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.

11,344 results for “disallowance”+ Section 13clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai13,308Delhi11,344Bangalore3,873Chennai3,776Kolkata3,259Ahmedabad2,635Pune2,280Hyderabad1,791Jaipur1,655Chandigarh1,017Surat1,004Indore933Cochin620Raipur595Visakhapatnam562Cuttack501Karnataka452Rajkot433Amritsar418Nagpur380Lucknow287Agra195Panaji177Jodhpur175Guwahati149Ranchi138Telangana130Allahabad117SC113Patna101Dehradun84Calcutta75Jabalpur48Kerala39Varanasi34Punjab & Haryana14Rajasthan10Orissa9Himachal Pradesh6A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN5Gauhati2D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1RANJAN GOGOI PRAFULLA C. PANT1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1ANIL R. DAVE AMITAVA ROY L. NAGESWARA RAO1Tripura1Uttarakhand1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1

Key Topics

Addition to Income79Disallowance56Section 143(3)55Section 14A43Section 153A35Deduction27Section 6823Section 14818Section 80I17Section 143

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)

section 13, same should alone be disallowed and entire exemption under section 11 cannot be denied. Section 13 spells out certain

Showing 1–20 of 11,344 · Page 1 of 568

...
16
Section 143(1)14
Limitation/Time-bar13

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)

section 13, same should alone be disallowed and entire exemption under section 11 cannot be denied. Section 13 spells out certain

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)

section 13, same should alone be disallowed and entire exemption under section 11 cannot be denied. Section 13 spells out certain

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)

section 13, same should alone be disallowed and entire exemption under section 11 cannot be denied. Section 13 spells out certain

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)

section 13, same should alone be disallowed and entire exemption under section 11 cannot be denied. Section 13 spells out certain

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. CHARANJIV CHARITABLE TRUST

In the result both aspects of the first substantial question of law

ITA/321/2013HC Delhi18 Mar 2014

Bench: It, Two By The Assessee Relating To The Assessment Years 2006-07 & 2007-08 & One By The Revenue Relating To The Assessment Year 2006-07. In Other Words, In Respect Of The Assessment Year 2006-07, There Were Cross- 2014:Dhc:1467-Db

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 143(1)Section 260A

disallowance of the exemption under Section 11 on the ground of violation of Section 13(1)(c)(ii) read with

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)

Section 13(1) of the Act, then there was absolutely no necessity to introduce a specific statutory mechanism providing for denial of exemption only to the extent of income so diverted. Once the registration is cancelled or withdrawn, the trust ceases to be eligible for exemption altogether and the question of proportionate disallowance

ACIT, MEERUT vs. M/S. SPACE AGE RESEARCH & TECHNOLOGY FOUNDATION CHARITABLE TRUST, MEERUT

In the result Ground No. 1 and 3 of the appeal of the revenue is allowed and ground No

ITA 4622/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiacit, Space Age Research & Vs. Circle-2, Meerut Technology Foundation, Charitable Trust, Railway Road, Meerut Pan: Aabts7321M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjeev Sapra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. SS Rana, CIT DR
Section 13(2)Section 13(3)Section 68

section 13(2) of the I.T Act 1961. (3) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law in deleting the disallowance

JAN KALYAN SAMITI,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO WARD EXEMPTION, GHAZIABAD

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5120/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanjan Kalyan Samiti Vs. Ito Ward Exemption A-48, Chander Nagar Sahibabad, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad 201002 (Pan: Aaatj5583B)

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv &For Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR
Section 12ASection 13Section 13(2)(e)Section 133(6)Section 143(2)

13(2)(e) of the Act are clearly applicable, the benefit of section 11 or section 12 is not allowable to the assessee. Accordingly, he proceeded to disallow

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

13 of 59 (supra.), held that disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, if any, was to be restricted

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

Disallowance on Remaining Amount (Rs. 4,41,315):Even if the Rs. 9,72,000 is accepted as a group company payment and excluded, the balance amount (Rs. 14,13,315 - Rs. 9,72,000 = Rs. 4,41,315) does attract TDS 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

