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.

1,159 results for “disallowance”+ Section 10(30)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai7,910Delhi6,765Bangalore2,378Chennai2,087Kolkata1,901Ahmedabad1,669Pune1,299Hyderabad1,159Jaipur1,087Indore581Chandigarh580Surat450Raipur369Visakhapatnam349Rajkot297Cuttack290Cochin271Amritsar248Karnataka233Nagpur228Lucknow216Agra157Guwahati103Jodhpur87Allahabad86Panaji80Ranchi78SC74Telangana67Dehradun65Patna55Calcutta51Jabalpur32Varanasi26Kerala23Punjab & Haryana11A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN4Rajasthan4Orissa3Himachal Pradesh3Gauhati1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1ANIL R. DAVE AMITAVA ROY L. NAGESWARA RAO1Tripura1Uttarakhand1

Key Topics

Addition to Income79Section 143(3)76Section 153B72Disallowance53Section 6837Section 26336Section 153C32Section 153A28Deduction27Section 143(2)

HYDERABAD METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of assessee and Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 271/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Dec 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. SandhyaFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya –
Section 11Section 139Section 139(1)

30% has to be utilised for the purposes directed by the State Government. 10) The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) ought to have seen that no part of the amount of LRS and BPS represents the income of the assesse. 11) The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer

DCIT, EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE, HYDERABAD vs. HYDERABAD METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, SECUNDERABAD

Showing 1–20 of 1,159 · Page 1 of 58

...
24
Section 292C24
Penalty15

In the result, both the appeals of assessee and Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 326/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Dec 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. SandhyaFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya –
Section 11Section 139Section 139(1)

30% has to be utilised for the purposes directed by the State Government. 10) The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) ought to have seen that no part of the amount of LRS and BPS represents the income of the assesse. 11) The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer

BHUPAL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 280/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

10,580/-. A search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) was conducted in the case of the assessee on 27.09.2016. Notice u/s 153A was issued to the assessee on 06.03.2020, however, no return was filed in response. The A.O. noted that, an expenditure of Rs. 43,41,133/- booked

BHUPAL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 282/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

10,580/-. A search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) was conducted in the case of the assessee on 27.09.2016. Notice u/s 153A was issued to the assessee on 06.03.2020, however, no return was filed in response. The A.O. noted that, an expenditure of Rs. 43,41,133/- booked

BHUPAL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 281/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

10,580/-. A search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) was conducted in the case of the assessee on 27.09.2016. Notice u/s 153A was issued to the assessee on 06.03.2020, however, no return was filed in response. The A.O. noted that, an expenditure of Rs. 43,41,133/- booked

MANJEERA PROJECTS ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

ITA 15/HYD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Sri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai, DR
Section 143(3)Section 5Section 80I

30 of 32 ITA Nos 956 and others Manjeera Projects Hyderabad. Learned lower authorities action rejecting the same stands upheld. 12. Lastly comes the issue of proportionate section 80IB(10) deduction claim. Learned coordinate bench has already upheld the assessee’s claim in Para 31. We therefore direct the assessing authority to frame its consequential computation

MANJEERA PROJECTS ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

ITA 1554/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Sri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai, DR
Section 143(3)Section 5Section 80I

30 of 32 ITA Nos 956 and others Manjeera Projects Hyderabad. Learned lower authorities action rejecting the same stands upheld. 12. Lastly comes the issue of proportionate section 80IB(10) deduction claim. Learned coordinate bench has already upheld the assessee’s claim in Para 31. We therefore direct the assessing authority to frame its consequential computation

MANJEERA PROJECTS ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

ITA 956/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Sri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai, DR
Section 143(3)Section 5Section 80I

30 of 32 ITA Nos 956 and others Manjeera Projects Hyderabad. Learned lower authorities action rejecting the same stands upheld. 12. Lastly comes the issue of proportionate section 80IB(10) deduction claim. Learned coordinate bench has already upheld the assessee’s claim in Para 31. We therefore direct the assessing authority to frame its consequential computation

