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.

13 results for “disallowance”+ Section 80Eclear

Sorted by relevance

Bangalore23Ahmedabad21Mumbai16Delhi13Jaipur6Kolkata4Surat2Visakhapatnam2Chennai1Patna1Indore1Telangana1Pune1Guwahati1

Key Topics

Section 10A20Section 14A14Deduction13Section 35D12Disallowance10Addition to Income10Section 807Section 143(3)6Section 80P(2)(d)6Exemption

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

80E of the Act was to be allowed with reference to profits of the eligible undertakings. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Dewan Kraft System (P) Ltd, : 297 iTR 305 (Delhi) have taken the view that deduction under section 801/801A has to be computed with reference to profits of the eligible business / undertaking, unaffected by the profits / losses

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

6
Section 37(4)4
Section 2503
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

80E of the Act was to be allowed with reference to profits of the eligible undertakings. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Dewan Kraft System (P) Ltd, : 297 iTR 305 (Delhi) have taken the view that deduction under section 801/801A has to be computed with reference to profits of the eligible business / undertaking, unaffected by the profits / losses

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

80E of the Act was to be allowed with reference to profits of the eligible undertakings. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Dewan Kraft System (P) Ltd, : 297 iTR 305 (Delhi) have taken the view that deduction under section 801/801A has to be computed with reference to profits of the eligible business / undertaking, unaffected by the profits / losses

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

80E of the Act was to be allowed with reference to profits of the eligible undertakings. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Dewan Kraft System (P) Ltd, : 297 iTR 305 (Delhi) have taken the view that deduction under section 801/801A has to be computed with reference to profits of the eligible business / undertaking, unaffected by the profits / losses

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

ITA/165/2001HC Delhi19 Jan 2015
Section 260ASection 32ASection 37(4)Section 80Section 80I

disallowable u/s 37(4) of the Act? (C) Whether ITAT is correct in law in taking into consideration interest on FDRs. Misc. Receipts, interest from customers on delayed payments and dividend for the purpose of Section 80-I of the Act? (D) Whether ITAT was correct in law in taking into consideration amount of interest on debentures, loans and inter

CIT vs. KRIBHCO

ITA - 444 / 2011HC Delhi18 Jul 2012
Section 14ASection 2(45)Section 5Section 80ASection 80A(1)Section 80B(5)Section 80P(2)(d)

disallowed in view of the express provisions of Section 14A. It is submitted by the Revenue that the deduction when allowed under Chapter VIA results in exclusion of the said income from the total income, which is taxable. Therefore, in fairness the expenses incurred by the assessee to earn the said income should be excluded and not allowed. The contention

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

ITA/444/2011HC Delhi18 Jul 2012
Section 14ASection 2(45)Section 5Section 80ASection 80A(1)Section 80B(5)Section 80P(2)(d)

disallowed in view of the express provisions of Section 14A. It is submitted by the Revenue that the deduction when allowed under Chapter VIA results in exclusion of the said income from the total income, which is taxable. Therefore, in fairness the expenses incurred by the assessee to earn the said income should be excluded and not allowed. The contention

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI VIII vs. INDIAN FARMERS FERTILIZERS CO-OP. LTD.

The appeal stands disposed of accordingly

ITA-740/2008HC Delhi24 Dec 2010
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 250Section 80

80E observed as under:- “It is not possible to accept the view that section 72 has no bearing on or is unconnected with, the computation of total income of an assessee under the head “Profit and Gains of Business or Profession”. Actually section 72(1) provides that where the net result of computation under the head “Profit and Gains