Disallowance on Remaining Amount (Rs. 4,41,315):Even if the Rs. 9,72,000 is accepted as a group company payment and excluded, the balance amount (Rs. 14,13,315 - Rs. 9,72,000 = Rs. 4,41,315) does attract TDS 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 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

Disallowance on Remaining Amount (Rs. 4,41,315):Even if the Rs. 9,72,000 is accepted as a group company payment and excluded, the balance amount (Rs. 14,13,315 - Rs. 9,72,000 = Rs. 4,41,315) does attract TDS under section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION DELHI vs. IILM FOUNDATION

ITA/181/2023HC Delhi21 Apr 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

For Appellant: Mr Abhishek Maratha, Mr Apoorv AgarwalFor Respondent: Mr Rohit Jain, Mr Aniket D. Agrawal, Mr
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 143(3)Section 260A

disallowance @ 30% and accordingly the addition made by the AO is deleted following the order of the A.Y 2008-09 on the principle of consistency.” 13. The Revenue preferred an appeal against the CIT(A)’s decision before the learned ITAT (being ITA No.2871/Del/2014), which was considered along with other appeals. The Revenue had challenged the CIT(A)’s order

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION DELHI vs. IILM FOUNDATION

ITA/179/2023HC Delhi21 Apr 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

For Appellant: Mr Abhishek Maratha, Mr Apoorv AgarwalFor Respondent: Mr Rohit Jain, Mr Aniket D. Agrawal, Mr
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 143(3)Section 260A

disallowance @ 30% and accordingly the addition made by the AO is deleted following the order of the A.Y 2008-09 on the principle of consistency.” 13. The Revenue preferred an appeal against the CIT(A)’s decision before the learned ITAT (being ITA No.2871/Del/2014), which was considered along with other appeals. The Revenue had challenged the CIT(A)’s order

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL LTD.,, DELHI

ITA 3883/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri R. S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay I Bara, CIT DR
Section 142Section 147Section 153Section 153ASection 201(1)Section 36Section 40Section 40A(3)

disallowance of deduction under section 80IB/IC by applying provisions of section 80IA(8) read with 80IB(13) and 80IC(7) of The Act, on ground

DCIT,C-11(1), NEW DELHI vs. HERO MOTOCORP LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1982/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat

Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)Section 40Section 40a

13. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in setting aside the addition of Rs. 97,75,000/- made by the AO towards disallowances made by the AO towards disallowances under section

ADIT (E), NEW DELHI vs. ANAND EDUCATION SOCIETY, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of the department is dismissed

ITA 1005/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita No. 761/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Anand Education Society, Vs Asstt. Director Of Income Tax(E) 30, Community Centre, Ashok Trust Circle-Ii, Vihar, Phase-I, New Delhi New Delhi-110052 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & Ashish Chadha, CAFor Respondent: Sh. K. K. Jaiswal, DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(3)Section 147

Section 13(3) of the Act by giving undue benefit to the family members of the specified persons and the action of the management had duly caused huge financial losses to the assessee’s society. He also disallowed

ANAND EDUCATION SOCIETY,NEW DELHI vs. ADIT (E), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of the department is dismissed

ITA 761/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita No. 761/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Anand Education Society, Vs Asstt. Director Of Income Tax(E) 30, Community Centre, Ashok Trust Circle-Ii, Vihar, Phase-I, New Delhi New Delhi-110052 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & Ashish Chadha, CAFor Respondent: Sh. K. K. Jaiswal, DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(3)Section 147

Section 13(3) of the Act by giving undue benefit to the family members of the specified persons and the action of the management had duly caused huge financial losses to the assessee’s society. He also disallowed

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)-EXEMPTION, NEW DELHI vs. HAMDARD LABORATORIES (INDIA) , NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1311/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri R.M. Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri T James Singson, CIT, DR
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 13(2)Section 13(2)(b)Section 13(3)Section 143(3)Section 250

13(2)(b) of the Act and therefore, the assessee was not entitled to avail exemption under section 11 and 12 of the Act. He, therefore taxed the assessee as AOP and computed the taxable income of the assessee at Rs.1,93,93,48,991/- including therein addition of Rs. 31,20,000/- as income from house property and disallowance