SANGHI INDUSTRIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -3 (1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 104/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Choksi, ARFor Respondent: Ms. K. Haritha, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 80ISection 92CSection 92E

30,211/- without assigning any reasons therefor. 10. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the grounds during the course of hearing.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee-company is engaged in manufacturing of Clinker and Ordinary Portland Cement. The assessee, being the third largest cement manufacturer in western India, sells

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE2-(2), HYDERABAD vs. SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 732/HYD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Ms. TH. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80

10% without examining the period the said asset was put to use. It is evident that the disallowance was made an ad-hoc basis without any justification and there is no scope for such ad-hoc disallowances when the search assessment was being framed u/s.153A. Therefore, the AO is directed to delete the disallowance of depreciation of Rs.1

SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 646/HYD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Ms. TH. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80

10% without examining the period the said asset was put to use. It is evident that the disallowance was made an ad-hoc basis without any justification and there is no scope for such ad-hoc disallowances when the search assessment was being framed u/s.153A. Therefore, the AO is directed to delete the disallowance of depreciation of Rs.1

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE2-(2), HYDERABAD vs. SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 733/HYD/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Ms. TH. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80

10% without examining the period the said asset was put to use. It is evident that the disallowance was made an ad-hoc basis without any justification and there is no scope for such ad-hoc disallowances when the search assessment was being framed u/s.153A. Therefore, the AO is directed to delete the disallowance of depreciation of Rs.1

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE2-(2), HYDERABAD vs. SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 730/HYD/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Ms. TH. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80

10% without examining the period the said asset was put to use. It is evident that the disallowance was made an ad-hoc basis without any justification and there is no scope for such ad-hoc disallowances when the search assessment was being framed u/s.153A. Therefore, the AO is directed to delete the disallowance of depreciation of Rs.1

SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 244/HYD/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Dec 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Ms. TH. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80

10% without examining the period the said asset was put to use. It is evident that the disallowance was made an ad-hoc basis without any justification and there is no scope for such ad-hoc disallowances when the search assessment was being framed u/s.153A. Therefore, the AO is directed to delete the disallowance of depreciation of Rs.1

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 731/HYD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Ms. TH. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80

10% without examining the period the said asset was put to use. It is evident that the disallowance was made an ad-hoc basis without any justification and there is no scope for such ad-hoc disallowances when the search assessment was being framed u/s.153A. Therefore, the AO is directed to delete the disallowance of depreciation of Rs.1

SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 645/HYD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Ms. TH. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80

10% without examining the period the said asset was put to use. It is evident that the disallowance was made an ad-hoc basis without any justification and there is no scope for such ad-hoc disallowances when the search assessment was being framed u/s.153A. Therefore, the AO is directed to delete the disallowance of depreciation of Rs.1

SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 647/HYD/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Ms. TH. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80

10% without examining the period the said asset was put to use. It is evident that the disallowance was made an ad-hoc basis without any justification and there is no scope for such ad-hoc disallowances when the search assessment was being framed u/s.153A. Therefore, the AO is directed to delete the disallowance of depreciation of Rs.1

SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 677/HYD/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Ms. TH. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80

10% without examining the period the said asset was put to use. It is evident that the disallowance was made an ad-hoc basis without any justification and there is no scope for such ad-hoc disallowances when the search assessment was being framed u/s.153A. Therefore, the AO is directed to delete the disallowance of depreciation of Rs.1

MANJEERA PROJECTS, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-6(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 1230/HYD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Dr. K. Srinivas Reddy, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 80Section 801B(10)Section 80I

disallowed the claim on the ground that the approval for “E” building was granted on 11th of October, 2002, as an extension of the approval granted for the buildings in A to D and therefore, the E block, being continuation of A, B, C & D buildings, the project must be held to have commenced prior to October

MANJEERA PROJECTS, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 1082/HYD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Dr. K. Srinivas Reddy, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 80Section 801B(10)Section 80I

disallowed the claim on the ground that the approval for “E” building was granted on 11th of October, 2002, as an extension of the approval granted for the buildings in A to D and therefore, the E block, being continuation of A, B, C & D buildings, the project must be held to have commenced prior to October