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.

329 results for “disallowance”+ Section 200clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,975Delhi1,781Bangalore774Chennai556Kolkata448Ahmedabad373Hyderabad329Jaipur300Indore229Pune160Raipur158Surat128Cochin114Chandigarh113Rajkot79Cuttack69Lucknow63Allahabad56Nagpur50Visakhapatnam47Karnataka45Panaji43Calcutta39Agra39Jodhpur34Amritsar27Ranchi21Telangana21Patna17SC16Dehradun15Jabalpur13Varanasi11Guwahati8Kerala7Punjab & Haryana4Rajasthan2Orissa2Himachal Pradesh2RANJAN GOGOI PRAFULLA C. PANT1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)82Addition to Income81Section 153A66Section 80I54Disallowance50Deduction47Section 153B30Section 143(2)30Section 13230Section 32A

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)

Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act to the extent disallowed by the first appellate authority as well as the validity of the reassessment proceedings. 34. The solitary issue that came up for our consideration in Ground Nos.2 to 4 of the assessee's appeal is the disallowance of finance charges of Rs.95,48,200

Showing 1–20 of 329 · Page 1 of 17

...
28
Section 10A27
Search & Seizure17

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)

Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act to the extent disallowed by the first appellate authority as well as the validity of the reassessment proceedings. 34. The solitary issue that came up for our consideration in Ground Nos.2 to 4 of the assessee's appeal is the disallowance of finance charges of Rs.95,48,200

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)

Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act to the extent disallowed by the first appellate authority as well as the validity of the reassessment proceedings. 34. The solitary issue that came up for our consideration in Ground Nos.2 to 4 of the assessee's appeal is the disallowance of finance charges of Rs.95,48,200

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)

Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act to the extent disallowed by the first appellate authority as well as the validity of the reassessment proceedings. 34. The solitary issue that came up for our consideration in Ground Nos.2 to 4 of the assessee's appeal is the disallowance of finance charges of Rs.95,48,200

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)

Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act to the extent disallowed by the first appellate authority as well as the validity of the reassessment proceedings. 34. The solitary issue that came up for our consideration in Ground Nos.2 to 4 of the assessee's appeal is the disallowance of finance charges of Rs.95,48,200

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

200/-. 8. Aggrieved by the additions, assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(A). Insofar as the income from house property is concerned, learned CIT(A) directed the learned Assessing Officer to allow the deduction under section 24(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) on the assessee furnishing the relevant figure of interest. 9. Coming

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

200/-. 8. Aggrieved by the additions, assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(A). Insofar as the income from house property is concerned, learned CIT(A) directed the learned Assessing Officer to allow the deduction under section 24(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) on the assessee furnishing the relevant figure of interest. 9. Coming

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

200/-. 8. Aggrieved by the additions, assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(A). Insofar as the income from house property is concerned, learned CIT(A) directed the learned Assessing Officer to allow the deduction under section 24(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) on the assessee furnishing the relevant figure of interest. 9. Coming

APEX URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we herein direct the AO to vacate the disallowance of Rs. 13,200/- made by him. The Grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 3 are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1778/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1778/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2017-18) Apex Urban Infrastructure Vs. Dcit, Private Limited, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aafcp1027Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri K. Vinoth Kannan, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 13/01/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Company Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 12, Hyderabad, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 31/10/2019 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. The Assessee Company Has Assailed The Impugned Order Of The Cit(A) On The Following Grounds Of Appeal Before Us:

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri K. Vinoth Kannan, Sr
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 250Section 37Section 37(1)

200 in respect of interest on late payment of service tax by treating the same as penal in nature and disallowed u/s 37 of the Act. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that, as per Explanation 1 to section

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

ITA 301/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Jun 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri M.V.Anil Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri B Balakrishna, CIT (DR)
Section 194Section 32ASection 37Section 40Section 40A(9)

disallowed.\n9.5 We have considered the rival submissions and perused\nthe material on record as well as gone through the orders of\nrevenue authorities. The assessee has deposited the\ninterest as per the court directions on the enhanced\ncompensations to be paid to the pattadars. There is no\ndoubt that the assessee was much aware in regard to the\npayment

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

In the result, assessee's appeals for the A

ITA 286/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Jun 2025AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Shri M.V.Anil Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri B Balakrishna, CIT (DR)
Section 194Section 32ASection 37Section 40Section 40A(9)

disallowed.\n9.5 We have considered the rival submissions and perused\nthe material on record as well as gone through the orders of\nrevenue authorities. The assessee has deposited the\ninterest as per the court directions on the enhanced\ncompensations to be paid to the pattadars. There is no\ndoubt that the assessee was much aware in regard to the\npayment

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. LAURUS LABS LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, ITA No.121/Hyd/2024 is allowed and ITA Nos

ITA 202/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 201, 202 & 203/Hyd/2024 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19) Asst.Commissioner Of Laurus Labs Limited Income Tax Vs. Visakhapatnam Circle-5(1), Hyderabad [Pan : Aabcl1170C] अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent आ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 121/Hyd/2024 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 ) Laurus Labs Limited Asst.Commissioner Visakhapatnam Vs. Of Income Tax [Pan : Aabcl1170C] Circle-16(1) Hyderabad अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Mohd Afzal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sheetal Sarin, LD.DR
Section 14Section 14ASection 32ASection 35

disallowed the investment allowance claimed by the assessee under section 32AD of the Act. 4. Learned Assessing Officer opined that in respect of the expenditure incurred by the assessee towards clinical trials, the assessee is entitled to the 100% deduction, but not at 200

