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.

9,166 results for “disallowance”+ Section 2(17)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai10,796 Delhi9,166 Bangalore3,232 Chennai2,915 Kolkata2,709 Ahmedabad1,935 Hyderabad1,281 Jaipur1,219 Pune902 Surat771 Indore695 Chandigarh635 Raipur440 Cochin373 Rajkot364 Karnataka360 Amritsar318 Visakhapatnam261 Cuttack259 Nagpur253 Lucknow247 Jodhpur153 Agra144 Panaji117 Telangana112 Guwahati105 Allahabad104 Ranchi104 SC103 Patna79 Dehradun73 Calcutta63 Varanasi36 Kerala34 Jabalpur28 Punjab & Haryana11 Rajasthan7 Himachal Pradesh7 A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN6 Orissa4 Gauhati2 ANIL R. DAVE AMITAVA ROY L. NAGESWARA RAO1 H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1 Tripura1 RANJAN GOGOI PRAFULLA C. PANT1 ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1 A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1 D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1 MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1

Key Topics

Section 14A78 Section 153C71 Disallowance51 Addition to Income49 Section 143(3)35 Section 14721 Section 80I21 Section 26319 Deduction18 Section 115J

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

ITA-441/2003HC Delhi31 Jul 2013

Section 17 (2) read with other provisions which disallow payments made on behalf of the employee, by the employer, so long

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

ITA - 441 / 2003HC Delhi31 Jul 2013

Section 17 (2) read with other provisions which disallow payments made on behalf of the employee, by the employer, so long

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Showing 1–20 of 9,166 · Page 1 of 459

...

13

Section 2(22)(e)13

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

ITA/441/2003HC Delhi31 Jul 2013

Section 17 (2) read with other provisions which disallow payments made on behalf of the employee, by the employer, so long

NIRALA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

ITA 3155/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Sh. Rahul Khare, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar Chopra, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

disallowance u/s 14A. He also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271AAA and 271(l)(c). While adjudicating the appeal filed by the appellant against the assessment order, the additions of Rs 3,75,387 and Rs 10,65,117 were deleted. It is a matter of record that no appeal was filed in respect of the addition

M/S. NIRALA HOUSING PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

ITA 3136/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Sh. Rahul Khare, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar Chopra, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

disallowance u/s 14A. He also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271AAA and 271(l)(c). While adjudicating the appeal filed by the appellant against the assessment order, the additions of Rs 3,75,387 and Rs 10,65,117 were deleted. It is a matter of record that no appeal was filed in respect of the addition

M/S. NIRALA HOUSING PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

ITA 3137/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Sh. Rahul Khare, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar Chopra, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

disallowance u/s 14A. He also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271AAA and 271(l)(c). While adjudicating the appeal filed by the appellant against the assessment order, the additions of Rs 3,75,387 and Rs 10,65,117 were deleted. It is a matter of record that no appeal was filed in respect of the addition

M/S. NIRALA HOUSING PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

ITA 3135/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Sh. Rahul Khare, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar Chopra, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

disallowance u/s 14A. He also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271AAA and 271(l)(c). While adjudicating the appeal filed by the appellant against the assessment order, the additions of Rs 3,75,387 and Rs 10,65,117 were deleted. It is a matter of record that no appeal was filed in respect of the addition

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S NIRALA HOUSING PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

ITA 3531/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Sh. Rahul Khare, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar Chopra, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

disallowance u/s 14A. He also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271AAA and 271(l)(c). While adjudicating the appeal filed by the appellant against the assessment order, the additions of Rs 3,75,387 and Rs 10,65,117 were deleted. It is a matter of record that no appeal was filed in respect of the addition

CIT vs. SELECT HOLIDAY RESORTS PVT LTD

The appeals stand disposed of as above

ITA/1024/2011HC Delhi02 Dec 2011

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

For Appellant: Mr Ajay Vohra with Ms Kavita Jha, Ms Akanksha Aggarwal andFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal with Ms P. L. Bansal and Ms Sonia Mathur

17 5/-. However, the assessing officer restricted the disallowance under section 14A of the said act to Rs. 49,90,860/-, being the amount of dividend received. On appeal, the CIT (A), by the order dated 12/01/2005, upheld the order of the assessing officer. Thereafter, the case of the assessee was heard by a Special Bench constituted in the case

CIT vs. SELECT HOLIDAY RESORTS PVT LTD

The appeals stand disposed of as above

ITA - 1024 / 2011HC Delhi02 Dec 2011

For Appellant: Mr Ajay Vohra with Ms Kavita Jha, Ms Akanksha Aggarwal andFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal with Ms P. L. Bansal and Ms Sonia Mathur

17 5/-. However, the assessing officer restricted the disallowance under section 14A of the said act to Rs. 49,90,860/-, being the amount of dividend received. On appeal, the CIT (A), by the order dated 12/01/2005, upheld the order of the assessing officer. Thereafter, the case of the assessee was heard by a Special Bench constituted in the case

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. HCL PEROT SYSTEMS LTD.

