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.

3,074 results for “disallowance”+ Section 142clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai4,336Delhi3,074Kolkata1,227Bangalore1,133Chennai829Jaipur673Hyderabad582Ahmedabad566Pune509Chandigarh358Visakhapatnam332Indore298Surat298Rajkot264Cochin172Raipur152Agra124Lucknow118Amritsar112Nagpur91Guwahati78Patna73Allahabad65Jodhpur61Cuttack56Karnataka55Calcutta52Panaji50Ranchi39Telangana32SC22Dehradun21Jabalpur19Varanasi15Punjab & Haryana6Kerala5Orissa4Rajasthan2Uttarakhand2Himachal Pradesh1Bombay1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Andhra Pradesh1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1Tripura1

Key Topics

Addition to Income62Section 143(3)51Section 153A47Disallowance40Section 153D36Search & Seizure33Section 143(2)31Section 153C26Section 13223Section 14A

M/S UNITECH LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeals is allowed and revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 5180/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Unitech Ltd., Vs. Additional Cit, 6-Community Centre, Range-18, Saket, New Delhi-1100 17 New Delhi. (Pan: Aaacu1482H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Additional Cit, Vs. M/S. Unitech Ltd., Range-18, 6-Community Centre, New Delhi. Saket, New Delhi (Pan: Aaacu1482H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: S/Shri Salil Aggarwal, Adv., Gautam And, Ca & Shjalesh Gupta, Ca Department By: S/Shri Dilip Shivpuri & Ruchir Bhatia, Government Standing Counsels Date Of Hearing : 12 .01.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 08 :04.2016 Order Per I.C. Sudhir:These Cross Appeals Preferred By Assessee & Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Of Learned Cit(A)-Xxi, New Delhi Dated 16.8.2013 & Relate To Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Appellant-Assessee Is A Public Limited Company Engaged In The Business Of Construction & Development Of Real Estate Projects. For The Assessment Year Under Consideration, It Filed A Return Declaring An Income Of Rs. 922,30,17,671/- On 29.9.2009, Which Came To Be Assessed At An Income Of Rs. 3361,18,87,560/- In An Order Dated 1.8.2012 Under Section 143(3) Of The Act. On Appeal, Learned Cit(A) Granted Part Relief To The Appellant & Hence The Appeals Before Us.

For Appellant: S/Shri Salil Aggarwal, Adv., Gautam and, CA and Shjalesh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: S/Shri Dilip Shivpuri & Ruchir Bhatia
Section 142Section 143(3)

Showing 1–20 of 3,074 · Page 1 of 154

...
22
Section 142(1)21
Deduction16
Section 45
Section 48

section 142(2A) cannot be passed arbitrarily merely because Assessing Officer finds some difficulty in understanding the accounts of a particular assessee. There has to be genuine and honest attempt on the part of the Assessing Officer to understand accounts maintained by the assessee and obtain necessary explanations from the assessee, wherever required. The Assessing Officer, after duly considering

M/S. UNITECH LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on preliminary ground, appeal of Revenue and its CO are dismissed

ITA 6181/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri O.P. Kantआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 6181/Del/2015 With Co No.376/Del/2015 & "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S.Unitech Limited Dcit, Cir.27(1) 6, Community Centre Vs New Delhi. Saket, New Delhi 17. अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Aggarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri H.K. Choudhary, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 03/05/2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27/06/2018 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-DR
Section 142Section 143(3)Section 144C(4)

section 142(2 A) of the Act. 1.2 It appears that, entire intent and, purport to prepare such a vague show-cause notice and thereafter give an inadequate time frame to file a reply is with a predetermined and, premeditated opinion of making an order u/s 142(2A) of the Act. It is submitted that, such an approach

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. UNITECH LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on preliminary ground, appeal of Revenue and its CO are dismissed

