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.

1,314 results for “disallowance”+ Section 89clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,656 Delhi1,314 Chennai433 Ahmedabad304 Jaipur284 Bangalore274 Hyderabad254 Kolkata214 Pune154 Chandigarh148 Indore102 Raipur95 Cochin93 Rajkot73 Visakhapatnam67 Surat64 Nagpur55 Lucknow49 Guwahati40 Ranchi35 Allahabad26 Amritsar25 Agra24 SC24 Panaji21 Patna18 Cuttack16 Jodhpur16 Dehradun15 Jabalpur10 Varanasi5

Key Topics

Addition to Income59 Disallowance40 Section 143(3)33 Section 14A32 Deduction25 Section 43B23 Section 115J21 Section 14718 Section 6813 Section 271(1)(c)

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

section 14A and disallowance of Rs. 2,89,99,437/- under section 36(1)(viii) of the Act aggregating in all to Rs. 2,31,35,75,580/-. 6. Aggrieved

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 1,314 · Page 1 of 66

...

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

section 14A and disallowance of Rs. 2,89,99,437/- under section 36(1)(viii) of the Act aggregating in all to Rs. 2,31,35,75,580/-. 6. Aggrieved

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

section 14A and disallowance of Rs. 2,89,99,437/- under section 36(1)(viii) of the Act aggregating in all to Rs. 2,31,35,75,580/-. 6. Aggrieved

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

section 14A and disallowance of Rs. 2,89,99,437/- under section 36(1)(viii) of the Act aggregating in all to Rs. 2,31,35,75,580/-. 6. Aggrieved

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. INDIA BULLS POWER LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeals are dismissed in regard to the first question

ITA 2013/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2011-12 Acit, Vs. India Bulls Power Ltd. (Now Known Circle-21(1), As Rattan India Power Ltd.) New Delhi. 5Th Floor, Tower-B, Worldmark-1, Aerocity, New Delhi- 110 037 Pan Aalcs2063D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154

disallowance of Rs. 8,89,763/- under section 14A of the Act. The assessee’s working of disallowance under section

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)

disallowance under section 14A of the Act cannot exceed the actual exempt dividend income. 2. Each of the aforesaid contentions are elaborated hereunder: Re (a): Amendment in section 14A - prospective and not retrospective 3. Kind attention is, at the outset, invited to the provisions of section 14A of the Act, as amended by the Finance Act, 2022, w.e.f

ACIT, CIRCLE- 21(1), NEW DELHI vs. RELIGARE FINVEST LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, -Appeal in ITA No

ITA 5202/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

89,30,64,775/-. 3. On the facts and under the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in deleting the disallowance of interest on compulsorily convertible debentures Rs. 16,35,00,000/-“. 2.5. I.T.A. No. 7856/DEL/2017 (A.Y. 2014-15) (Assessee) “1. That the CIT(A) erred on facts

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

In the result, -Appeal in ITA No

ITA 4796/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: PendingITAT Delhi13 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

89,30,64,775/-. 3. On the facts and under the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in deleting the disallowance of interest on compulsorily convertible debentures Rs. 16,35,00,000/-“. 2.5. I.T.A. No. 7856/DEL/2017 (A.Y. 2014-15) (Assessee) “1. That the CIT(A) erred on facts

RELIGARE FINVEST LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 21(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, -Appeal in ITA No

ITA 7856/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

89,30,64,775/-. 3. On the facts and under the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in deleting the disallowance of interest on compulsorily convertible debentures Rs. 16,35,00,000/-“. 2.5. I.T.A. No. 7856/DEL/2017 (A.Y. 2014-15) (Assessee) “1. That the CIT(A) erred on facts

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

In the result, -Appeal in ITA No

ITA 547/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

89,30,64,775/-. 3. On the facts and under the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in deleting the disallowance of interest on compulsorily convertible debentures Rs. 16,35,00,000/-“. 2.5. I.T.A. No. 7856/DEL/2017 (A.Y. 2014-15) (Assessee) “1. That the CIT(A) erred on facts

