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.

31 results for “disallowance”+ Section 23(1)(va)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi583Mumbai168Jaipur148Raipur97Ahmedabad72Chennai58Kolkata49Bangalore33Chandigarh32Hyderabad31Indore26Pune25Cochin14Jodhpur13Surat13Guwahati12Amritsar11Visakhapatnam7Lucknow5Varanasi5Patna4SC4Nagpur3Cuttack2Rajkot2Agra1

Key Topics

Addition to Income30Section 143(3)28Section 36(1)(va)28Section 80I24Disallowance20Section 14A18Section 80J18Section 143(1)14Deduction14

F5 NETWORKS INNOVATION PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-17(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 912/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Narender Kumar Naik
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 92C

va) of the Act. However, the said deposits were made prior to filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act. 6.1 Of course, it is a case in point that the assessee did not file any appeal against the intimations passed us 143(1) of the Act and the Ld. Sr. DR is right to the extent

COUNTRY CLUB HOSPITALITY & HOLIDAYS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

Showing 1–20 of 31 · Page 1 of 2

Section 143(2)9
Section 139(1)9
Transfer Pricing9

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

ITA 1480/HYD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Mar 2026AY 2011-12
Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 250

Section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 43B r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Ld. CIT(A), after considering the relevant facts, has rightly sustained the addition 31 Country Club Hospitality & Holidays Limited made by the A.O. Thus, we are inclined to uphold the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) and reject the grounds taken

ICOMM TELE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA No.130/Hyd/2023 for the A

ITA 130/HYD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

section 36(1)(va) of the Act in respect of employees’ contribution to PF & ESI. Respectfully following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd(supra), we are of the view that the delayed payment in respect of employees contribution to PF and ESI is not allowable. Since the issue stands decided against

ICOMM TELE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA No.130/Hyd/2023 for the A

ITA 60/HYD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

section 36(1)(va) of the Act in respect of employees’ contribution to PF & ESI. Respectfully following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd(supra), we are of the view that the delayed payment in respect of employees contribution to PF and ESI is not allowable. Since the issue stands decided against

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. TRACKS & TOWERS INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED(PART IX), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 1515/HYD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal
Section 133ASection 139Section 139(1)Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80I

section 80IA(4) 21 Tracks & Towers Infratech Pvt.Ltd. (Part IX) and the AO has allowed the same to the appellant during the Course of allowing the claim for A.Y. 2017-18 The appellant has not submitted the details for the project of RAWAN Ultra Tech Cement and the deduction u/s. 80IA to the extent of Rs. 1

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. TRACKS & TOWERS INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED(PART IX), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 1514/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal
Section 133ASection 139Section 139(1)Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80I

section 80IA(4) 21 Tracks & Towers Infratech Pvt.Ltd. (Part IX) and the AO has allowed the same to the appellant during the Course of allowing the claim for A.Y. 2017-18 The appellant has not submitted the details for the project of RAWAN Ultra Tech Cement and the deduction u/s. 80IA to the extent of Rs. 1

ANALOGICS TECH INDIA LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 247/HYD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri A. Srinivas, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Sr
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 37Section 37(1)

va) of the Act. Accordingly, this ground of appeal is dismissed. 12. Ground No.2 Before us, ld.AR for the assessee submitted that the assessee had paid an amount of Rs.12,19,9361/- as interest on delayed payments of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS). The ld. AR further submitted that the interest paid on late TDS payment represents the income

NETCRACKER TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE - 5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our observations given hereinabove

ITA 730/HYD/2024[AY 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Dec 2025

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 92C(3)

1)(va) read with section 43B of the Act, with respect to payment of employee's contribution to PF/ESI having already been done by the appellant before due date of filing of return, the same cannot be termed as apparently incorrect claims from the information in the return. 19. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. MEGHA ENGINEERING AND INFRASTRUCTURES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1499/HYD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. Hon’Ble & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Hon’Bleassessment Year – 2020-21 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S.Megha Engineering & Infrastructure Ltd. Income Tax, Hyderabad. Central Circle – 2(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Aaecm7627A

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 1Section 14ASection 80I

23,278/- from the investments in mutual funds, whereas the AO has disallowed expenditure relatable to exempt income for Rs.7,80,98,559/-. The ld.CIT(A) restricted the disallowance under Section 14A of the Act to the extent of exempt income earned by the appellant. In our considered view, the reasons given by the ld.CIT(A) to restrict disallowance under

CREAMLINE DAIRY PRODUCTS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal ITA

ITA 1156/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA, K C Devdas And CA C Maheshwar ReddyFor Respondent: Sri Narender Kumar Naik, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80J

section also enumerates various circumstances under which the consideration of a contract is said to be unlawful Two such circumstances are, (i) the consideration of a contract is of such nature that, if permitted, it would defeat the provisions of any law, or (ii) the Court regards it as immoral or opposed to public policy. Hence, if any one says

DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD vs. CREAMLINE DAIRY PRODUCTS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal ITA

ITA 1183/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA, K C Devdas And CA C Maheshwar ReddyFor Respondent: Sri Narender Kumar Naik, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80J

section also enumerates various circumstances under which the consideration of a contract is said to be unlawful Two such circumstances are, (i) the consideration of a contract is of such nature that, if permitted, it would defeat the provisions of any law, or (ii) the Court regards it as immoral or opposed to public policy. Hence, if any one says

