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.

13 results for “disallowance”+ Section 36(1)(vii)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,189Delhi2,041Bangalore728Chennai576Kolkata390Ahmedabad302Jaipur221Pune169Chandigarh164Hyderabad157Indore121Cochin117Nagpur108Rajkot81Surat75Raipur74Karnataka69Amritsar56Lucknow50Visakhapatnam47Cuttack44Calcutta43Guwahati37Panaji36Ranchi33SC25Allahabad23Patna20Jodhpur20Telangana18Kerala14Dehradun13Agra7Varanasi7Punjab & Haryana4Himachal Pradesh3Rajasthan2Orissa2Jabalpur2ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1

Key Topics

Section 80I18Section 143(3)17Section 26313Section 8013Section 14A12Disallowance8Deduction7Section 44B6Section 153C6Addition to Income

ACIT, NAINITAL vs. M/S. THE NAINITAL BANK LTD., UTTRAKHAND

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6018/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun05 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Mr. Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Bleassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri N.C. Upadhyay, Senior DRFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Rastogi, FCA
Section 10Section 14ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

section also nowhere provided that base amount for the deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) has to be arrived at the profit from eligible business before allowing deduction u/s 36(1)(vii) of the I.T. Act, 1961.” 3. Insofar as first Ground is concerned, the dispute revolves around the disallowance

5
Section 36(1)(va)4
Revision u/s 2633

ACIT, NAINITAL vs. M/S. KUMAON MANDAL VIKAS NIGAM LTD., NAINITAL

In the result, both appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed as above

ITA 908/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun09 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 142Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)

vii) Taxability of contract receipt of Rs.1,38,08,610/- on accrual basis (viii) Disallowance of interest under section 14A. 3.1 Vide 5 grounds; the Revenue has raised following issues (i) Disallowance of employees’ contribution in ECGI under section 36(1

ACIT, CIRCLE- 3, NAINITAL vs. KUMAON MANDAL VIKAS NIGAM LTD., NAINITAL

In the result, both appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed as above

ITA 1200/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun09 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 142Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)

vii) Taxability of contract receipt of Rs.1,38,08,610/- on accrual basis (viii) Disallowance of interest under section 14A. 3.1 Vide 5 grounds; the Revenue has raised following issues (i) Disallowance of employees’ contribution in ECGI under section 36(1

MB PETROLEUM SERVICES LLC,MUMBAI vs. DDIT, DEHRADUN

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

ITA 1828/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun15 Sept 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshmb Petroleum Services Llc, Vs. Ddit, Kirtane & Pandit, H-16, Circle-1, Saraswati Colony, Sitaldevi International Taxation, Temple Road, Mahim, Dehradun Mumbai (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaecm2604H

For Appellant: Smt Shashi M. Kapila, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Mayank Kumar, JCIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 44B

36,20,743/- (for material and others in respect of Petrogas contract). c) Rs. 2,53,99,401/- ( for services contract under well test division of ONGC Contract). 8. The ld AO concluded that the services performed under both the contracts are in the nature of Fees For Technical Services (FTS) as defined u/s 9(1)(vii

PSB PAPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,U.S. NAGAR vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , BAREILLY

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

ITA 13/DDN/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun23 Jun 2023AY 2016-17
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

disallow the bad debts, instead, he had merely directed to examine 4 the claim of deduction of bad debts after giving sufficient opportunity to the assessee. 7. It is not in dispute that the Assessing Officer having raised queries on various issues during the course of assessment proceedings has not raised any query regarding the allowability of bad debts

KARAM SAFETY PRIVATE LIMITED,UDHAM SINGH NAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(5), UDHAM SINGH NAGAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Stay Applications are dismissed

ITA 3/DDN/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun23 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Nageshwar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Pramod Verma, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 80Section 80ISection 92BSection 92C

disallowing deduction u/s 80IC/Chapter VI-A of the Act. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/DRP have failed to appreciate that to invoke the provisions of Section 92BA, existence of any 'arrangement' to ‘more than ordinary profits’ between the Appellant and its Associate Enterprise (“AE”) need to be established under the provisions

KARAM SAFETY PRIVATE LIMITED,SITARGANJ vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(5), UDHAM SINGH NAGAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Stay Applications are dismissed

ITA 24/DDN/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun23 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Nageshwar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Pramod Verma, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 80Section 80ISection 92BSection 92C

disallowing deduction u/s 80IC/Chapter VI-A of the Act. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/DRP have failed to appreciate that to invoke the provisions of Section 92BA, existence of any 'arrangement' to ‘more than ordinary profits’ between the Appellant and its Associate Enterprise (“AE”) need to be established under the provisions