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

In the result, -Appeal in ITA No

ITA 6116/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

89,30,64,775/-. 3. On the facts and under the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in deleting the disallowance of interest on compulsorily convertible debentures Rs. 16,35,00,000/-“. 2.5. I.T.A. No. 7856/DEL/2017 (A.Y. 2014-15) (Assessee) “1. That the CIT(A) erred on facts

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

In the result, -Appeal in ITA No

ITA 7553/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

89,30,64,775/-. 3. On the facts and under the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in deleting the disallowance of interest on compulsorily convertible debentures Rs. 16,35,00,000/-“. 2.5. I.T.A. No. 7856/DEL/2017 (A.Y. 2014-15) (Assessee) “1. That the CIT(A) erred on facts

ACIT (OSD), CIRCLE- 21(1), NEW DELHI vs. RELIGARE FINVEST LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, -Appeal in ITA No

ITA 133/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

89,30,64,775/-. 3. On the facts and under the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in deleting the disallowance of interest on compulsorily convertible debentures Rs. 16,35,00,000/-“. 2.5. I.T.A. No. 7856/DEL/2017 (A.Y. 2014-15) (Assessee) “1. That the CIT(A) erred on facts

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 961/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Dcit, Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Circle-16(1), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. New Delhi. Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2010-11] Dcit, Vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Circle-16(1), Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi. Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.Adv., Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. & Ms. Tejasvi Jain & Ms. Somya Jain, Ca Respondent By Shri G.C.Srivastava, Adv., Shri Kalrav Mehrotra, Adv. & Shri Mayank Patawari, Ca Date Of Hearing 11.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2023

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 43Section 43B

89,403/-. The AO further made addition of Rs.21,83,04,695/- on account of disallowance of expenses on adhoc basis in respect of resources shared by the assessee with other group companies/subsidiary companies. The AO also disallowed the claim of expenditure on account of corporate social responsibility amounting to Rs.11,30,00,000/-. The AO further made disallowance

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1507/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Dcit, Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Circle-16(1), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. New Delhi. Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2010-11] Dcit, Vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Circle-16(1), Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi. Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.Adv., Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. & Ms. Tejasvi Jain & Ms. Somya Jain, Ca Respondent By Shri G.C.Srivastava, Adv., Shri Kalrav Mehrotra, Adv. & Shri Mayank Patawari, Ca Date Of Hearing 11.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2023

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 43Section 43B

89,403/-. The AO further made addition of Rs.21,83,04,695/- on account of disallowance of expenses on adhoc basis in respect of resources shared by the assessee with other group companies/subsidiary companies. The AO also disallowed the claim of expenditure on account of corporate social responsibility amounting to Rs.11,30,00,000/-. The AO further made disallowance

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

disallowed under section 14A readwith rule 8D while computing the book profits under section 115JB of the Act. 4. The lower authorities erred on facts and in law in not reducing the claim of excise duty ( Cenvat) refund of Rs. 8,35,89

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

disallowed under section 14A readwith rule 8D while computing the book profits under section 115JB of the Act. 4. The lower authorities erred on facts and in law in not reducing the claim of excise duty ( Cenvat) refund of Rs. 8,35,89

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

disallowed under section 14A readwith rule 8D while computing the book profits under section 115JB of the Act. 4. The lower authorities erred on facts and in law in not reducing the claim of excise duty ( Cenvat) refund of Rs. 8,35,89

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 2198/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

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

disallowed under section 14A readwith rule 8D while computing the book profits under section 115JB of the Act. 4. The lower authorities erred on facts and in law in not reducing the claim of excise duty ( Cenvat) refund of Rs. 8,35,89

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 2199/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

disallowed under section 14A readwith rule 8D while computing the book profits under section 115JB of the Act. 4. The lower authorities erred on facts and in law in not reducing the claim of excise duty ( Cenvat) refund of Rs. 8,35,89