Search: disallowance | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

12,717 results for “disallowance”+ Section 11clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai15,504 Delhi12,717 Bangalore4,493 Chennai4,339 Kolkata3,838 Ahmedabad3,149 Pune2,988 Hyderabad2,039 Jaipur1,807 Chandigarh1,140 Surat1,101 Indore1,007 Cochin785 Raipur678 Visakhapatnam659 Cuttack562 Karnataka545 Rajkot521 Amritsar472 Nagpur430 Lucknow367 Panaji221 Agra221 Jodhpur204 Guwahati175 Ranchi161 Telangana145 Allahabad128 SC117 Patna112 Dehradun104 Calcutta89 Jabalpur60 Varanasi47 Kerala44 Punjab & Haryana22 Orissa12 Rajasthan11 Himachal Pradesh7 A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN5 Gauhati2 H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1 ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1 RANJAN GOGOI PRAFULLA C. PANT1 A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1 ANIL R. DAVE AMITAVA ROY L. NAGESWARA RAO1 Andhra Pradesh1 Tripura1 Uttarakhand1 MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1 D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1

Key Topics

Addition to Income66 Section 26356 Section 143(3)53 Disallowance45 Section 153A41 Section 6840 Section 14A31 Section 143(2)30 Section 14727 Deduction

SUNSHINE EDUCATIONAL & DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY,NOIDA vs. ADDL. CIT, EXEMPTION, GHAZIABAD

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

ITA 4727/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Delhi16 Dec 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Garg, CAFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Chaudhary, CIT DR

Section 10(23)(c)Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 194Section 2(15)Section 251(2)Section 40

Sections 11 & 12 cannot be allowed. In response to the show cause notice as to why claim of exemption should not be disallowed

Showing 1–20 of 12,717 · Page 1 of 636

...

27

Natural Justice16

CONFRERE EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,NOIDA vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4464/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharma

Section 12ASection 250Section 251Section 56

Sections 11 & 12 cannot be allowed. In response to the show cause notice as to why claim of exemption should not be disallowed

M/S. BHARTI AIRTEL LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee with respect to ground No

ITA 5816/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishibharti Airtel Ltd, Addl Cit, Bharti Crescent, 1, Vs. Range-2, Cr Building, Ip Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Estate, New Delhi Kunj, New Delhi Pan:Aaacb2894G (Appellant) (Respondent) Bharti Airtel Ltd, Addl Cit, Bharti Crescent, 1, Vs. Range-2, Cr Building, Ip Nelson Mandela Road, Vaxant Estate, New Delhi Kunj, New Delhi Pan:Aaacb2894G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, SrFor Respondent: Sh. NC Swain, CIT DR (OSD)

Section 201Section 254Section 40

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act cannot be applied in respect of expenditure, payment for which has been made during the year, without deducting tax at source. In other words, disallowance Page 11

VOCATIONAL EDUCATION FOUNDATION ,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, EXEMPTIONS , GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year

ITA 168/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, C. A.;&For Respondent: Shri Govind Singhal, Sr. D.R

Section 10Section 11Section 2(15)Section 251Section 251(1)Section 251(2)

disallowance of entire Depreciation of Rs. 6,84,73,391/- without any basis treating it as double deduction in view of section 11

VOCATIONAL EDUCATION FOUNDATION ,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, EXEMPTIONS , GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year

ITA 166/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, C. A.;&For Respondent: Shri Govind Singhal, Sr. D.R

Section 10Section 11Section 2(15)Section 251Section 251(1)Section 251(2)

disallowance of entire Depreciation of Rs. 6,84,73,391/- without any basis treating it as double deduction in view of section 11

VOCATIONAL EDUCATION FOUNDATION ,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, EXEMPTIONS , GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year

ITA 165/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, C. A.;&For Respondent: Shri Govind Singhal, Sr. D.R

Section 10Section 11Section 2(15)Section 251Section 251(1)Section 251(2)

disallowance of entire Depreciation of Rs. 6,84,73,391/- without any basis treating it as double deduction in view of section 11

VOCATIONAL EDUCATION FOUNDATION,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, EXEMPTION RANGE, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year

ITA 6051/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, C. A.;&For Respondent: Shri Govind Singhal, Sr. D.R

