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.

837 results for “disallowance”+ Section 237clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai911Delhi837Bangalore307Chennai206Kolkata204Jaipur113Ahmedabad77Hyderabad62Pune56Chandigarh45Lucknow35Raipur35Karnataka29Visakhapatnam26Surat16Indore16Nagpur14Amritsar13Telangana10Rajkot10Panaji10Patna7Guwahati6Ranchi6SC5Cochin5Jodhpur5Jabalpur4Varanasi4Agra3Kerala3Allahabad3Cuttack2Dehradun2Himachal Pradesh2Punjab & Haryana2Calcutta1Orissa1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)79Addition to Income75Disallowance72Section 14748Section 80I43Section 153A39Section 14A38Deduction38Section 115J25Section 143(1)

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

Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) for alleged default of non-deduction of TDS on quarterly target and turnover discount and Sales Discount. During the relevant year, the appellant incurred expenditure of Rs. 237

Showing 1–20 of 837 · Page 1 of 42

...
15
Search & Seizure15
Section 13214

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

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S NIIT TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2007-08

ITA 5491/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: 1. That the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in up
Section 14ASection 35D

disallowance. According to the Ld. CIT(A), the language of the provisions of section 35DD are clear that demerger expenses are allowable only in the hands of the parent company ‘NIIT Ltd.’ The Ld. CIT(A) relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Orissa State Warehousing Corporation Vs CIT (SC) 237

NIIT TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2007-08

ITA 5524/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: 1. That the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in up
Section 14ASection 35D

disallowance. According to the Ld. CIT(A), the language of the provisions of section 35DD are clear that demerger expenses are allowable only in the hands of the parent company ‘NIIT Ltd.’ The Ld. CIT(A) relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Orissa State Warehousing Corporation Vs CIT (SC) 237

NIIT TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2007-08

ITA 5525/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: 1. That the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in up
Section 14ASection 35D

disallowance. According to the Ld. CIT(A), the language of the provisions of section 35DD are clear that demerger expenses are allowable only in the hands of the parent company ‘NIIT Ltd.’ The Ld. CIT(A) relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Orissa State Warehousing Corporation Vs CIT (SC) 237

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S NIIT TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2007-08

ITA 5492/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: 1. That the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in up
Section 14ASection 35D

disallowance. According to the Ld. CIT(A), the language of the provisions of section 35DD are clear that demerger expenses are allowable only in the hands of the parent company ‘NIIT Ltd.’ The Ld. CIT(A) relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Orissa State Warehousing Corporation Vs CIT (SC) 237

GE CAPITAL SERVICES INDIA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 479/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishia N D Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sushma Singh, [CIT] – DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 45J

section 14 A of the income tax act. The learned AO has made the disallowance of ₹ 1 to 8694779/– whereas the learned CIT – A has deleted the addition of Rs. 116793711/– and therefore the assessing officer is in appeal before us. 92. While deciding the appeal of the assessee we have held that there is no satisfaction recorded

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. INDIA BULLS POWER LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeals are dismissed in regard to the first question

ITA 2013/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2011-12 Acit, Vs. India Bulls Power Ltd. (Now Known Circle-21(1), As Rattan India Power Ltd.) New Delhi. 5Th Floor, Tower-B, Worldmark-1, Aerocity, New Delhi- 110 037 Pan Aalcs2063D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154

section 154 of the Act passed on 13.06.2014. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted working of 6 disallowance on taxable investment computing disallowance of Rs. 23,75,000/- and considering the suo-moto disallowance of Rs. 8,89,763/- arrived at the figure of Rs. 14,85,237

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. GUJARAT GUARDIAN LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue against the direction of the Ld

ITA 1106/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.K.Yadav & Shri Prashant Maharishim/S. Guajarat Guardian Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 4-7/C, Dda Shopping Centre, Circle-12(1), (Now Circle- New Friends Colony, 10(2), New Delhi Cr Building, Ip Estate, Pan: Aaacg1622K New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Vs. M/S. Guajarat Guardian Ltd, Circle-12(1), (Now Circle-10(2), 4-7/C, Dda Shopping Cr Building, Ip Estate, Centre, New Delhi New Friends Colony, New Delhi Pan: Aaacg1622K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Smt Meeta Singh CIT DR
Section 144Section 144CSection 14A

disallowed the same treating the same as capital expenditure. The Ld. DRP also held that entire amount of Rs. 5 853 5098 to be capital in nature and observed that the appellant had claimed depreciation at the rate of 15% amounting to Rs. 81,94,914/– on the said expenditure. The Ld. DRP did not noticed that assessee had bifurcated

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part for statistical purposes

