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.

600 results for “disallowance”+ Section 28clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai3,253 Delhi3,079 Chennai898 Bangalore727 Ahmedabad672 Hyderabad600 Jaipur581 Kolkata529 Pune334 Chandigarh277 Indore268 Raipur242 Surat210 Rajkot174 Cochin166 Visakhapatnam149 Amritsar147 Nagpur144 SC106 Lucknow103 Guwahati64 Jodhpur62 Panaji59 Patna56 Ranchi55 Cuttack53 Allahabad48 Agra35 Dehradun31 Jabalpur19 Varanasi12 A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN3 A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1 ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1 MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1 ANIL R. DAVE AMITAVA ROY L. NAGESWARA RAO1 H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)93 Section 153C76 Addition to Income69 Disallowance52 Section 80I38 Deduction30 Section 14825 Search & Seizure23 Section 13222

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD vs. AMSRI BUILDERS , SECUNDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for A

ITA 1897/HYD/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. Hon’Ble & Shri K. Narasimha Chary Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. M. Narmada, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 28

Section 28(iv) of the Act, for A.Y. 2010-11 on substantial basis, any protective addition made towards said income and consequent disallowance

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD vs. AMSRI BUILDERS, SECUNDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for A

Showing 1–20 of 600 · Page 1 of 30

...

ITA 1898/HYD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. M. Narmada, CIT-DR

Section 153ASection 28

28(iv) of the Act i.e., the\nvalue of any benefit or perquisite, whether convertible into money\nor not, arising from business or the exercise of a profession and\ntherefore, in our considered view, there is no error in the findings\nrecorded by the LD.CIT(A) to delete the addition made by the\nAssessing Officer towards benefit derived

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

disallowed the same by adding it back to the P&L account. It is only thereafter the business income of the assessee is computed in accordance with the principles laid down for computation of the profits and gains of business or profession in sections 28

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 was to be made under section 14A of the Act, the same should be restricted only to the investments which yielded exempt income during the year.\n8. We have heard the rival submissions and carefully gone through the material available on record, including the judicial precedents relied upon by the parties. At the outset, it is noticed that

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 was to be made under Section 14A of the Act, the same\nshould be restricted only to the investments which yielded exempt income\nduring the year.\n8. We have heard the rival submissions and carefully gone through the\nmaterial available on record, including the judicial precedents relied upon by the\nparties. At the outset, it is noticed that

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)

disallow 30% of the said expenditure under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 39. In respect of machinery hire charges of Rs. 16,88,379/-, the assessee claims that, it has deducted TDS of Rs. 1,28

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)

disallow 30% of the said expenditure under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 39. In respect of machinery hire charges of Rs. 16,88,379/-, the assessee claims that, it has deducted TDS of Rs. 1,28

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)

disallow 30% of the said expenditure under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 39. In respect of machinery hire charges of Rs. 16,88,379/-, the assessee claims that, it has deducted TDS of Rs. 1,28

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

28 to 44DB of the Act. By this, the assessee seeks\ncompliance with Explanation-2 of section 37 of the Act and, therefore,\nthe Revenue shall not have any grievance. Whether or not the\nassessee suo moto disallowed

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

disallowable under section 14A of the Act read with rule 8D of the Rules, shall not exceed the interest expenditure debited to P&L Account plus administrative expenditure reduced by the interest allowed under the head ‘business’. 17. On the aspect of section 14A by the learned CIT(A), argument of learned AR is threefold. Firstly, according

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

disallowable under section 14A of the Act read with rule 8D of the Rules, shall not exceed the interest expenditure debited to P&L Account plus administrative expenditure reduced by the interest allowed under the head ‘business’. 17. On the aspect of section 14A by the learned CIT(A), argument of learned AR is threefold. Firstly, according

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

disallowable under section 14A of the Act read with rule 8D of the Rules, shall not exceed the interest expenditure debited to P&L Account plus administrative expenditure reduced by the interest allowed under the head ‘business’. 17. On the aspect of section 14A by the learned CIT(A), argument of learned AR is threefold. Firstly, according

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

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 143(3) dated 18.03.2014, the A.O. had disallowed Rs. 56,98,338/- towards foreign exchange fluctuation loss and the assessee has not challenged the said disallowance. However, while computing the total income, only Rs. 5,69,838/- was added and therefore, income to the extent of Rs. 51,28

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 Income Tax Act, 1961. 26. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the interest paid on customers' advance is wholly and exclusively incurred for the purpose of business and further, the assessee has paid interest on customers' advance

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 Income Tax Act, 1961. 26. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the interest paid on customers' advance is wholly and exclusively incurred for the purpose of business and further, the assessee has paid interest on customers' advance

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 Income Tax Act, 1961. 26. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the interest paid on customers' advance is wholly and exclusively incurred for the purpose of business and further, the assessee has paid interest on customers' advance

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 Income Tax Act, 1961. 26. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the interest paid on customers' advance is wholly and exclusively incurred for the purpose of business and further, the assessee has paid interest on customers' advance

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 Income Tax Act, 1961. 26. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the interest paid on customers' advance is wholly and exclusively incurred for the purpose of business and further, the assessee has paid interest on customers' advance

KAPIL INFRA AVENUES PRIVATE LIMITED ,VIJAYAWADA vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 686/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 147Section 148Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

28-12-2019 and determined total income at Rs.3,65,29,352/- by making additions towards disallowance of finance charges, disallowance under Section

KAPIL PROPERTY DEVELOPERS LIMITED ,HANUMAKONDA vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , HYDERABAD

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

ITA 652/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 147Section 148Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

28-12-2019 and determined total income at Rs.3,65,29,352/- by making additions towards disallowance of finance charges, disallowance under Section