Section 10Section 11Section 2(15)Section 251Section 251(1)Section 251(2)

disallowance of entire Depreciation of Rs. 6,84,73,391/- without any basis treating it as double deduction in view of section 11

VOCATIONAL EDUCATION FOUNDATION ,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, EXEMPTIONS , GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year

ITA 167/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, C. A.;&For Respondent: Shri Govind Singhal, Sr. D.R

Section 10Section 11Section 2(15)Section 251Section 251(1)Section 251(2)

disallowance of entire Depreciation of Rs. 6,84,73,391/- without any basis treating it as double deduction in view of section 11

ADIT (E), NEW DELHI vs. FORTUNE SOCIETY FOR DEVELOPMENT AND PROMOTION OF INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 2

ITA 2698/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Sept 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiadit(E), Vs. Fortune Society For Tc-Ii, New Delhi Development & Promotion Of International Business, G-4, Community Centre, Naraina Vihar, New Delhi Pan:Aaatf0849L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Anshu Prakash, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Satish Khosla, Adv

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12Section 143Section 2

section 11(6) of the Act inserted with effect from 1.4.2015 shall operate prospectively with respect to assessment year 2015-2016 only.” 8. Therefore in view of the above two decisions of the Hon’ble high courts, we reverse the finding of the lower authority and direct the Ld. assessing officer to delete the disallowance

ADIT(E), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. IILM FOUNDATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2872/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, Adv., Ms. TejasviFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT-D.R

Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 143(3)

disallowed and entire exemption under section 11 cannot be denied. Section 13 spells out certain circumstances in which the exemption

IILM FOUNDAION,NEW DELHI vs. ADIT (EXEMPTION), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1142/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, Adv., Ms. TejasviFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT-D.R

Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 143(3)

disallowed and entire exemption under section 11 cannot be denied. Section 13 spells out certain circumstances in which the exemption

ADIT (E), NEW DELHI vs. IILM FOUNDATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2675/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, Adv., Ms. TejasviFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT-D.R

Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 143(3)

disallowed and entire exemption under section 11 cannot be denied. Section 13 spells out certain circumstances in which the exemption

ADIT(E), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. IILM FOUNDATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2871/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, Adv., Ms. TejasviFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT-D.R

Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 143(3)

disallowed and entire exemption under section 11 cannot be denied. Section 13 spells out certain circumstances in which the exemption

ITO (E), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. IILM FOUNDATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1131/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, Adv., Ms. TejasviFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT-D.R

Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 143(3)

disallowed and entire exemption under section 11 cannot be denied. Section 13 spells out certain circumstances in which the exemption

RAMA DEVI MEMORIAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,NOIDA vs. JCIT, RANGE-2, NOIDA

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

ITA 4434/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Ravi Kant Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 11Section 13Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 40

disallow benefit of Section 11 when all relevant conditions of Section 11 are satisfied and there is no violation of any legal

RICHMOND EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,NOIDA vs. DCIT/ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

ITA 4779/DEL/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Jain, Adv

Section 12ASection 132Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

11 of the Act would be denied, while the charitable character and registration of the trust would remain intact. For this, a specific section 115BBI of the Act has been introduced by the statute that the diverted amounts in terms of section 13(1)(c) of the Act shall get taxed at a maximum marginal rate of 30% on gross

DCIT (EXEMPTION), GHAZIABAD vs. OM CHARITABLE TRUST, MEERUT

In the result, Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4961/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jan 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 11(5)(x)Section 12A

disallowed, as it was not for charitable purpose. The AO, therefore, noted that assessee has violated provisions of section 13(1)(d) of the Act and consequently the benefit of provisions of section 11

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAHARA INDIA MASS COMMUNICATION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 2479/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2026AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT DR

Section 14ASection 40

11,71,623 (proportionate disallowance on Rs. 62,04,815 to Vibzap and Arjun Punji with short TDS deduction). The AO added both back under section

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAHARA INDIA MASS COMMUNICATION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 2478/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2026AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT DR

Section 14ASection 40

11,71,623 (proportionate disallowance on Rs. 62,04,815 to Vibzap and Arjun Punji with short TDS deduction). The AO added both back under section

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAHARA INDIA MASS COMMUNICATION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 2480/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2026AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT DR

Section 14ASection 40

11,71,623 (proportionate disallowance on Rs. 62,04,815 to Vibzap and Arjun Punji with short TDS deduction). The AO added both back under section