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.

4,019 results for “disallowance”+ Section 56(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai4,745 Delhi4,019 Bangalore1,522 Chennai1,387 Ahmedabad1,082 Kolkata1,031 Hyderabad736 Pune612 Jaipur607 Indore414 Chandigarh402 Cochin317 Surat261 Raipur216 Nagpur182 Cuttack161 Visakhapatnam159 Rajkot153 Amritsar150 Lucknow124 Agra106 Karnataka84 Guwahati68 Panaji66 Jodhpur63 Ranchi57 Allahabad55 Calcutta55 SC36 Patna31 Varanasi31 Telangana29 Dehradun25 Jabalpur18 Kerala13 Orissa6 Himachal Pradesh4 Punjab & Haryana4 Rajasthan2

Key Topics

Addition to Income82 Disallowance57 Section 143(3)48 Section 14A41 Deduction33 Section 14730 Section 43B22 Section 115J21 Section 80I21 Section 143

INDIA TODAY ONLINE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 12(2), NEW DELHI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6453/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuita Nos. 6453 & 6454/Del/2018 Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)

disallowance was made of Rs. 3.29 per share under section 56(2)(viib) by the AO of Mail Today in AY 2013-14. That

INDIA TODAY ONLINE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 12(2), NEW DELHI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6454/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi

Showing 1–20 of 4,019 · Page 1 of 201

...

20

Search & Seizure12

15 Mar 2019

AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuita Nos. 6453 & 6454/Del/2018 Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)

disallowance was made of Rs. 3.29 per share under section 56(2)(viib) by the AO of Mail Today in AY 2013-14. That

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 05 , DELHI vs. DEEPAK KOTHARI , KANPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1834/DEL/2021[20017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2025

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 49(4)Section 56(2)(vii)

section 56(2). DCIT Vs Veena Goyal (ITAT Jaipur) Appeal Number: ITA No. 751JPI2020 the same has been reiterated Without prejudice to what has been stated above, the Ld. A.O, in complete haste, has made several errors while drawing the assessment order in as much that the number of bonus shares received by the appellant have not been mentioned correctly

DEEPAK KATHARI,KANPUR vs. ACIT, CC-5, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1205/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 49(4)Section 56(2)(vii)

section 56(2). DCIT Vs Veena Goyal (ITAT Jaipur) Appeal Number: ITA No. 751JPI2020 the same has been reiterated Without prejudice to what has been stated above, the Ld. A.O, in complete haste, has made several errors while drawing the assessment order in as much that the number of bonus shares received by the appellant have not been mentioned correctly

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

disallowed was restored to the assessing officer to be recomputed in terms of Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the said rules"), which was held to be retrospective. 5. As regards Question 1, it has been contended on behalf of the assessees that holding of shares'for acquiring and retaining control of operating companies

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

disallowed was restored to the assessing officer to be recomputed in terms of Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the said rules"), which was held to be retrospective. 5. As regards Question 1, it has been contended on behalf of the assessees that holding of shares'for acquiring and retaining control of operating companies

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

disallowed was restored to the assessing officer to be recomputed in terms of Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the said rules”), which was held to be retrospective. 5. As regards Question 1, it has been contended on behalf of the assessees that holding of shares for acquiring and retaining control of operating companies

CHEMINVEST LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals stand disposed of as above

ITA - 853 / 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

disallowed was restored to the assessing officer to be recomputed in terms of Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the said rules”), which was held to be retrospective. 5. As regards Question 1, it has been contended on behalf of the assessees that holding of shares for acquiring and retaining control of operating companies

M/S EICHER GOODEARTH LTD

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

disallowed was restored to the assessing officer to be recomputed in terms of Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the said rules”), which was held to be retrospective. 5. As regards Question 1, it has been contended on behalf of the assessees that holding of shares for acquiring and retaining control of operating companies

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

disallowed was restored to the assessing officer to be recomputed in terms of Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the said rules”), which was held to be retrospective. 5. As regards Question 1, it has been contended on behalf of the assessees that holding of shares for acquiring and retaining control of operating companies

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

disallowed was restored to the assessing officer to be recomputed in terms of Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the said rules”), which was held to be retrospective. 5. As regards Question 1, it has been contended on behalf of the assessees that holding of shares for acquiring and retaining control of operating companies

M/S EICHER GOODEARTH LTD

The appeals stand disposed of as above

ITA/687/2009HC 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

disallowed was restored to the assessing officer to be recomputed in terms of Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the said rules”), which was held to be retrospective. 5. As regards Question 1, it has been contended on behalf of the assessees that holding of shares for acquiring and retaining control of operating companies

M/S EICHER GOODEARTH LTD

The appeals stand disposed of as above

ITA/112/2010HC 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

disallowed was restored to the assessing officer to be recomputed in terms of Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the said rules”), which was held to be retrospective. 5. As regards Question 1, it has been contended on behalf of the assessees that holding of shares for acquiring and retaining control of operating companies

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

The appeals stand disposed of as above

ITA - 77 / 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

disallowed was restored to the assessing officer to be recomputed in terms of Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the said rules”), which was held to be retrospective. 5. As regards Question 1, it has been contended on behalf of the assessees that holding of shares for acquiring and retaining control of operating companies

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

disallowed was restored to the assessing officer to be recomputed in terms of Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the said rules”), which was held to be retrospective. 5. As regards Question 1, it has been contended on behalf of the assessees that holding of shares for acquiring and retaining control of operating companies

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

disallowed was restored to the assessing officer to be recomputed in terms of Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the said rules”), which was held to be retrospective. 5. As regards Question 1, it has been contended on behalf of the assessees that holding of shares for acquiring and retaining control of operating companies

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

disallowed was restored to the assessing officer to be recomputed in terms of Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the said rules”), which was held to be retrospective. 5. As regards Question 1, it has been contended on behalf of the assessees that holding of shares for acquiring and retaining control of operating companies

M/S EICHER GOODEARTH 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

disallowed was restored to the assessing officer to be recomputed in terms of Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the said rules”), which was held to be retrospective. 5. As regards Question 1, it has been contended on behalf of the assessees that holding of shares for acquiring and retaining control of operating companies

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

disallowed was restored to the assessing officer to be recomputed in terms of Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the said rules”), which was held to be retrospective. 5. As regards Question 1, it has been contended on behalf of the assessees that holding of shares for acquiring and retaining control of operating companies

M/S EICHER GOODEARTH LTD

The appeals stand disposed of as above

ITA/217/2009HC 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

disallowed was restored to the assessing officer to be recomputed in terms of Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the said rules”), which was held to be retrospective. 5. As regards Question 1, it has been contended on behalf of the assessees that holding of shares for acquiring and retaining control of operating companies