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.

649 results for “disallowance”+ Section 249(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,061Delhi649Kolkata238Chennai188Bangalore176Ahmedabad155Jaipur143Pune104Surat91Hyderabad71Indore70Raipur66Amritsar54Chandigarh52Cochin43Nagpur42Visakhapatnam40Lucknow22Guwahati22Ranchi19Cuttack18Rajkot14Patna11Telangana10Varanasi9Karnataka7Agra7Panaji5Allahabad5Dehradun4SC4Jodhpur3Kerala2Calcutta2Rajasthan2ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Addition to Income67Disallowance64Section 143(1)50Section 143(3)46Section 80I34Deduction32Bogus Purchases24Section 69B23Unexplained Investment23Section 115J

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)

249 ITR 533 (Bom) ; Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs Red Rose School reported in 163 Taxman 19 (All). Even as per the provisions of section 164(2) of the Act read with its proviso, only such part of the income so diverted within the meaning of section

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

Showing 1–20 of 649 · Page 1 of 33

...
22
Section 92C21
Section 36(1)(va)20
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

SHIV SHAKTI TRADERS,GHAZIABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2877/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Takyar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 40A(3)

disallowance subsequently in order under section 154 is in excess of jurisdiction. The assessee brought to the notice of the Ld. CIT(A) the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Lucas T.V.S. Ltd. 249 ITR 306 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that opinion of audit party cannot confer jurisdiction for reimbursement under section

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

IFCI LTD. vs. ADDL. CIT, CIRCLE-11(1),,

In the result ITA number 2205/Del/2005 filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 2120/DEL/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020AY 2001-2002

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 139Section 142Section 143

249/-. According to the assessing officer only a return filed u/s 139 (1) of the income tax act can be revised and return filed u/s 139 (3) of the act cannot be revised. The learned CIT – A relying on the decision of Honourable madras High Court in case of Commissioner of income tax versus Periyar District cooperative Milk producers union

DCIT, CIRCLE-II(I) vs. I.F.C.I. LTD.,,

In the result ITA number 2205/Del/2005 filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 2205/DEL/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020AY 2001-2002

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 139Section 142Section 143

249/-. According to the assessing officer only a return filed u/s 139 (1) of the income tax act can be revised and return filed u/s 139 (3) of the act cannot be revised. The learned CIT – A relying on the decision of Honourable madras High Court in case of Commissioner of income tax versus Periyar District cooperative Milk producers union

PERNOD RICARD INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the recalled matter of the appeal in ITA No

ITA 911/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 144C(13)Section 194HSection 40

3 ITA Nos. 910 to 914/Del./2015 disbursement were reimbursement and directed that if found so, same be allowed as deduction. The learned counsel before us submitted that all factual information in respect of the ‘trade scheme’ to ‘Sales Promoters’ are already available on record and in additional ground, the assessee is seeking remedy by way of a legal ground

PERNOD RICARD INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the recalled matter of the appeal in ITA No

ITA 914/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 144C(13)Section 194HSection 40

3 ITA Nos. 910 to 914/Del./2015 disbursement were reimbursement and directed that if found so, same be allowed as deduction. The learned counsel before us submitted that all factual information in respect of the ‘trade scheme’ to ‘Sales Promoters’ are already available on record and in additional ground, the assessee is seeking remedy by way of a legal ground

PERNOD RICARD INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the recalled matter of the appeal in ITA No

ITA 912/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 144C(13)Section 194HSection 40

3 ITA Nos. 910 to 914/Del./2015 disbursement were reimbursement and directed that if found so, same be allowed as deduction. The learned counsel before us submitted that all factual information in respect of the ‘trade scheme’ to ‘Sales Promoters’ are already available on record and in additional ground, the assessee is seeking remedy by way of a legal ground

PME POWER SOLUTIONS INDIA LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 242/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 139(9)Section 140ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 249(4)(a)Section 271(1)(c)Section 276C(2)

disallowances aggregating to Rs. 2,85,77,271/-. 03.04.2017 The Id. C1T(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee company as non- maintainable u/s 249(4)(a) of the Act on the ground that the assessee has not paid the tax due on the income returned till date, therefore, the appeal is not maintainable. 21.08.2017 The AO passed an order