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DEHRADUN vs. WESTERN GECO INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, HARYANA

The Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 141/DDN/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun31 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No. 141/Del/2024 (A.Y 2021-22)

Section 143(3)Section 44BSection 44DSection 9(1)(vii)

disallowance made by the A.O. by following the ratio laid down by the Special Bench of the Tribunal in Assessee’s own case for Assessment Year 2011-12 in ITA No. 6436/Del/2014 and 6536/Del/2014 and the Judgments of High Courts. 6. As against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 20/06/2024, the Department preferred the present Appeal

SAMSUNG HEAVY INDUSTRIES CO. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 873/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun22 Dec 2023AY 2012-13
Section 143(3)Section 234C

VII (Revised) and the accounts have been prepared on the basis of completion method. The percentage of completion is determined as a proportion of cost incurred upto the date of each accounting period to the total estimated cost. The provision is made for foreseeable losses when current estimate of total contract cost and revenues indicate a loss. The assessee

DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEHRADUN vs. M/S. SAMSUNG HEAVY INDUSTRIES CO. LTD., GURGAON

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1315/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun22 Dec 2023AY 2008-09
Section 143(3)Section 234C

VII (Revised) and the accounts have been prepared on the basis of completion method. The percentage of completion is determined as a proportion of cost incurred upto the date of each accounting period to the total estimated cost. The provision is made for foreseeable losses when current estimate of total contract cost and revenues indicate a loss. The assessee

M/S. THDC INDIA LIMITED,RISHIKESH vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 31/DDN/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun18 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] [Assessment Year : 2017-18] M/S. Thdc India Ltd. Vs Pcit Ganga Bhawan, Aaykar Bhawan, Pragatipuram, Bye Pass 13 A, Subhash Road, Road, Rishikesh, Uttarakhand Uttarakhand-249201 Pan-Aaact7905Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Jeetan Nagpal, Ca Shri Sanjay Arora, Ca & Ms. Pallavi, Ca Revenue By Ms. Poonam Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18.02.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.03.2022 By Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Dehradun [“Ld. Pcit”] Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 30.12.2019 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Joint Venture Company Of Government Of India & Government Of Uttar Pradesh & Engaged In The Business Of Generation & Supply Of Hydro- Electric As Well As Wind Power & Also Engaged In Construction Of Hydro Power Plants. The Return Of Income Was Filed On 30.10.2017, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 6,84,04,420/- After Claiming Deduction U/S 80-Ia Of The Act Of Inr 948,40,76,282/-. The Book Profits Was Shown At Inr 7,84,96,09,382/- & Mat Of Inr 1,67,52,32,236/- Was Paid. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny & After Considering The Submissions Made, Total Income Was Assessed At Inr 4,63,78,80,698/- By Making Disallowance Out Of Deduction Claimed U/S 80-Ia Of The Act To The Extent Of Inr 211,15,54,378/- & Further Making Addition Of Inr 245,79,21,900/- On Account Of Late Payment Surcharge On Outstanding Debtors For The Period Of 10 Months Holding The Same As Taxable On Accrual Basis & No Deduction U/S 80Ia Was Allowed On Such Addition.

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80Section 80I

disallowance of INR 2,11,15,54,378/- out of total deduction claimed u/s 80-IA on other income declared which include late payment surcharge. Further, the AO in his wisdom has made addition of INR 245,79,21,900/- towards late payment surcharge holding the same as taxable on accrual basis for a period of 10 months. This clearly

M/S. UJVN LIMITED,DEHRADUN vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 25/DDN/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun15 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) M/S. Ujvn Limited, Vs. The Principal Commissioner C/O. Mn/S. Rra Taxindia, Of Income, D-28, South Extension, Aayakar Bhawan, 13A, Part-I, Subhash Road, Dehradun New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacu6672R Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv Shri Somil Aggarwal, Adv Revenue By: Shri N. S. Jangpangi, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 24/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 15/09/2023

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri N. S. Jangpangi, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 801ASection 80I

disallowance u/s 801A of the extra amount charged on sale of electricity (other than shortfall) is not relevant. Further we would also like to state that the shortfall charges earned by your assessee are in relation to the business of your assessee eligible for deduction u/s 801A of the Income Tax Act i.e generation of power." 5. It was specifically

M/S. RASAYANA HOTEL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, UTTRAKHAND

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2717/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun24 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri V.P. Raoassessment Years: 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. P.C. Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. N.S. Jangpangi, CIT/DR
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 80I

disallowance of deduction u/s. 80IC of the Income-tax Act. He has pointed out that this issue was considered and decided by this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2010-11 vide order dated 11.10.2017. Thus, he has pleaded that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of this Tribunal