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.

1,053 results for “disallowance”+ Section 12clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai5,551Delhi5,465Chennai1,598Bangalore1,257Ahmedabad1,155Hyderabad1,053Kolkata974Jaipur909Pune815Chandigarh502Surat466Indore458Raipur421Cochin371Rajkot329Visakhapatnam324Amritsar234Nagpur231Lucknow182SC149Jodhpur134Cuttack124Panaji116Ranchi107Patna99Guwahati95Agra94Allahabad76Dehradun65Jabalpur36Varanasi22A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN5ANIL R. DAVE AMITAVA ROY L. NAGESWARA RAO1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1RANJAN GOGOI PRAFULLA C. PANT1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1

Key Topics

Addition to Income79Section 153B72Section 143(3)52Section 143(2)48Section 153A48Disallowance48Deduction39Section 8028Section 13226Section 80I

ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. PENNA CEMENT INDUSTRIES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

ITA 1084/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jan 2026AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Sourabh Soparkar, Advocate Represented by Department : Dr. Narendra Kumar NFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR Date of Conclusion of Hearing : 11/11/2025
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 14ASection 68Section 80Section 801ASection 80GSection 92C

12 taxmann.com 499 (Chennai). Hence the disallowance of deduction under section 80-IA in respect of the sale of scrap

Showing 1–20 of 1,053 · Page 1 of 53

...
26
Section 10(38)25
Search & Seizure24

ACIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. USHODAYA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

ITA 1782/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Mar 2026AY 2018-19
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)

disallowance of Rs.3,34,45,018/- under section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (“the Rules") to the income computed by the CPC under section 143(1) at Rs.223,89,67,030/-, and assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs.227,24,12

ACIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. USHODAYA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

ITA 1781/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

disallowance of\nRs.3,34,45,018/- under Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Income-\ntax Rules, 1962 (“the Rules") to the income computed by the CPC under\nsection 143(1) at Rs.223,89,67,030/-, and assessed the total income of the\nassessee at Rs.227,24,12

PRASAD FILM LABORATORIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 113/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Sri V. Siva Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri Vinodh Kannan, Sr. AR
Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 14ASection 14A(2)

disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D of I.T. Rules, 1962, the Assessing Officer shall arrive at a satisfaction that, the claim of the assessee that, no 12

FEDERATION OF AP COOPERATIVE URBAN BANKS AND CREDIT SOCIETIES LIMITED HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-9(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 464/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.464/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20) Federation Of Ap Vs. Income Tax Officer Cooperative Urban Banks Ward 9(1) & Credit Societies Ltd. Hyderabad Hyd, Hyderabad Pan:Aaaaf7350F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri V. Ravish Bhatt, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 29/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 07/11/2025

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri V. Ravish Bhatt, Sr. DR

disallowing deduction under Section 80P of the Act. In this regard, we have gone through the relevant portion of the order of the Ld. First Appellate Authority placed at page no.7 and 8 of the appellate order, which is to the following effect: 12

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)

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, and accordingly, completed the assessment u/s. 153A by making addition of Rs. 13,02,340/- on account of disallowance of expenditure u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs.49,12

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)

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, and accordingly, completed the assessment u/s. 153A by making addition of Rs. 13,02,340/- on account of disallowance of expenditure u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs.49,12

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)

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, and accordingly, completed the assessment u/s. 153A by making addition of Rs. 13,02,340/- on account of disallowance of expenditure u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs.49,12

ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. PENNA CEMENT INDUSTRIES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

ITA 1083/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jan 2026AY 2017-18
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 14ASection 68Section 80Section 801ASection 80GSection 92C

12 taxmann.com 499\n(Chennai). Hence the disallowance of deduction under section 80-IA\nin respect of the sale of scrap

CHINTALAPATI HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

ITA 1730/HYD/2016[2011]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Jan 2023

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri H. Srinivasulu, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR
Section 24

section 24(b) of the Act has to be disallowed. 12. Learned CIT(A) found that the assessee earned Rs. 16,67,49,213/- towards

CHINTALAPATI HOLDINGS PVT.LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYD, HYDERABAD

