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.

3,402 results for “disallowance”+ Section 73clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai4,114Delhi3,402Bangalore1,118Kolkata1,082Chennai1,044Ahmedabad591Hyderabad449Jaipur378Indore317Surat247Pune240Chandigarh221Raipur123Cochin118Lucknow94Rajkot81Visakhapatnam76Cuttack74Amritsar59Nagpur52Karnataka47Ranchi46Allahabad45Calcutta44Guwahati39Jodhpur35Patna28Dehradun23Telangana19SC17Agra15Panaji13Varanasi10Jabalpur8Punjab & Haryana3Kerala2Rajasthan2Gauhati1Orissa1

Key Topics

Addition to Income51Disallowance36Section 153A34Section 143(3)28Section 13223Section 143(2)17Transfer Pricing16Depreciation16Section 271(1)(c)14Section 14A

JAI BHIKSHU CREDIT AND HOLDING LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2911/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishijai Bhikshu Credit & Holding Vs. Dcit, Ltd, F-591, Sarita Vihar, Circle-13(1), New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaacj0774F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri V P Guta & Anuvav KumarFor Respondent: Ms. Naina Soin Kapil, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 73

disallowances made in the assessment are based on presumptions and assumptions and are contrary to the facts, wholly arbitrary, erroneous, unjust and perverse and therefore, deserves to be cancelled. 2. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in confirming the action of Assessing Officer in holding that the exceptions provided in explanation

M/S. BHARTI AIRTEL LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

Showing 1–20 of 3,402 · Page 1 of 171

...
14
Deduction14
Section 80I12

In the result appeal of the assessee with respect to ground No

ITA 5816/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishibharti Airtel Ltd, Addl Cit, Bharti Crescent, 1, Vs. Range-2, Cr Building, Ip Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Estate, New Delhi Kunj, New Delhi Pan:Aaacb2894G (Appellant) (Respondent) Bharti Airtel Ltd, Addl Cit, Bharti Crescent, 1, Vs. Range-2, Cr Building, Ip Nelson Mandela Road, Vaxant Estate, New Delhi Kunj, New Delhi Pan:Aaacb2894G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, SrFor Respondent: Sh. NC Swain, CIT DR (OSD)
Section 201Section 254Section 40

73) ELT 769 (SC), has been summed up in the words of Lord Lohen, "in case of ambiguity, a taxing statute should be construed in favour of a taxpayer does not apply to a provision giving taxpayer relief in certain cases from a section clearly imposing liability". This exception has been also reiterated by Supreme Court in the case

M/S. A K CAPITAL MARKETS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6859/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Dec 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 6859/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 A. K. Capital Markets Ltd., Vs Dcit, Central Circle-2, 609, 6Th Floor, Antriksh Bhawan, 22, New Delhi Kasturba Gandhi Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadca9960D Assessee By : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Sarabhjit Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.09.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.12.2015 Order

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sarabhjit Singh, DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 14ASection 153ASection 43(5)

disallowed for being speculative as no delivery takes place in Future and Options/Derivatives as such loss was not admissible in view of the provisions of Section 43(5) and 73

DCIT,C-11(1), NEW DELHI vs. HERO MOTOCORP LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1982/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat

Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)Section 40Section 40a

73,658 pertaining to prior period. Details enclosed at page no. 96 of PB on Merits. AO: In the assessment order, the assessing officer has disallowed the aforesaid expenses, on the ground that same pertained to prior period and are not allowable revenue expenditure against income of the relevant year. CIT(A): The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance made

SUCON INDIA LTD.,FARIDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- II, FARIDABAD

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1281/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jul 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sangeeta Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 43(5)Section 73

Section 73. Thus, disallowance of amount of Rs.2,58,72,839/- in Assessment Year 2015-16 and Rs.55,96,812/- in Assessment

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

section 80IC, on a rational and scientific basis. In that view of the matter, the expenses on brand /advertisement, etc. incurred at Head Office were duly allocated to manufacturing units and have been deducted, while computing profits of the unit eligible for claim of deduction under section 80IC of the Act. The price realized on sale of the products

M/S SUCON INDIA LTD.,,FARIDABAD vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4519/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jan 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 Vs. Acit, Circle-Ii, New Delhi M/S. Sucon India Ltd., B-532, Nehru Ground Nit, Faridabad Pan : Aagcs9603L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Dr. Rakesh Gupta & Sh. Amit Kumar, Advocates Respondent By Sh. S.S. Rana, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 29.11.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 18.01.2017 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.:

Section 143(2)Section 43(5)Section 73

section 73 are specific and relevant for the limited purpose of setoff of the business. In view of the observations, the Assessing Officer disallowed

