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.

1,280 results for “disallowance”+ Section 36(1)(viii)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,280 Mumbai1,250 Bangalore413 Ahmedabad247 Chennai208 Jaipur203 Kolkata190 Chandigarh149 Indore133 Cochin128 Pune118 Hyderabad107 Nagpur101 Visakhapatnam60 Rajkot57 Cuttack55 Guwahati44 Surat43 Calcutta39 Lucknow37 Ranchi36 Raipur33 Telangana29 Karnataka28 Allahabad22 Agra19 Amritsar15 Jodhpur14 Patna11 SC10 Varanasi8 Dehradun8 Kerala5 Rajasthan2 Jabalpur2 Himachal Pradesh1 H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1 ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1 Panaji1

Key Topics

Addition to Income60 Disallowance42 Section 153A38 Section 14728 Search & Seizure28 Section 143(3)26 Deduction24 Section 69A20 Section 13217 Section 92C

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PTC INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15

ITA 2175/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2013-14 & Asstt. Year 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

Section 234BSection 36(1)(viii)Section 37

disallowance of Rs. 1,76,16,528/- under section 36(1)(viii) and disallowance of Rs. 9,69,602/- under

M/S. PTC INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15

Showing 1–20 of 1,280 · Page 1 of 64

...

13

Section 36(1)(viii)12

ITA 2162/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2013-14 & Asstt. Year 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

Section 234BSection 36(1)(viii)Section 37

disallowance of Rs. 1,76,16,528/- under section 36(1)(viii) and disallowance of Rs. 9,69,602/- under

PTC INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 19(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15

ITA 7273/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2013-14 & Asstt. Year 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

Section 234BSection 36(1)(viii)Section 37

disallowance of Rs. 1,76,16,528/- under section 36(1)(viii) and disallowance of Rs. 9,69,602/- under

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 7, NEW DELHI vs. PTC INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15

ITA 7433/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2013-14 & Asstt. Year 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

Section 234BSection 36(1)(viii)Section 37

disallowance of Rs. 1,76,16,528/- under section 36(1)(viii) and disallowance of Rs. 9,69,602/- under

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. POWER FINANCE CORPORATION LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all these appeals are dismissed

ITA 5186/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Ms. Aggarta Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT(DR)

1)(viii) of the Income Tax Act. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming disallowance of Rs. 36,45,565/- under section

POWER FINANCE CORPORATION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT (LTU), NEW DELHI

In the result, all these appeals are dismissed

ITA 4742/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Ms. Aggarta Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT(DR)

1)(viii) of the Income Tax Act. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming disallowance of Rs. 36,45,565/- under section

POWER FINANCE CORPORATION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all these appeals are dismissed

ITA 4920/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Ms. Aggarta Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT(DR)

1)(viii) of the Income Tax Act. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming disallowance of Rs. 36,45,565/- under section

POWER FINANCE CORPORATION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT (LTU), NEW DELHI

In the result, all these appeals are dismissed

ITA 6274/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Ms. Aggarta Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT(DR)

1)(viii) of the Income Tax Act. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming disallowance of Rs. 36,45,565/- under section

ACIT, CIRCLE- 1, LTU , NEW DELHI vs. POWER FINANCE CORPORATION LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all these appeals are dismissed

ITA 1744/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Ms. Aggarta Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT(DR)

1)(viii) of the Income Tax Act. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming disallowance of Rs. 36,45,565/- under section

DCIT (LTU), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. POWER FINANCE CORPORATION LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all these appeals are dismissed

ITA 18/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Ms. Aggarta Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT(DR)

1)(viii) of the Income Tax Act. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming disallowance of Rs. 36,45,565/- under section

POWER FINANCE CORPORATION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all these appeals are dismissed

ITA 4919/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Ms. Aggarta Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT(DR)

1)(viii) of the Income Tax Act. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming disallowance of Rs. 36,45,565/- under section

DCIT (LTU), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. POWER FINANCE CORPORATION LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all these appeals are dismissed

ITA 5148/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Ms. Aggarta Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT(DR)

1)(viii) of the Income Tax Act. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming disallowance of Rs. 36,45,565/- under section

M/S POWER FINANCE CORPORATION LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all these appeals are dismissed

ITA 224/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Ms. Aggarta Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT(DR)

1)(viii) of the Income Tax Act. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming disallowance of Rs. 36,45,565/- under section

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. POWER FINANCE CORPORATION LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all these appeals are dismissed

ITA 4978/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Ms. Aggarta Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT(DR)

1)(viii) of the Income Tax Act. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming disallowance of Rs. 36,45,565/- under section

POWER FINANCE CORPORATION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all these appeals are dismissed

ITA 6620/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Ms. Aggarta Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT(DR)

1)(viii) of the Income Tax Act. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming disallowance of Rs. 36,45,565/- under section

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S POWER FINANCE CORPORATION LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, all these appeals are dismissed

ITA 20/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Ms. Aggarta Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT(DR)

1)(viii) of the Income Tax Act. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming disallowance of Rs. 36,45,565/- under section

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S POWER FINANCE CORPORATION LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, all these appeals are dismissed

ITA 514/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Ms. Aggarta Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT(DR)

1)(viii) of the Income Tax Act. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming disallowance of Rs. 36,45,565/- under section

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

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3041/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 May 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 2954/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Dcit, Vs M/S Punjab National Bank, Circle-20(1), Ho: Finance Division, 5, Sansad New Delhi Marg, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp0165G

For Appellant: Sh. S. Krishnan, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT DR

36(1) (viii) of the I.T. Act, 1961 is disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee.” 7.2 On this ground, the Ld. AR stated as under: "5.0 For the assessment year under consideration, the assessee company claimed a deduction under section

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

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2954/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 May 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 2954/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Dcit, Vs M/S Punjab National Bank, Circle-20(1), Ho: Finance Division, 5, Sansad New Delhi Marg, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp0165G

For Appellant: Sh. S. Krishnan, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT DR

36(1) (viii) of the I.T. Act, 1961 is disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee.” 7.2 On this ground, the Ld. AR stated as under: "5.0 For the assessment year under consideration, the assessee company claimed a deduction under section

ACIT, MEERUT vs. M/S. SARVA UP GRAMIN BANK, MEERUT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1937/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Vivek Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR

Section 36(1)(viia)

section 36(1)(viia).This treatment has been consistently accepted by the income tax department in scrutiny assessment of earlier years as well. In the case of deduction u/s 36(1 )(viii), the question of first adding the amount in computation of income then claiming separately does not arise at all as for deduction u/s 36(1)(viii), the legislature