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S NUWAVE E SOLUTIONS (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3676/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2007-08] Acit, Vs M/S. Nuwave E Solutions (P) Circle-13(1), Ltd., 3Rd Floor, District Centre, New Delhi Dda Building, Nehru Place, New Delhi. Pan-Aabcn5790Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Pravin Rawal, Cit Dr Respondent By Dr. Rakesh Gutpa, Adv., Shri Saksham Agarwal, Ca, Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv. & Shri Deepesh Garg, Adv. Date Of Hearing 26.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12.09.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Captioned Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 15.03.2011 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)-Xvi, New Delhi [“Cit(A)”, In Short] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 31.12.2010 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is A Company & E- Filed Its Return Of Income On 30.08.2007, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 1,45,48,453/-. The Said Return Was Revised On 20.08.2008, Declaring The Same Income As Was Declared The Return Of Income Filed U/S 139(1). The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny & Various Queries Were Raised Which Were Replied By The Assessee. The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Development & Export Of Software & 100% Eou Registered With Director Software Technology Park Of India In Terms Of Registration Certificate Dated 31.03.1999. The Major Shareholder In The Assessee Company Is Shri Anil Gutpa Who Is Having 99% Shareholding & Is Taking Substantial Interest In Day-To-Day Affairs Of The Assessee & Also In Its Associate Enterprises (“Ae”) At Us Who Is The Sole Buyer Of The Software Developed By The Assessee.

Section 10Section 10ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40Section 801A

disallowed the exemption w/s 10A to the extent of Rs. 1,23,33,934/- in respect of foreign exchange fluctuation gain on the ground that gain on account of forex rate fluctuation cannot be considered as profit derived from export as these being the result of post export events or scenario. Further the Ld. A.O. relying upon the decision

NIHO CONSTRUCTION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 18(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3676/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2007-08] Acit, Vs M/S. Nuwave E Solutions (P) Circle-13(1), Ltd., 3Rd Floor, District Centre, New Delhi Dda Building, Nehru Place, New Delhi. Pan-Aabcn5790Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Pravin Rawal, Cit Dr Respondent By Dr. Rakesh Gutpa, Adv., Shri Saksham Agarwal, Ca, Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv. & Shri Deepesh Garg, Adv. Date Of Hearing 26.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12.09.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Captioned Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 15.03.2011 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)-Xvi, New Delhi [“Cit(A)”, In Short] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 31.12.2010 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is A Company & E- Filed Its Return Of Income On 30.08.2007, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 1,45,48,453/-. The Said Return Was Revised On 20.08.2008, Declaring The Same Income As Was Declared The Return Of Income Filed U/S 139(1). The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny & Various Queries Were Raised Which Were Replied By The Assessee. The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Development & Export Of Software & 100% Eou Registered With Director Software Technology Park Of India In Terms Of Registration Certificate Dated 31.03.1999. The Major Shareholder In The Assessee Company Is Shri Anil Gutpa Who Is Having 99% Shareholding & Is Taking Substantial Interest In Day-To-Day Affairs Of The Assessee & Also In Its Associate Enterprises (“Ae”) At Us Who Is The Sole Buyer Of The Software Developed By The Assessee.

Section 10Section 10ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40Section 801A

disallowed the exemption w/s 10A to the extent of Rs. 1,23,33,934/- in respect of foreign exchange fluctuation gain on the ground that gain on account of forex rate fluctuation cannot be considered as profit derived from export as these being the result of post export events or scenario. Further the Ld. A.O. relying upon the decision

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICAL LIMITED

The appeals are disposed off in the above

ITA/278/2010HC Delhi11 Sept 2012
Section 10Section 37(1)

disallowed the claim originally made under section 80G. The reasoning of these two lower authorities was that the claim was unsupported by any documentary proof with regard to the permissibility of the deduction and such being the case, relief of larger deduction as business expenditure could not be granted. 15. The Tribunal accepted the assessee’s argument and held that

CIT vs. TEI TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD

ITA/2067/2010HC Delhi27 Aug 2012

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 260ASection 72

disallowable under the various provisions of the Act. The fifth step is to claim any other allowance or deduction. This exercise gives the figure of profit or loss before deduction under Section 10A. Thereafter the assessee has to deduct the profits eligible under Section 10A. The form further prescribes the steps involved in the computation of total income. This shows

CIT vs. TEI TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD

ITA/347/2011HC Delhi27 Aug 2012

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 260ASection 72

disallowable under the various provisions of the Act. The fifth step is to claim any other allowance or deduction. This exercise gives the figure of profit or loss before deduction under Section 10A. Thereafter the assessee has to deduct the profits eligible under Section 10A. The form further prescribes the steps involved in the computation of total income. This shows