ITA 6021/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri K.N. Charry

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 14ASection 35DSection 43BSection 92C

disallowed under section 14A of the Act, where the assessee had sufficient surplus funds and there was no finding by the assessing officer of any direct nexus of borrowed funds with investments: ITA No.-6021/Del/2012 6.11. Lastly it is contended on behalf of the assessee that the disallowance computed under section 14A of the Act is incorrect since while

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7578/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia[Assessment Year : 2007-08] Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Dcit, Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Circle-16(1), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. New Delhi Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Sh. Ajay Vohra, Adv., Sh.Rohit Jain, Adv. & Ms. Soumya Jain, Ca Respondent By Ms. Sarita Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 01.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 10.02.2022

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234CSection 254

section 14A, looking at the quantum of disallowance computed, it is noted that the AO has also proportionately disallowed interest expenditure incurred. It has been submitted that the appellant has substantial free reserves and surplus which far exceeds the amount of entire investment made. It has also been submitted that the borrowings of the appellant are granted for specified business

M/S. HERO MOTOCORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6282/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Apr 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2005-06

Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)Section 80I

disallowance of administrative expenses cannot be made under section 14A of the Hero Motorcorp Ltd. vs. ACIT & DCIT Act. For the aforesaid argument, the Ld. AR relied on the following decisions: - Maxxop Investment Ltd. v. CIT: 402 ITR 640 (SC) - DLF Ltd. vs. CIT: 27 SOT 22 (Del. ITAT) – Affirmed by Delhi High Court (350 ITR 555) - Impulse (India

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. HERO HONDA MOTORS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6302/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Apr 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2005-06

Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)Section 80I

disallowance of administrative expenses cannot be made under section 14A of the Hero Motorcorp Ltd. vs. ACIT & DCIT Act. For the aforesaid argument, the Ld. AR relied on the following decisions: - Maxxop Investment Ltd. v. CIT: 402 ITR 640 (SC) - DLF Ltd. vs. CIT: 27 SOT 22 (Del. ITAT) – Affirmed by Delhi High Court (350 ITR 555) - Impulse (India

P vs. MULTIPLEX (INDIA) LTD.,MEERUTVS.ACIT, CIRCLE- 2, MEERUT

The appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 7697/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263Section 36(1)(vi)Section 80I

disallowance of deduction, under section 80IB(7A) of the Act, relatable to income earned on sale of the shop has been challenged before the Tribunal. 4. The Ld. Authorised Representative (In short, the ‘AR’) submitted that the shop which sold out was part of the Multiplex Complex and a business apparatus to earn income; hence, the sale of the same

MITSUI KINZOKU COMPONENTS PVT LTD,REWARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ITO WARD TWO

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3912/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 237Section 239

disallowing the claim made by the Appellant on account of refund of excess DDT paid during the year without appreciating the law in proper perspective. 2.4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in law by not allowing refund of excess tax paid under section

MITSUI KINZOKU COMPONENTS INDIA PVT LTD,REWARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ITO WARD TWO

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3910/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 237Section 239

disallowing the claim made by the Appellant on account of refund of excess DDT paid during the year without appreciating the law in proper perspective. 2.4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in law by not allowing refund of excess tax paid under section

MITSUI KINZOKU COMPONENTS PVT LTD,REWARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ITO WARD TWO

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3911/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 237Section 239

disallowing the claim made by the Appellant on account of refund of excess DDT paid during the year without appreciating the law in proper perspective. 2.4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in law by not allowing refund of excess tax paid under section

HERO MOTOCROP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 11(1), NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 9187/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Apr 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 145ASection 80ISection 92C

disallowance made in that year was deleted on the ground that since in the first place, the Hero Motocorp Ltd. vs. ACIT parties were not related to the assessee company in terms of section 40A (2), disallowance on ground of excessive purchase price could not have been made under that section. Further, the Tribunal held that the transactions were entered

M/S. HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. (HUDCO),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, Assessee’s appeal vide ITA No

ITA 5705/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Dec 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Sh. Gagan Kumar, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. K.J. Singh, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

disallowance of ‘Provision of revision of pay’, I find that in the current Financial Year, no decision of the Central Govt. was available, which may have a bearing on revision of pay of executives of the appellant company, therefore, it cannot be held that such liability had crystallized in the current year. For the Central Govt. Ministries and Departments

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, Assessee’s appeal vide ITA No

ITA 6151/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Dec 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Sh. Gagan Kumar, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. K.J. Singh, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

disallowance of ‘Provision of revision of pay’, I find that in the current Financial Year, no decision of the Central Govt. was available, which may have a bearing on revision of pay of executives of the appellant company, therefore, it cannot be held that such liability had crystallized in the current year. For the Central Govt. Ministries and Departments