ITA 386/HYD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri H. Srinivasulu, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR
Section 24

section 24(b) of the Act has to be disallowed. 12. Learned CIT(A) found that the assessee earned Rs. 16,67,49,213/- towards

CHINTALAPATI HOLDINGS PVT.LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYD, HYDERABAD

ITA 385/HYD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri H. Srinivasulu, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR
Section 24

section 24(b) of the Act has to be disallowed. 12. Learned CIT(A) found that the assessee earned Rs. 16,67,49,213/- towards

JASPER INDUSTRIES PVT LTD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 1357/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

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

Section 10(34)Section 10(38)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 36(1)(iii)

12. We have heard both the parties, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. The only issue involved in the present appeal is with regard to the disallowance made under Section

KAUSALYA AGRO FARMS AMD DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of our above findings

ITA 804/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 251(1)(a)Section 36(1)(iii)

12 of Paper Book no. 1. Accordingly, the Ld. AR submitted that the interest-free funds available with the assessee were more than sufficient to cover the impugned investments. Therefore, there should not be any disallowance under section

KASUSALYA AVENUES PRIVATE LIMITED ,KARIMNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 684/HYD/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramarao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Reema Yadav, Sr.AR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

12% of Rs.4,57,98,232/- on funds diverted to other group companies and partly confirmed the addition made by the AO towards disallowance of finance charges. 27. The learned counsel for the assessee, Shri S. Rama Rao, submitted that the ld. CIT(A) is erred in sustaining the addition made by the AO towards disallowance of finance charges

KASUSALYA AVENUES PRIVATE LIMITED ,KARIMNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 681/HYD/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramarao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Reema Yadav, Sr.AR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

12% of Rs.4,57,98,232/- on funds diverted to other group companies and partly confirmed the addition made by the AO towards disallowance of finance charges. 27. The learned counsel for the assessee, Shri S. Rama Rao, submitted that the ld. CIT(A) is erred in sustaining the addition made by the AO towards disallowance of finance charges

KASUSALYA AVENUES PRIVATE LIMITED ,KARIMNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 685/HYD/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramarao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Reema Yadav, Sr.AR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

12% of Rs.4,57,98,232/- on funds diverted to other group companies and partly confirmed the addition made by the AO towards disallowance of finance charges. 27. The learned counsel for the assessee, Shri S. Rama Rao, submitted that the ld. CIT(A) is erred in sustaining the addition made by the AO towards disallowance of finance charges

KASUSALYA AVENUES PRIVATE LIMITED ,KARIMNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 683/HYD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramarao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Reema Yadav, Sr.AR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

12% of Rs.4,57,98,232/- on funds diverted to other group companies and partly confirmed the addition made by the AO towards disallowance of finance charges. 27. The learned counsel for the assessee, Shri S. Rama Rao, submitted that the ld. CIT(A) is erred in sustaining the addition made by the AO towards disallowance of finance charges

KASUSALYA AVENUES PRIVATE LIMITED ,KARIMNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 682/HYD/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramarao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Reema Yadav, Sr.AR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

12% of Rs.4,57,98,232/- on funds diverted to other group companies and partly confirmed the addition made by the AO towards disallowance of finance charges. 27. The learned counsel for the assessee, Shri S. Rama Rao, submitted that the ld. CIT(A) is erred in sustaining the addition made by the AO towards disallowance of finance charges

SINGARENI COLLIERIES COMPANY LIMITED,KOTHAGUDEM vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-13(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 285/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.285/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2018-19) M/S. Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Circle 13(1), Hyderabad. Kothagudem. Pan:Aaact8873F (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.307/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2018-19) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S. Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., Circle 13(1), Hyderabad. Vs. Kothagudem. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri M.V. Anil Kumar, Advocate & Shri C.H.Venkatesh, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Ms.U. Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 25/08/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 10/09/2025

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Anil Kumar, Advocate and Shri C.H.Venkatesh, C.AFor Respondent: Ms.U. Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144B

disallowance made by the Ld. AO under section 40A(9) of the Act is not sustainable. Accordingly, the addition of Rs.38,15,00,000/- made by the Ld. AO is directed to be deleted. Ground nos. 3 to 6 of the assessee’s appeal are allowed. 12