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.

2,765 results for “disallowance”+ Section 94(7)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai3,387 Delhi2,765 Bangalore1,003 Chennai808 Ahmedabad773 Kolkata696 Hyderabad486 Jaipur456 Pune453 Indore328 Surat286 Chandigarh239 Cochin151 Visakhapatnam141 Raipur133 Rajkot110 Cuttack102 Lucknow79 Amritsar62 Nagpur53 Guwahati45 Calcutta41 Karnataka41 Allahabad40 Agra30 Telangana28 Jodhpur26 Panaji20 Dehradun20 Patna19 SC17 Jabalpur14 Ranchi14 Varanasi6 Punjab & Haryana4 Kerala3 Rajasthan2 Gauhati1 ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1 A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1 Orissa1

Key Topics

Addition to Income72 Section 14A51 Section 143(3)50 Section 153A42 Disallowance42 Deduction28 Search & Seizure20 Section 10B16 Section 115J14 Section 132

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX III vs. SHAMBHU MERCANTILE LTD.

The appeal is dismissed

ITA - 49 / 2009HC Delhi10 Feb 2009

Section 10(34)Section 143(2)Section 94Section 94(7)

disallowance in view of the provisions of Section 94(7) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ?Act?). 1.1 In order

HARISH KUMAR HUF,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-34(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 1469/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2019AY 2015-16

Shri H.S. Sidhu & Dr. B.R.R. Kumara.Y. : 2015-16

Showing 1–20 of 2,765 · Page 1 of 139

...

14

Bench:

For Appellant: Sh. Naveen ND Gupta, CA & Sh. AshuFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 288ASection 94(7)

section 94(7) of the I.T. Act. However, the AR of the assessee in his reply vide letter dated 15.12.2015 has himself acknowledged the mistake and offered for taxation duly filing the revised computation of income. Keeping in view of the admission by the assessee and filing the revised computation of income, the AO made the disallowance

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAHARA INDIA MASS COMMUNICATION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 2480/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2026AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT DR

Section 14ASection 40

94,094 and raised debit notes on the assessee for reimbursement of the said expenses on cost-to-cost basis, without any mark-up. SITV Network had duly deducted and deposited TDS on the said expenditure. Assessing officer's contention The assessing officer disallowed the reimbursement of expenditure made to SITV Network, under section

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAHARA INDIA MASS COMMUNICATION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 2479/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2026AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT DR

Section 14ASection 40

94,094 and raised debit notes on the assessee for reimbursement of the said expenses on cost-to-cost basis, without any mark-up. SITV Network had duly deducted and deposited TDS on the said expenditure. Assessing officer's contention The assessing officer disallowed the reimbursement of expenditure made to SITV Network, under section

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAHARA INDIA MASS COMMUNICATION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 2478/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2026AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT DR

Section 14ASection 40

94,094 and raised debit notes on the assessee for reimbursement of the said expenses on cost-to-cost basis, without any mark-up. SITV Network had duly deducted and deposited TDS on the said expenditure. Assessing officer's contention The assessing officer disallowed the reimbursement of expenditure made to SITV Network, under section

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

94,000 has been added), while computing „book profit‟ under section 115 JB of the Act holding the same to be an unascertained liability. Re: Disallowance of alleged excessive purchases from related parties as per AS-18 7

M/S. MITUTOYO SOUTH ASIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6051/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 147Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 94(7)

section 147/143(3) of the Act was completed on 31/03/2008 at assessed income of ₹ 24,41,88,630/- as against income of ₹ 24,09,12,462/- after making following additions: Rs.25,27,167/- 1. Addition on account of disallowance u/s 14A Disallowance u/s 94(7

ACIT, PANIPAT vs. SHRI ANIL DUTT, PANIPAT

In the result the appeal of the assessee partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 196/DEL/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. G. C. Gupta, Hon’Ble & Sh. O.P.Kant

For Appellant: Sh. Sujit Kumar, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Sandeep Supra, Adv

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 94(7)

section 94(7) of the Act is not fulfilled. For disallowance of loss u/s 94(7) of the Act, all the three