CREAMLINE DAIRY PRODUCTS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal ITA

ITA 1157/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA, K C Devdas And CA C Maheshwar ReddyFor Respondent: Sri Narender Kumar Naik, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80J

section also enumerates various circumstances under which the consideration of a contract is said to be unlawful Two such circumstances are, (i) the consideration of a contract is of such nature that, if permitted, it would defeat the provisions of any law, or (ii) the Court regards it as immoral or opposed to public policy. Hence, if any one says

NTT DATA BUSINESS SOLUTIOS PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 489/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.489/Hyd/2022 Assessment Year 2018-2019 Ntt Data Business The Dcit, Solutions Private Limited, Hyderabad. Circle-5(1), Vs. Pin -500081. Hyderabad. Pan Aadci1557Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Aliasgar Rampurawala राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: CA Aliasgar RampurawalaFor Respondent: MS U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144

1)(va) of the Act, without appreciating the fact that the same were deposited on or before the due date for filing the return of income. 18. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in disallowing the relief claimed by the Appellant of INR 31,48,038 towards foreign

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-10(1), HYDERABAD vs. VERTEX PROJECTS LLP (FORMERLY M/S VERTEX PROJECTS LTD) , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1187/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Acit,Circle-10(1) Vs. Vertex Projects Llp Room No.515, 5Th Floor, (Formerly M/S.Vertex A-Block, I.T.Towers, Projects Ltd.) A.C.Guards, #156-159, Paigah House Hyderabad. S.P.Road, Next To Pg College. Secunderabad-500 026. Pan : Aanfv0232C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sriram Seshadri, Ca Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar,Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.04.2023 O R D E R Per Shri Laliet Kumar, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Dated 16.03.2018 For The Ay 2014-15, On The Following Grounds :

For Appellant: Shri Sriram Seshadri, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar,CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 14A(3)Section 47Section 56Section 56(2)(viia)Section 56(2)(viiia)

VA becomes academic as the relief has already been granted on ground no. 2(i) and 2(ii) therefore there is no need of adjudication to ground no. 2 (iii) accordingly. Further, the ground no. 3(i) and 3(ii) also becomes academic and therefore needs no adjudication in view of the relief already granted. Therefore, the addition made

KANTAR GDC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE - 2(1), HYDERABAD

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 804/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. M. Narmada, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 156

Section 92B of the Act by way of Finance Act, 2012 with retrospective effect from 01/04/2002, it is not open for the assessee to agitate the question as to whether or not the interest on outstanding receivables is an international transaction requiring separate benchmarking. Only issue remains to be considered is in respect of the rate of interest, while placing

KANTAR GDC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE - 2(1), HYDERABAD

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 274/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. M. Narmada, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 156

Section 92B of the Act by way of Finance Act, 2012 with retrospective effect from 01/04/2002, it is not open for the assessee to agitate the question as to whether or not the interest on outstanding receivables is an international transaction requiring separate benchmarking. Only issue remains to be considered is in respect of the rate of interest, while placing

ACIT., CIRCLE 3(1), HYDERABAD vs. SANDOR MEDICAIDS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeal of Revenue and Cross-Objection of assessee are dismissed

ITA 691/HYD/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Jan 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Narahari Biswal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. M. Narmada, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

disallowance made by the assessee in the return of income vis-a-vis Form 3CD. Finally, the said return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act by determining a total income of Rs11,02,37,300/- by making a addition of Rs 15,11,380/- u/s 36(1)(va) and raising a demand of Rs 1

SAKET ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED,SECUNDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 992/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Dec 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri A. Srinivas, appeared for Shri P. Jitendra Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Rani, Sr.D.R
Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 23Section 36(1)(va)Section 41

23 of the Act, Rs.31,20,557/- u/s 41 of the Act and Rs.4,15,348/- u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act. Accordingly, the 3 Saket Engineers Private Limited, Hyderabad. Asst.Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengalore had passed intimation order u/s 143(1) of the Act dt.24.08.2022. 4. Aggrieved with such intimation order, assessee filed an appeal before

SAKET ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED,SECUNDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 993/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri A. Srinivas, appeared for Shri P. Jitendra Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Rani, Sr.D.R
Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 23Section 36(1)(va)Section 41

23 of the Act, Rs.31,20,557/- u/s 41 of the Act and Rs.4,15,348/- u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act. Accordingly, the 3 Saket Engineers Private Limited, Hyderabad. Asst.Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengalore had passed intimation order u/s 143(1) of the Act dt.24.08.2022. 4. Aggrieved with such intimation order, assessee filed an appeal before

SECUNDERABAD HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 313/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad12 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.313/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20) Secunderabad Hotels (P) Vs. Income Tax Officer Limited Ward 3(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaics6896B (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V. Joshi, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 11/06/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/06/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Joshi, CAFor Respondent: : Smt. Sheetal Sarin, DR
Section 139Section 36(1)(va)Section 436

23,341 15/02/2019 16/02/2019 1 day Rs. 24,60,767 TOTAL > From the above, it can be duly submitted that the delay in remittance is purely unintentional and hence the disallowance in this regard made may please be deleted. > The CPC, Bangalore has made the adjustment/addition merely for the reason that the Assessee has made such payments after