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

DCIT, CIRCLE- 21(1), NEW DELHI vs. RELIGARE ENTERPRISES LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, revenue’s appeal is dismissed and cross-objection

ITA 7552/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Delhi29 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia:Assessment Year: 2014-15 Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Religare Enterprises Income-Tax, Circle-21(1), Ltd., 2Nd Floor, Rajlok New Delhi Building, 24-Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019 Pan :Aaacv5888N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 14A

73,862 on account of interest on non-convertible debentures (NCDs). Whereas, it has only considered a part of such interest cost for the purpose of disallowance under Section

ASIA SUGAR INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1809/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Asia Sugar Industries Vs. Acit, Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-5, New Delhi 6-B, Jor Bagh Lane, New Delhi Pan :Aaaca2286D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 251(2)Section 69A

73 of the Act, the assessee company was liable to be treated as carrying on speculation business to the extent to which the business consist of purchase and sale of shares/derivatives. The Ld. CIT(A) issued a show cause notice under section 251(2), proposing as why the loss from speculation business should not be disallowed

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

disallowance of Rs.49,73,520/- under section 14A of the Act by erroneously holding that the appellant cannot earn dividend

HERO MOTOCORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 11(1), NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1351/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Amount of Proposed international
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C

73 (Mum.)] In view thereof, the Ld. AR submitted that the provision for increase in price of material being an ascertained liability made on an actual and scientific basis for the reasons submitted above would also be allowable while computing book profits under section 115.1 B of the Act. 22. The Ld. DR relied upon the Assessment Order and order

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

section 14A of the Act, which include disallowance of Rs.37,33,490/- towards indirect ITA Nos. 5524 & 5525/Del/2013 interest expenditure and ₹ 44,71,541/- towards administrative expenses. 5.1 The facts qua the issue in dispute that during the year under consideration, the assessee shown investment in mutual funds at ₹ 144,42,73

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

section 14A of the Act, which include disallowance of Rs.37,33,490/- towards indirect ITA Nos. 5524 & 5525/Del/2013 interest expenditure and ₹ 44,71,541/- towards administrative expenses. 5.1 The facts qua the issue in dispute that during the year under consideration, the assessee shown investment in mutual funds at ₹ 144,42,73

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

section 14A of the Act, which include disallowance of Rs.37,33,490/- towards indirect ITA Nos. 5524 & 5525/Del/2013 interest expenditure and ₹ 44,71,541/- towards administrative expenses. 5.1 The facts qua the issue in dispute that during the year under consideration, the assessee shown investment in mutual funds at ₹ 144,42,73

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

section 14A of the Act, which include disallowance of Rs.37,33,490/- towards indirect ITA Nos. 5524 & 5525/Del/2013 interest expenditure and ₹ 44,71,541/- towards administrative expenses. 5.1 The facts qua the issue in dispute that during the year under consideration, the assessee shown investment in mutual funds at ₹ 144,42,73

M/S STYLISH CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2512/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 May 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishistylish Construction Pvt. Ltd, Dcit, 1027, Top Floor, Ward No. 8, Circle-9(1), Vs. Mehra Chowk, Mehrauli New Delhi Pan: Aaics4664H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. NK Bansal, Sr DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 73

disallowed by the ld AO as sham transaction and which is upheld by the ld CIT (A) not as a sham loss but as speculation loss applying explanation to section 73

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 27, NEW DELHI vs. UFLEX LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee for AY 2011-12 and subsequent

ITA 2200/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT,DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 801BSection 80I

disallowance under section 14A and 115JB of the Act and decide Ground No. 1, 2 and 3 of the assessee’s appeal in its favour. 23. Ground No. 4 of the assessee’s appeal relates to denial of reduction of refund claim of excise duty (CENVAT) of Rs. 7,82,73

UFLEX LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 27, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee for AY 2011-12 and subsequent

ITA 1572/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT,DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 801BSection 80I

disallowance under section 14A and 115JB of the Act and decide Ground No. 1, 2 and 3 of the assessee’s appeal in its favour. 23. Ground No. 4 of the assessee’s appeal relates to denial of reduction of refund claim of excise duty (CENVAT) of Rs. 7,82,73

UFLEX LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 27, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee for AY 2011-12 and subsequent

ITA 1571/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT,DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 801BSection 80I

disallowance under section 14A and 115JB of the Act and decide Ground No. 1, 2 and 3 of the assessee’s appeal in its favour. 23. Ground No. 4 of the assessee’s appeal relates to denial of reduction of refund claim of excise duty (CENVAT) of Rs. 7,82,73