ITA 6648/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri O.P. Kantआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 6181/Del/2015 With Co No.376/Del/2015 & "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S.Unitech Limited Dcit, Cir.27(1) 6, Community Centre Vs New Delhi. Saket, New Delhi 17. अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Aggarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri H.K. Choudhary, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 03/05/2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27/06/2018 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-DR
Section 142Section 143(3)Section 144C(4)

section 142(2 A) of the Act. 1.2 It appears that, entire intent and, purport to prepare such a vague show-cause notice and thereafter give an inadequate time frame to file a reply is with a predetermined and, premeditated opinion of making an order u/s 142(2A) of the Act. It is submitted that, such an approach

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

142 ITD 52 (Ahd.) Administrative expenses [Disallowance under Rule 8D(iii)| The expenses debited in the profit and loss account (other than those suo moto disallowed) pertains to main business activity of manufacturing of two wheelers; revenue earned wherefrom was Rs. 25,124.91 crores as against exempt income of Rs.15.11 crores earned by way of dividend from investments which

ACIT, CIRCLE- 21(1), NEW DELHI vs. RELIGARE FINVEST LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, for assessment year 2007-08 the appeal of the assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2364/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Aug 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh, Judicialmember

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

disallowance made by the 3 ITA No.1947/Del./2018 ; 2364/Del.2018; 6474/Del./2016 &5872/Del./2016 appellant Rs.2,424,142) under section 14A of the Income

ACIT,, NEW DELHI vs. M/S RELIGARE FINVEST LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, for assessment year 2007-08 the appeal of the assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5872/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Aug 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh, Judicialmember

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

disallowance made by the 3 ITA No.1947/Del./2018 ; 2364/Del.2018; 6474/Del./2016 &5872/Del./2016 appellant Rs.2,424,142) under section 14A of the Income

M/S RELIGARE FINVEST LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, for assessment year 2007-08 the appeal of the assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6474/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Aug 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh, Judicialmember

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

disallowance made by the 3 ITA No.1947/Del./2018 ; 2364/Del.2018; 6474/Del./2016 &5872/Del./2016 appellant Rs.2,424,142) under section 14A of the Income

RELIGARE FINVEST LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIY, RANGE-21, NEW DELHI

In the result, for assessment year 2007-08 the appeal of the assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1947/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Aug 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh, Judicialmember

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

disallowance made by the 3 ITA No.1947/Del./2018 ; 2364/Del.2018; 6474/Del./2016 &5872/Del./2016 appellant Rs.2,424,142) under section 14A of the Income

DCIT CIRCLE 4 (1) vs. JINDAL DYECHEM INDUSTRIES (P) LTD,

ITA 4809/DEL/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Feb 2016AY 2003-2004

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

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Saroha, CIT DR &
Section 142Section 143(3)Section 153(1)Section 153(3)Section 69ASection 92C

142(2C) e) Ld. First Appellate Authority has wrongly interpreted the provisions of explanation 1(iii) to section to section 153(3) of I.T. Act, 1961 in holding that the last date is one decided by AO whereas the date of compliance extends upto 180 days 3 ITA No.4809/Del./2007 CO No.179/Del/2008 f) The assessee tried to take advantage

SHRI ANIL KUMAR,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2895/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kanav Bali, Sr.DR
Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 68

142(2A) and consequent extension of limitation as well as the additions made under Section 68 and Section 56(2) of the Act. As observed, a token relief towards lump sum disallowance

HERO MOTO CORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. NEAC, DELHI

ITA 706/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2021AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Pal
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(13)Section 145Section 1lSection 80ISection 92C

disallowed under section 14A of the Act, where the appellant had sufficient surplus funds and there was no finding by the assessing officer of any direct nexus of borrowed funds with investments: i. Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. VS. DCIT: 394 ITR 449(SC) ii. Pr. CIT vs. GMM Pfaulder Ltd.: ITA No. 506 of 2017 dated

PROVIDENT INV. & INDUSTRIES (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 5 of the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1003/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 May 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiprovident Inv & Industries P Ltd, Vs. Ito, Ward-14(2), 4Th Floor, Ito, A-49, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi Cr Building, New Delhi Pan:Aabcj4816P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Venugopal Nair, CAFor Respondent: Sh. FR Meena, Sr. DR
Section 142Section 144Section 69

section 142 (2A) of the act without adhering to the instructions of the Central board of direct taxes and without examining the books of accounts in forming satisfaction of the complexity in the books of accounts. The Ld. authorized representative did not press any argument on this ground and therefore it is dismissed. 15. Ground No. 4 of the appeal

