue) ******** Assessee By: Shri Yogesh A Thar, Ca. Revenue By: Smt.Neera Malhotra, Cit(Dr).

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh A Thar, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 57Section 57(111)

section 37(1) of the Act. 5.5.6. Further, the interest from inter-corporate deposit and the currency swap arrangement totally amounting to Rs.5,84,38,928 (Rs.4,09,10,613 plus Rs.175,28,315) was higher than the interest paid amounting to Rs.5,32,82,402 debited to the profit and loss account and has also admittedly been brought

GMR POWER CORPORATION LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal viz

ITA 1072/BANG/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijay Pal Rao & M/S.Gmr Power Corporation Ltd. 25/1, Skip House, Museum Road, Bangalore. … Appellant Pan:Aaacg 6037 G Vs. 1. Addl.Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Range-11, Bangalore. 2. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 3(1)(2), Bangalore … Respondent & (By The Revenue) ******** Assessee By: Shri Yogesh A Thar, Ca. Revenue By: Smt.Neera Malhotra, Cit(Dr).

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh A Thar, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 57Section 57(111)

section 37(1) of the Act. 5.5.6. Further, the interest from inter-corporate deposit and the currency swap arrangement totally amounting to Rs.5,84,38,928 (Rs.4,09,10,613 plus Rs.175,28,315) was higher than the interest paid amounting to Rs.5,32,82,402 debited to the profit and loss account and has also admittedly been brought

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S GMR POWER CORPORATION LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS GMR POWER CORPORATION PVT. LTD.,), BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal viz

ITA 1629/BANG/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijay Pal Rao & M/S.Gmr Power Corporation Ltd. 25/1, Skip House, Museum Road, Bangalore. … Appellant Pan:Aaacg 6037 G Vs. 1. Addl.Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Range-11, Bangalore. 2. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 3(1)(2), Bangalore … Respondent & (By The Revenue) ******** Assessee By: Shri Yogesh A Thar, Ca. Revenue By: Smt.Neera Malhotra, Cit(Dr).

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh A Thar, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 57Section 57(111)

section 37(1) of the Act. 5.5.6. Further, the interest from inter-corporate deposit and the currency swap arrangement totally amounting to Rs.5,84,38,928 (Rs.4,09,10,613 plus Rs.175,28,315) was higher than the interest paid amounting to Rs.5,32,82,402 debited to the profit and loss account and has also admittedly been brought

M/S. CORPORATION BANK,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 2(1), MANGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1108/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.S.Ananthan, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

section 115JB(2) of the I.T.Act since it is not a provision towards diminution in the value of assets. This provision is reduced from the Gross Advances while preparing the Balance Sheet. Therefore, it has to be treated as write off and not as provision for diminution 7 ITA Nos.1108/Bang/2019 & 170/PAN/2019. M/s Union Bank of India. in value of asset

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S JUPITER CAPITAL PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

Accordingly, appeal of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1219/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(2)

section 14A is as follows: “5.6 This amount of Rs.42,75,757/- is held as attracted for disallowance u/ s. 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Act. However, the assessee has already made a disallowance u/s.14A of Rs.8,28,302/-, the balance amount of Rs.34,47,455/- is added to the Income returned by the assessee

JUPITER CAPITAL P. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. CIT, BANGALORE

Accordingly, appeal of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1601/BANG/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(2)

section 14A is as follows: “5.6 This amount of Rs.42,75,757/- is held as attracted for disallowance u/ s. 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Act. However, the assessee has already made a disallowance u/s.14A of Rs.8,28,302/-, the balance amount of Rs.34,47,455/- is added to the Income returned by the assessee

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S JUPITER CAPITAL PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

Accordingly, appeal of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1563/BANG/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(2)

section 14A is as follows: “5.6 This amount of Rs.42,75,757/- is held as attracted for disallowance u/ s. 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Act. However, the assessee has already made a disallowance u/s.14A of Rs.8,28,302/-, the balance amount of Rs.34,47,455/- is added to the Income returned by the assessee

M/S TOYOTA KIRLOSKAR MOTORS (P) LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU CIRCLE-1 , BANGALORE

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

ITA 150/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Sri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, D.R
Section 40A(2)

disallowance is revenue neutral and therefore addition is not called for: GENERAL GROUNDS. 20. The lower authorities have erred in levying a sum of Rs 86,94,71,473/- as interest under section 234B. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, nterest under section 234B is not applicable. Even otherwise, the interest u/s 234B is excessive

M/S. BIOPLUS LIFE SCIENCES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 2(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result appeals filed by assessee stands allowed and appeals filed by revenue stands partly allowed for assessment years 2012-13 & 2013-14

ITA 1254/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year M/S. Bioplus Life The Deputy Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of No. 10/1A, 2012-13