The appeals stand disposed of as above

ITA - 139 / 2009HC Delhi18 Nov 2011

For Appellant: Mr Ajay Vohra with Ms Kavita Jha, Ms Akanksha Aggarwal andFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal with Ms P. L. Bansal and Ms Sonia Mathur

17. The Supreme Court also clearly held that in the case of an income like dividend income which does not form part of the total income, any expenditure/deduction relatable to such (exempt or non-taxable) income, even if it is of the nature specified in sections 15 to 59 of the said Act, cannot be allowed against any other income

EICHER LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals stand disposed of as above

ITA - 805 / 2009HC Delhi18 Nov 2011

For Appellant: Mr Ajay Vohra with Ms Kavita Jha, Ms Akanksha Aggarwal andFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal with Ms P. L. Bansal and Ms Sonia Mathur

17. The Supreme Court also clearly held that in the case of an income like dividend income which does not form part of the total income, any expenditure/deduction relatable to such (exempt or non-taxable) income, even if it is of the nature specified in sections 15 to 59 of the said Act, cannot be allowed against any other income

M/S EICHER GOODEARTH LTD

The appeals stand disposed of as above

ITA/683/2008HC Delhi18 Nov 2011

For Appellant: Mr Ajay Vohra with Ms Kavita Jha, Ms Akanksha Aggarwal andFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal with Ms P. L. Bansal and Ms Sonia Mathur

17. The Supreme Court also clearly held that in the case of an income like dividend income which does not form part of the total income, any expenditure/deduction relatable to such (exempt or non-taxable) income, even if it is of the nature specified in sections 15 to 59 of the said Act, cannot be allowed against any other income

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI IV vs. ESCORTS FINANCE LTD.

The appeals stand disposed of as above

ITA - 98 / 2009HC Delhi18 Nov 2011

For Appellant: Mr Ajay Vohra with Ms Kavita Jha, Ms Akanksha Aggarwal andFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal with Ms P. L. Bansal and Ms Sonia Mathur

17. The Supreme Court also clearly held that in the case of an income like dividend income which does not form part of the total income, any expenditure/deduction relatable to such (exempt or non-taxable) income, even if it is of the nature specified in sections 15 to 59 of the said Act, cannot be allowed against any other income

MAXPAK INVESTMENT LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals stand disposed of as above

ITA - 1060 / 2009HC Delhi18 Nov 2011

For Appellant: Mr Ajay Vohra with Ms Kavita Jha, Ms Akanksha Aggarwal andFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal with Ms P. L. Bansal and Ms Sonia Mathur

17. The Supreme Court also clearly held that in the case of an income like dividend income which does not form part of the total income, any expenditure/deduction relatable to such (exempt or non-taxable) income, even if it is of the nature specified in sections 15 to 59 of the said Act, cannot be allowed against any other income

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI IV vs. ICRA LTD.

The appeals stand disposed of as above

ITA - 683 / 2008HC Delhi18 Nov 2011

For Appellant: Mr Ajay Vohra with Ms Kavita Jha, Ms Akanksha Aggarwal andFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal with Ms P. L. Bansal and Ms Sonia Mathur

17. The Supreme Court also clearly held that in the case of an income like dividend income which does not form part of the total income, any expenditure/deduction relatable to such (exempt or non-taxable) income, even if it is of the nature specified in sections 15 to 59 of the said Act, cannot be allowed against any other income

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. VOU INVESTMENT LTD.

The appeals stand disposed of as above

ITA - 57 / 2008HC Delhi18 Nov 2011

For Appellant: Mr Ajay Vohra with Ms Kavita Jha, Ms Akanksha Aggarwal andFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal with Ms P. L. Bansal and Ms Sonia Mathur

17. The Supreme Court also clearly held that in the case of an income like dividend income which does not form part of the total income, any expenditure/deduction relatable to such (exempt or non-taxable) income, even if it is of the nature specified in sections 15 to 59 of the said Act, cannot be allowed against any other income

MINDA INDUSTRIES LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals stand disposed of as above

ITA - 958 / 2009HC Delhi18 Nov 2011

For Appellant: Mr Ajay Vohra with Ms Kavita Jha, Ms Akanksha Aggarwal andFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal with Ms P. L. Bansal and Ms Sonia Mathur

17. The Supreme Court also clearly held that in the case of an income like dividend income which does not form part of the total income, any expenditure/deduction relatable to such (exempt or non-taxable) income, even if it is of the nature specified in sections 15 to 59 of the said Act, cannot be allowed against any other income

M/S EICHER GOODEARTH LTD

The appeals stand disposed of as above

ITA/932/2009HC Delhi18 Nov 2011

For Appellant: Mr Ajay Vohra with Ms Kavita Jha, Ms Akanksha Aggarwal andFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal with Ms P. L. Bansal and Ms Sonia Mathur

17. The Supreme Court also clearly held that in the case of an income like dividend income which does not form part of the total income, any expenditure/deduction relatable to such (exempt or non-taxable) income, even if it is of the nature specified in sections 15 to 59 of the said Act, cannot be allowed against any other income

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI IV vs. ICRA LTD.

The appeals stand disposed of as above

ITA - 702 / 2008HC Delhi18 Nov 2011

For Appellant: Mr Ajay Vohra with Ms Kavita Jha, Ms Akanksha Aggarwal andFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal with Ms P. L. Bansal and Ms Sonia Mathur

17. The Supreme Court also clearly held that in the case of an income like dividend income which does not form part of the total income, any expenditure/deduction relatable to such (exempt or non-taxable) income, even if it is of the nature specified in sections 15 to 59 of the said Act, cannot be allowed against any other income