HERO MOTOCORP LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1545/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishihero Motocorp Limited, Jcit, 34, Basant Lok, Vasant Range-1, New Delhi Vs. Vihar, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0812J (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community Vs. New Delhi Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057 (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. NC Sawain, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

disallowed on the ground of the same being contingent in nature. He further submitted that similar provision for increase in prices as at the end of the year was accepted and allowed in Hero MotoCorp Limited Vs. JCIT & DCIT Vs. Hero MotoCorp Ltd. ITA Nos. 1545/Del/2015 and 2424/Del/2015 (AY 2010-11) ITA No. 1609/Del/2016 and 914/Del/2016 (AY 2011-12) Page

RELIGARE FINVEST LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 21(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, -Appeal in ITA No

ITA 7856/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 14A

disallowed and added back to the income of the assessee.” 5.3. The Ld. AR has submitted that pursuant to decision of the Hon'ble apex Court in the case of ICDS Ltd. vs. CIT, Mysore, 350 ITR 527 wherein it was held that it is the lessor is entitled to claim depreciation u/s 32 of the Act in respect

ACIT (OSD), CIRCLE- 21(1), NEW DELHI vs. RELIGARE FINVEST LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, -Appeal in ITA No

ITA 133/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 14A

disallowed and added back to the income of the assessee.” 5.3. The Ld. AR has submitted that pursuant to decision of the Hon'ble apex Court in the case of ICDS Ltd. vs. CIT, Mysore, 350 ITR 527 wherein it was held that it is the lessor is entitled to claim depreciation u/s 32 of the Act in respect

DCIT, CIRCLE- 21(1), NEW DELHI vs. RELIGARE FINVEST LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, -Appeal in ITA No

ITA 7553/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 14A

disallowed and added back to the income of the assessee.” 5.3. The Ld. AR has submitted that pursuant to decision of the Hon'ble apex Court in the case of ICDS Ltd. vs. CIT, Mysore, 350 ITR 527 wherein it was held that it is the lessor is entitled to claim depreciation u/s 32 of the Act in respect

ACIT, CIRCLE- 21(1), NEW DELHI vs. RELIGARE FINVEST LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, -Appeal in ITA No

ITA 5202/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 14A

disallowed and added back to the income of the assessee.” 5.3. The Ld. AR has submitted that pursuant to decision of the Hon'ble apex Court in the case of ICDS Ltd. vs. CIT, Mysore, 350 ITR 527 wherein it was held that it is the lessor is entitled to claim depreciation u/s 32 of the Act in respect

RELIGARE FINVEST LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 21(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, -Appeal in ITA No

ITA 547/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 14A

disallowed and added back to the income of the assessee.” 5.3. The Ld. AR has submitted that pursuant to decision of the Hon'ble apex Court in the case of ICDS Ltd. vs. CIT, Mysore, 350 ITR 527 wherein it was held that it is the lessor is entitled to claim depreciation u/s 32 of the Act in respect

RELIGARE FINVEST LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 21(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, -Appeal in ITA No

ITA 6116/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 14A

disallowed and added back to the income of the assessee.” 5.3. The Ld. AR has submitted that pursuant to decision of the Hon'ble apex Court in the case of ICDS Ltd. vs. CIT, Mysore, 350 ITR 527 wherein it was held that it is the lessor is entitled to claim depreciation u/s 32 of the Act in respect

RELIGARE FINVEST LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 21(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, -Appeal in ITA No

ITA 4796/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: PendingITAT Delhi13 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 14A

disallowed and added back to the income of the assessee.” 5.3. The Ld. AR has submitted that pursuant to decision of the Hon'ble apex Court in the case of ICDS Ltd. vs. CIT, Mysore, 350 ITR 527 wherein it was held that it is the lessor is entitled to claim depreciation u/s 32 of the Act in respect