Section 14ASection 234BSection 37(1)

disallowance can be made under section 14A”. We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in light of records placed before us. 14. The balance sheet for assessment year 2012-13 at page 6 of paper book reveals that assessee had share capital and reserve & Surplus totaling to Rs.1,29,35,94,928

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1)(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S. BIOPLUS LIFE SCIENCES PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result appeals filed by assessee stands allowed and appeals filed by revenue stands partly allowed for assessment years 2012-13 & 2013-14

ITA 1374/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year M/S. Bioplus Life The Deputy Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of No. 10/1A, 2012-13

Section 14ASection 234BSection 37(1)

disallowance can be made under section 14A”. We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in light of records placed before us. 14. The balance sheet for assessment year 2012-13 at page 6 of paper book reveals that assessee had share capital and reserve & Surplus totaling to Rs.1,29,35,94,928

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1)(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S. BIOPLUS LIFE SCIENCES PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result appeals filed by assessee stands allowed and appeals filed by revenue stands partly allowed for assessment years 2012-13 & 2013-14

ITA 1373/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year M/S. Bioplus Life The Deputy Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of No. 10/1A, 2012-13

Section 14ASection 234BSection 37(1)

disallowance can be made under section 14A”. We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in light of records placed before us. 14. The balance sheet for assessment year 2012-13 at page 6 of paper book reveals that assessee had share capital and reserve & Surplus totaling to Rs.1,29,35,94,928

M/S. BIOPLUS LIFE SCIENCES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result appeals filed by assessee stands allowed and appeals filed by revenue stands partly allowed for assessment years 2012-13 & 2013-14

ITA 1255/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year M/S. Bioplus Life The Deputy Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of No. 10/1A, 2012-13

Section 14ASection 234BSection 37(1)

disallowance can be made under section 14A”. We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in light of records placed before us. 14. The balance sheet for assessment year 2012-13 at page 6 of paper book reveals that assessee had share capital and reserve & Surplus totaling to Rs.1,29,35,94,928

KSHEMA TECHNOLOGIES (SINCE MERGED WITH MPHASIS LTD),BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

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

ITA 1105/BANG/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Apr 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Neera Malhotra, CIT-II (D.R)
Section 92CSection 92C(3)

928,569. 17. INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234D OF THE ACT The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the levy of interest under section 234D of the Act amounting to Rs. 128.352. 18. PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) The learned CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO to re-compute the penalty in view of the enhanced total

M/S FINANCIAL OBJECTS SOFTWARE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, this appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1471/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Accountant Membe

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C.H. Sundar Rao, CIT-I(DR)(ITAT) Bangalore
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

disallowance under section 14A can be made only if the actual expense are incurred in relation to exempt income and the assessee has not incurred any such expenditure. IT(TP)A Nos.1156/Bang/2011 & 1471/Bang/2012 Page 19 of 38 III. Prayer In view of the above, the Company would like to submit that, as 92% of the demand has arisen

M/S GE MEDICAL SYSTEMS (INAIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, this appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1156/BANG/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Accountant Membe

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C.H. Sundar Rao, CIT-I(DR)(ITAT) Bangalore
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

disallowance under section 14A can be made only if the actual expense are incurred in relation to exempt income and the assessee has not incurred any such expenditure. IT(TP)A Nos.1156/Bang/2011 & 1471/Bang/2012 Page 19 of 38 III. Prayer In view of the above, the Company would like to submit that, as 92% of the demand has arisen

M/S TALLY SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

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

ITA 1364/BANG/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Aug 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Sonde, Senior CounselFor Respondent: Smt. Neera Malhotra, CIT-II (D.R)
Section 143(3)Section 928Section 92C

section 928 of the Act and therefore no adjustment was warranted under chapter X of the Act. ix) ignoring the fact that the TPO adopted the notional interest receivable at a rate as high as 14% p.a, which is totally arbitrary, to quantify an adjustment to the arms length price, towards interest receivable. x) ignoring that the TPO adopted notional

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 202/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No.202/Bang/2021 Assessment Year :2015-16 M/S. Nike India Pvt.Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Ground & First Floor, Circle – 3(1)(1), Olympia Building, No.66/1, Bagmane Tech Bengaluru. Park, C. V. Raman Nagar, Bengaluru – 560 093. Pan : Aabcn 9612 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Susan Dolores George, Cit(Osd)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 21.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan:

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Susan Dolores George, CIT(OSD)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 144(3)Section 92C

disallowed in various High Court Rulings. 3. The Learned AO / Learned TPO / Hon'ble DRP has erred in not accepting the order passed by the ITAT in its own case for AY 2009- 10 as well as the combined order of AY 2007-08, AY 2010-11 to AY 2014-15, wherein it was held that absence of an agreement