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.

7,833 results for “disallowance”+ Section 13(1)(c)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai8,878 Delhi7,833 Bangalore2,913 Chennai2,414 Kolkata2,343 Ahmedabad1,809 Jaipur1,327 Pune1,212 Hyderabad1,033 Chandigarh732 Indore651 Surat542 Cochin400 Raipur399 Visakhapatnam318 Amritsar310 Karnataka268 Rajkot266 Cuttack257 Nagpur207 Lucknow183 Panaji133 Agra131 Jodhpur118 Guwahati108 SC95 Allahabad81 Telangana80 Ranchi64 Calcutta64 Dehradun55 Kerala37 Patna32 Varanasi26 Jabalpur24 Punjab & Haryana9 Rajasthan8 Orissa6 Himachal Pradesh5 A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN4 RANJAN GOGOI PRAFULLA C. PANT1 A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1 ANIL R. DAVE AMITAVA ROY L. NAGESWARA RAO1 ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1 Uttarakhand1 H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1 Gauhati1

Key Topics

Addition to Income76 Disallowance54 Section 143(3)52 Section 153A32 Deduction28 Section 6825 Section 153C21 Section 14A17 Section 14816 Section 132

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)

disallowance of income would not arise. In other words, once the registration is withdrawn, then the expression provided in Section 13(1)(c

DCIT, CIRCLE 22(2), NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI vs. SAHIL VACHANI, DELHI

Appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Showing 1–20 of 7,833 · Page 1 of 392

...

16

Search & Seizure13

ITA 2604/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice Presdient (), Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shriavdhesh Kumar Mishraआअसं.2604/िद"ी/2023(िन.व. 2016-17)

For Appellant: S/Shri Anuj Garg & Narpat Singh, Sr.DRFor Respondent: S/Shri Rohan Khare & Priyam

Section 271(1)(c)Section 54F

disallowance of deduction under section 54F of the Act and consequential appellate orders in the favour of the respondent/assessee. Thus,the case in hand and Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (supra) areheld distinguishable on facts.Accordingly, the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (supra), in my considered opinion, is not applicable in this

A2Z INFRA ENGINEERING LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT CC-2 , FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 939/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal KishoreFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

disallowance without arriving at a prima facie satisfaction with respect to infraction by the assessee of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 271 of the Act. A requirement which is mandated by the provision itself. 15.7 Learned ASG also sought to place reliance on the Memorandum as well as Clause 48 of the Notes on Clauses appended

INFRA ENGINEERS LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CC-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 942/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal KishoreFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

disallowance without arriving at a prima facie satisfaction with respect to infraction by the assessee of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 271 of the Act. A requirement which is mandated by the provision itself. 15.7 Learned ASG also sought to place reliance on the Memorandum as well as Clause 48 of the Notes on Clauses appended

A2Z MAINTENANCE & ENGINEERING SERVICES LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2631/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal KishoreFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

disallowance without arriving at a prima facie satisfaction with respect to infraction by the assessee of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 271 of the Act. A requirement which is mandated by the provision itself. 15.7 Learned ASG also sought to place reliance on the Memorandum as well as Clause 48 of the Notes on Clauses appended

A2Z INFRA ENGINEERING LIMITED,GURGAON vs. CCIT- CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 940/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal KishoreFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

disallowance without arriving at a prima facie satisfaction with respect to infraction by the assessee of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 271 of the Act. A requirement which is mandated by the provision itself. 15.7 Learned ASG also sought to place reliance on the Memorandum as well as Clause 48 of the Notes on Clauses appended

A2Z INFRA ENGINEERING LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT- CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 943/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal KishoreFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

disallowance without arriving at a prima facie satisfaction with respect to infraction by the assessee of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 271 of the Act. A requirement which is mandated by the provision itself. 15.7 Learned ASG also sought to place reliance on the Memorandum as well as Clause 48 of the Notes on Clauses appended

DCIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD vs. A2Z INFRA ENGINEERS LTD., GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 812/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal KishoreFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

disallowance without arriving at a prima facie satisfaction with respect to infraction by the assessee of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 271 of the Act. A requirement which is mandated by the provision itself. 15.7 Learned ASG also sought to place reliance on the Memorandum as well as Clause 48 of the Notes on Clauses appended

DCIT CC-2 , FARIDABAD vs. A2Z MAINTENANCE AND ENGINEERING SERVICES LTD., GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 811/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal KishoreFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

disallowance without arriving at a prima facie satisfaction with respect to infraction by the assessee of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 271 of the Act. A requirement which is mandated by the provision itself. 15.7 Learned ASG also sought to place reliance on the Memorandum as well as Clause 48 of the Notes on Clauses appended

A2Z INFRA ENGINEERING LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT- CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 941/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal KishoreFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

disallowance without arriving at a prima facie satisfaction with respect to infraction by the assessee of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 271 of the Act. A requirement which is mandated by the provision itself. 15.7 Learned ASG also sought to place reliance on the Memorandum as well as Clause 48 of the Notes on Clauses appended

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)

1)(C) read with section 13(3); thirdly, computation of income consequent to denial of exemption under section 11/ 12 of the Act; fourthly, ad hoc 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)

1)(C) read with section 13(3); thirdly, computation of income consequent to denial of exemption under section 11/ 12 of the Act; fourthly, ad hoc 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 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)

1)(C) read with section 13(3); thirdly, computation of income consequent to denial of exemption under section 11/ 12 of the Act; fourthly, ad hoc disallowance

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)

1)(C) read with section 13(3); thirdly, computation of income consequent to denial of exemption under section 11/ 12 of the Act; fourthly, ad hoc disallowance

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)

1)(C) read with section 13(3); thirdly, computation of income consequent to denial of exemption under section 11/ 12 of the Act; fourthly, ad hoc disallowance

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

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

section 13(1)(c) of the Act, after taking into consideration the entire material / evidences placed on record. Our attention was particularly invited to the following events relating to A.Y. 2008-09. In A.Y. 2008-09, when the errors in the order of the CIT(A) for assessment year 2007-08 were highlighted, the CIT(A) forwarded the additional evidence

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

section 13(1)(c) of the Act, after taking into consideration the entire material / evidences placed on record. Our attention was particularly invited to the following events relating to A.Y. 2008-09. In A.Y. 2008-09, when the errors in the order of the CIT(A) for assessment year 2007-08 were highlighted, the CIT(A) forwarded the additional evidence

MOHAIR INVESTMENT AND TRADING COMPANY (P) LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4677/DEL/2009[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2015AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, Advocate and Bhavita Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Dam Kanunjna, Senior DR

Section 115Section 143Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 275(1)(a)

13 ITA No4677 /Del./2009 source to hold that the amount in question was the income of the assessee to justify imposition of penalty. Unquote Recently, in Maxopp Investments Limited vs, DCIT Circle 6(1) (3672lDeI/2007) the jurisdictional Delhi Tribunal, has held that the issue of disallowance under section 14A of the Act has been a subject matter

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

disallowance of Rs 20,50,491/- being exorbitantly high rate of interest paid to the persons specified in section 13(3) of the I.T. Act which was diversion of the trust funds to specified persons u/s 13(3) of the I.T Act 1961. (4) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (A) has erred