LAURUS LABS LIMITED,VISHAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA No.121/Hyd/2024 is allowed and ITA Nos

ITA 121/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 201, 202 & 203/Hyd/2024 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19) Asst.Commissioner Of Laurus Labs Limited Income Tax Vs. Visakhapatnam Circle-5(1), Hyderabad [Pan : Aabcl1170C] अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent आ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 121/Hyd/2024 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 ) Laurus Labs Limited Asst.Commissioner Visakhapatnam Vs. Of Income Tax [Pan : Aabcl1170C] Circle-16(1) Hyderabad अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Mohd Afzal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sheetal Sarin, LD.DR
Section 14Section 14ASection 32ASection 35

disallowed the investment allowance claimed by the assessee under section 32AD of the Act. 4. Learned Assessing Officer opined that in respect of the expenditure incurred by the assessee towards clinical trials, the assessee is entitled to the 100% deduction, but not at 200

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. LAURUS LABS LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, ITA No.121/Hyd/2024 is allowed and ITA Nos

ITA 201/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 201, 202 & 203/Hyd/2024 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19) Asst.Commissioner Of Laurus Labs Limited Income Tax Vs. Visakhapatnam Circle-5(1), Hyderabad [Pan : Aabcl1170C] अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent आ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 121/Hyd/2024 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 ) Laurus Labs Limited Asst.Commissioner Visakhapatnam Vs. Of Income Tax [Pan : Aabcl1170C] Circle-16(1) Hyderabad अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Mohd Afzal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sheetal Sarin, LD.DR
Section 14Section 14ASection 32ASection 35

disallowed the investment allowance claimed by the assessee under section 32AD of the Act. 4. Learned Assessing Officer opined that in respect of the expenditure incurred by the assessee towards clinical trials, the assessee is entitled to the 100% deduction, but not at 200

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. LAURUS LABS LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, ITA No.121/Hyd/2024 is allowed and ITA Nos

ITA 203/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 201, 202 & 203/Hyd/2024 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19) Asst.Commissioner Of Laurus Labs Limited Income Tax Vs. Visakhapatnam Circle-5(1), Hyderabad [Pan : Aabcl1170C] अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent आ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 121/Hyd/2024 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 ) Laurus Labs Limited Asst.Commissioner Visakhapatnam Vs. Of Income Tax [Pan : Aabcl1170C] Circle-16(1) Hyderabad अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Mohd Afzal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sheetal Sarin, LD.DR
Section 14Section 14ASection 32ASection 35

disallowed the investment allowance claimed by the assessee under section 32AD of the Act. 4. Learned Assessing Officer opined that in respect of the expenditure incurred by the assessee towards clinical trials, the assessee is entitled to the 100% deduction, but not at 200

ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. MYLAN LABORATORIES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result. appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 708/HYD/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: [Through Hybrid Hearing]For Respondent: MS. M. Narmada, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 92C

200 basis points after considering credit period of 90 days. The learned CIT(A) had also deleted addition made towards disallowance of depreciation on goodwill and depreciation of non-compete fee. However, sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer towards disallowance of excess deduction claimed under section

SGD PHARMA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, ,MAHABUBNAGAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -3 (1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA\nNo

ITA 130/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jan 2026AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Aliasgar Rampurwala, CAFor Respondent: : Smt. K. Haritha, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 270ASection 40A(7)Section 43BSection 92C

Disallowance under Section 43B of\nthe Act. With regard to Benchmarking of Interest on ECB Loans,\nthe Ld. AR submitted that the assessee had availed three ECB\nloans, namely ECB-I, ECB-II and ECB-III. It was submitted that\nthe assessee benchmarked the rate of interest on ECB-I and ECB-\nII at LIBOR + 500 basis points

MYLAN LABORATORIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result. appeal of the Assessee is partly\nallowed for statistical purposes and appeal of Revenue is\npartly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 663/HYD/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Jun 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: \nCA Padamchand KhinchaFor Respondent: MS. M. Narmada, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 92C

200 basis points after\nconsidering credit period of 90 days. The learned CIT(A) had\nalso deleted addition made towards disallowance of\ndepreciation on goodwill and depreciation of non-compete\nfee. However, sustained the addition made by the Assessing\nOfficer towards disallowance of excess deduction claimed\nunder section

VICTORY ELECTRICALS LIMITED, MEDCHAL,R.R.DIST vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-17(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 738/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Victory Electricals Ltd., V Dcit,Circle-17(2) Plot No.8, Survey No.855, S. Signature Towers Ida, Medchal, Kondapur Ranga Reddy, Hyderabad Hyderabad-501 401

For Appellant: Shri S.Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dr.Rajendra Kumar,CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 32(2)Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)

disallowance can be made by invoking section l4A of the Act even in those cases where no income has been earned by an assessee which has been claimed as exempt during the financial year. 3. The matter has been examined in the Board. It is pertinent to mention that section 14A of the Act was introduced by the Finance

NEOVANTAGE BIO-TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE 5(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 924/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 92C

disallowance, if any, under section 94B of the Act. ITA Nos.923 & 924/Hyd/2024 30 12.7 In view of our above directions, the issue of addition made on account of interest paid on NCDs under ground No.6 of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 13. As far as the issue of addition made on account of interest paid on CCDs