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

94,045 given to dealers on sales invoice at the time of sale while alleging that the same was based on achievement of turnover targets which represented commission on which TDS under section 194H was liable to be deducted. CIT(A): The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance made by the assessing officer by relying on the order passed

M/S. CARISSA INVESTMENT (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2008/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Sh. Rajesh Dureja, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 94(7)

section 94(7) he has given a definite finding and therefore, the order of the Learned CIT (Appeals) should be affirmed. Page 4 of 10 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant findings given in the impugned order as well as material placed on record. The disallowance

M/S RELIGARE FINVEST LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, for assessment year 2007-08 the appeal of the assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6474/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Aug 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh, Judicialmember

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

7,425,241.12 Average Investment) TOTAL DISALLOWANCE U/S 119,519,888.60 14A 10.4 Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed a revised computation for disallowance of ₹ 2,77,57,100/-under section 14A of the Act read with rule 8D as under: Particulars Amount(Rs.) i) Amount of expenditure directly relating to 578,392 income which does not form

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

In the result, for assessment year 2007-08 the appeal of the assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2364/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Aug 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh, Judicialmember

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

7,425,241.12 Average Investment) TOTAL DISALLOWANCE U/S 119,519,888.60 14A 10.4 Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed a revised computation for disallowance of ₹ 2,77,57,100/-under section 14A of the Act read with rule 8D as under: Particulars Amount(Rs.) i) Amount of expenditure directly relating to 578,392 income which does not form

RELIGARE FINVEST LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIY, RANGE-21, NEW DELHI

In the result, for assessment year 2007-08 the appeal of the assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1947/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Aug 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh, Judicialmember

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

7,425,241.12 Average Investment) TOTAL DISALLOWANCE U/S 119,519,888.60 14A 10.4 Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed a revised computation for disallowance of ₹ 2,77,57,100/-under section 14A of the Act read with rule 8D as under: Particulars Amount(Rs.) i) Amount of expenditure directly relating to 578,392 income which does not form

ACIT,, NEW DELHI vs. M/S RELIGARE FINVEST LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, for assessment year 2007-08 the appeal of the assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5872/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Aug 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh, Judicialmember

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

7,425,241.12 Average Investment) TOTAL DISALLOWANCE U/S 119,519,888.60 14A 10.4 Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed a revised computation for disallowance of ₹ 2,77,57,100/-under section 14A of the Act read with rule 8D as under: Particulars Amount(Rs.) i) Amount of expenditure directly relating to 578,392 income which does not form

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL LTD.,, DELHI

ITA 3883/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri R. S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay I Bara, CIT DR

Section 142Section 147Section 153Section 153ASection 201(1)Section 36Section 40Section 40A(3)

disallowance of deduction u/s 80 IB/IC by applying provisions of section 80 IA (8) Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs, DCIT ITA No. 3738, 3739/Del/2016 (A) & ITA No. 3882 & 3883/Del/2016(R) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 read with section 80 IB (13) and 80 IC (7) of The Act on ground that rate of ‗technical knowhow fee‘ on value of goods

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. JAY BHARAT MARUTI LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 909/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2005-06 & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Acit, Vs. M/S. Jay Bharat Maruti Ltd., Circle-4(1), 601, Hemkunt Chamber, New Delhi 89-Nehru Place, New Delhi Pan :Aaacj2021K (Appellant) (Respondent) & C.O. No.113/Del/2012 [Arising Out Of Ita No.908/Del/2012] Assessment Year: 2005-06 & C.O. No.114/Del/2012 [Arising Out Of Ita No.909/Del/2012] Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Jay Bharat Maruti Ltd., Vs. Acit, 601, Hemkunt Chamber, Circle-4(1), 89-Nehru Place, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aaacj2021K (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Jay Bharat Maruti Ltd., Vs. Acit, Neel House, Lado Sarai, Circle-4(1), Opp. Qutab Minar, Mehrauli, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aaacj2021K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 147

disallowed the claim by invoking the provisions of section 94(7) of the Act. Undisputedly, section 94(7)(b) and section