PME POWER SOLUTIONS INDIA LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 249/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 139(9)Section 140ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 249(4)(a)Section 271(1)(c)Section 276C(2)

disallowances aggregating to Rs. 2,85,77,271/-. 03.04.2017 The Id. C1T(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee company as non- maintainable u/s 249(4)(a) of the Act on the ground that the assessee has not paid the tax due on the income returned till date, therefore, the appeal is not maintainable. 21.08.2017 The AO passed an order

JINDAL STAINLESS LTD.,HISAR vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, ground number 2 of the appeal of the learned AO for 2007 – 08 is dismissed

ITA 6337/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Parnav, Sr. DR
Section 92CSection 92C(2)

Disallowance of interest decapitalisation [ Ground no 3 of appeal of AO for Ay 2007-08] 30. In appeals of the assessee, Ground number 1 for assessment year 2007 – 08 and ground number 1 and 2 for assessment year 2008 – 09 are challenging the various additions/adjustment made by the learned assessing officer/Transfer Pricing Officer which are also independently challenged

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S JSL LTD.,, HISAR

Accordingly, ground number 2 of the appeal of the learned AO for 2007 – 08 is dismissed

ITA 4110/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Parnav, Sr. DR
Section 92CSection 92C(2)

Disallowance of interest decapitalisation [ Ground no 3 of appeal of AO for Ay 2007-08] 30. In appeals of the assessee, Ground number 1 for assessment year 2007 – 08 and ground number 1 and 2 for assessment year 2008 – 09 are challenging the various additions/adjustment made by the learned assessing officer/Transfer Pricing Officer which are also independently challenged

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

3 of the appeal of the assessee is against the disallowance of Rs. 81,94,914/– out of the total expenditure of Rs. 5,85, 35,098/– made by the assessee on old tank repair claimed as revenue expenditure by the appellant but held to be capital expenditure by the Ld. assessing officer. The brief facts of the issue

ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), NEW DELHI vs. EFS FACILITIES SERVICES (INDIA) PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for assessment year

ITA 8346/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Kumar Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 92C

section 40A(2) for determining reasonableness of price paid by the assessee. 6.7 The decision of Bangalore Bench of Tribunal in Herbalife International India (P) Ltd. (supra) applies with full force to the case at hand before us. The crux of the matter is that once the transaction is undisputedly subject matter of chapter X ‘Special Provisions relating to Avoidance

ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), NEW DELHI vs. EFS FACILITIES SERVICES (INDIA) PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for assessment year

ITA 8347/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Kumar Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 92C

section 40A(2) for determining reasonableness of price paid by the assessee. 6.7 The decision of Bangalore Bench of Tribunal in Herbalife International India (P) Ltd. (supra) applies with full force to the case at hand before us. The crux of the matter is that once the transaction is undisputedly subject matter of chapter X ‘Special Provisions relating to Avoidance

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeals, namely, ITA Nos

ITA 4718/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: S/Shri K. Sampath & V. Raja Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT,DR
Section 14Section 14A

3. He submitted that though the Hon’ble Apex Court rejected the theory of dominant intention, did not laid down the proposition that irrespective of the fact whether or not the shares held by the bank are stock in trade, every investment made by the bank would trigger the applicability tea of section 14 A of the Act basing

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeals, namely, ITA Nos

ITA 4722/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: S/Shri K. Sampath & V. Raja Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT,DR
Section 14Section 14A

3. He submitted that though the Hon’ble Apex Court rejected the theory of dominant intention, did not laid down the proposition that irrespective of the fact whether or not the shares held by the bank are stock in trade, every investment made by the bank would trigger the applicability tea of section 14 A of the Act basing

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeals, namely, ITA Nos

ITA 4253/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: S/Shri K. Sampath & V. Raja Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT,DR
Section 14Section 14A

3. He submitted that though the Hon’ble Apex Court rejected the theory of dominant intention, did not laid down the proposition that irrespective of the fact whether or not the shares held by the bank are stock in trade, every investment made by the bank would trigger the applicability tea of section 14 A of the Act basing

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeals, namely, ITA Nos

ITA 2966/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: S/Shri K. Sampath & V. Raja Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT,DR
Section 14Section 14A

3. He submitted that though the Hon’ble Apex Court rejected the theory of dominant intention, did not laid down the proposition that irrespective of the fact whether or not the shares held by the bank are stock in trade, every investment made by the bank would trigger the applicability tea of section 14 A of the Act basing