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. JAY BHARAT MARUTI LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1885/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2005-06 & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Acit, Vs. M/S. Jay Bharat Maruti Ltd., Circle-4(1), 601, Hemkunt Chamber, New Delhi 89-Nehru Place, New Delhi Pan :Aaacj2021K (Appellant) (Respondent) & C.O. No.113/Del/2012 [Arising Out Of Ita No.908/Del/2012] Assessment Year: 2005-06 & C.O. No.114/Del/2012 [Arising Out Of Ita No.909/Del/2012] Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Jay Bharat Maruti Ltd., Vs. Acit, 601, Hemkunt Chamber, Circle-4(1), 89-Nehru Place, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aaacj2021K (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Jay Bharat Maruti Ltd., Vs. Acit, Neel House, Lado Sarai, Circle-4(1), Opp. Qutab Minar, Mehrauli, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aaacj2021K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 147

disallowed the claim by invoking the provisions of section 94(7) of the Act. Undisputedly, section 94(7)(b) and section

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. JAY BHARAT MARUTI LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 908/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2005-06 & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Acit, Vs. M/S. Jay Bharat Maruti Ltd., Circle-4(1), 601, Hemkunt Chamber, New Delhi 89-Nehru Place, New Delhi Pan :Aaacj2021K (Appellant) (Respondent) & C.O. No.113/Del/2012 [Arising Out Of Ita No.908/Del/2012] Assessment Year: 2005-06 & C.O. No.114/Del/2012 [Arising Out Of Ita No.909/Del/2012] Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Jay Bharat Maruti Ltd., Vs. Acit, 601, Hemkunt Chamber, Circle-4(1), 89-Nehru Place, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aaacj2021K (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Jay Bharat Maruti Ltd., Vs. Acit, Neel House, Lado Sarai, Circle-4(1), Opp. Qutab Minar, Mehrauli, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aaacj2021K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 147

disallowed the claim by invoking the provisions of section 94(7) of the Act. Undisputedly, section 94(7)(b) and section

M/S. JAY BHARAT MARUTI LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2180/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2005-06 & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Acit, Vs. M/S. Jay Bharat Maruti Ltd., Circle-4(1), 601, Hemkunt Chamber, New Delhi 89-Nehru Place, New Delhi Pan :Aaacj2021K (Appellant) (Respondent) & C.O. No.113/Del/2012 [Arising Out Of Ita No.908/Del/2012] Assessment Year: 2005-06 & C.O. No.114/Del/2012 [Arising Out Of Ita No.909/Del/2012] Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Jay Bharat Maruti Ltd., Vs. Acit, 601, Hemkunt Chamber, Circle-4(1), 89-Nehru Place, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aaacj2021K (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Jay Bharat Maruti Ltd., Vs. Acit, Neel House, Lado Sarai, Circle-4(1), Opp. Qutab Minar, Mehrauli, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aaacj2021K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 147

disallowed the claim by invoking the provisions of section 94(7) of the Act. Undisputedly, section 94(7)(b) and section

M/S. JAY BHARAT MARUTI LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 4672/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2005-06 & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Acit, Vs. M/S. Jay Bharat Maruti Ltd., Circle-4(1), 601, Hemkunt Chamber, New Delhi 89-Nehru Place, New Delhi Pan :Aaacj2021K (Appellant) (Respondent) & C.O. No.113/Del/2012 [Arising Out Of Ita No.908/Del/2012] Assessment Year: 2005-06 & C.O. No.114/Del/2012 [Arising Out Of Ita No.909/Del/2012] Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Jay Bharat Maruti Ltd., Vs. Acit, 601, Hemkunt Chamber, Circle-4(1), 89-Nehru Place, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aaacj2021K (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Jay Bharat Maruti Ltd., Vs. Acit, Neel House, Lado Sarai, Circle-4(1), Opp. Qutab Minar, Mehrauli, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aaacj2021K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 147

disallowed the claim by invoking the provisions of section 94(7) of the Act. Undisputedly, section 94(7)(b) and section