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.

151 results for “disallowance”+ Section 293clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi604Mumbai569Bangalore287Chennai193Kolkata175Hyderabad151Ahmedabad129Jaipur120Pune74Indore63Raipur51Amritsar48Chandigarh43Lucknow40Surat36Visakhapatnam27Nagpur25Jodhpur16Cochin15Rajkot14Cuttack13Panaji9Patna8Ranchi7Karnataka7Agra6Allahabad4Telangana4Dehradun3SC2Guwahati1Jabalpur1Calcutta1Rajasthan1Kerala1Orissa1

Key Topics

Section 14881Survey u/s 133A31Section 143(3)30Addition to Income29Capital Gains29Section 133A25Section 2(14)25Section 10(1)24Section 14A19

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of revenue is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

ITA 316/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Apr 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, C.A. &For Respondent: Ms. M Narmada, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 36(1)(vila)

section 14A, it is not\nmaterial that assessee should have earned such exempt income during the financial\nyear under consideration.\n4.6 In view of the above discussions and also having regard to the accounts of the\nassessee, the correctness of the claim of the assessee in respect of such expenditure\nin relation to exempt income in not proved beyond doubt

Showing 1–20 of 151 · Page 1 of 8

...
Deduction16
Section 80I15
Section 153C14

DODLA DAIRY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE -8(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 466/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Us:

For Appellant: Shri Aashik Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. U. Mini Chandran
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 80Section 801BSection 80J

Section 80IB(11A) of the Act, were duly filed online by Mr. PSRVV Surya Rao, Chartered Accountant 79 ITA TP 466/Hyd/2022 and 1301/Hyd/2024 Dodla Dairy Limited. [Membership No. 202367], Partner at A. Ramachandra Rao & Co. [FRN no. 002857S]; (iii). that the signed copies of all the “Form 10CCBs” (alongwith the screenshots of the acknowledgments downloaded from the Income

ACIT., CIRCLE-1(1), TIRUPATI vs. PONNAMBALAM KRISHNAN, CHITTOOR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue and cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 655/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G, Accountnat Member & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.655/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2017-18) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Shri Ponnambalam Krishnan, Tax, Circle 1(1), Tirupati. Vs. Ekjambarakuppam, Chittoor, A.P. Pan : Bedpk5641B (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.11/Hyd/2024 (Assessment Year:2017-18) (By Assessee) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri E. Phalguna Kumar, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Srinath Sadanala,Sr-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of 10/09/2024 Hearing: घोर्णध की रीख/Pronouncement: 20/09/2024

For Appellant: Shri E. Phalguna Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala,SR-DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 40Section 68

section 40(a)(ia) during the assessment proceedings. The Ld.CIT (A) restricted the addition to Rs.63,860/- from Rs.20,67,263/-. (4) The assessee failed to furnish the proof for additions made to fixed assets along with copy of invoices as called for u/s. 142(1) leading to disallowance of depreciation claimed for Rs.53,293

ANDHRA PRADESH INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE CORPORATION LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 681/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri B. Satyanarayana MurthyFor Respondent: : Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

293/- in accordance with the Rule 8D(2)(ii) & (iii) of the I.T. Rules, 1962 (“the Rules”). The Ld. CIT(A) also upheld the addition made by the Ld. AO. 9. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 10. The Ld. AR submitted that under the similar issue in assessee

ANDHRA PRADESH INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE CORPORATION LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 680/HYD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri B. Satyanarayana MurthyFor Respondent: : Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

293/- in accordance with the Rule 8D(2)(ii) & (iii) of the I.T. Rules, 1962 (“the Rules”). The Ld. CIT(A) also upheld the addition made by the Ld. AO. 9. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 10. The Ld. AR submitted that under the similar issue in assessee

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

disallowed the claim of deduction of Rs.16,99,10,673 u/s 80IB(10) of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT (A), who confirmed the order of the AO and the assessee is in second appeal before us. 7. The learned Counsel for the assessee, reiterating the submissions made before the authorities below, submitted that though

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

disallowed the claim of deduction of Rs.16,99,10,673 u/s 80IB(10) of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT (A), who confirmed the order of the AO and the assessee is in second appeal before us. 7. The learned Counsel for the assessee, reiterating the submissions made before the authorities below, submitted that though

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

disallowed the claim of deduction of Rs.16,99,10,673 u/s 80IB(10) of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT (A), who confirmed the order of the AO and the assessee is in second appeal before us. 7. The learned Counsel for the assessee, reiterating the submissions made before the authorities below, submitted that though

SATISH KUMAR SINHA,HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERS ,WARD -4(1) ,HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 293/HYD/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Aug 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Deviassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Smt. C.S.Sree LekhaFor Respondent: Sri Waseem-ur-Rehman,DR
Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

293 of 2021 Satish Kumar Sinha Hyderabad the disallowance before learned CIT(A) but he raised an additional ground before us challenging the said disallowance. It is the contention of the assessee that the employees contribution to ESI and PF though, was not paid within the due date as prescribed under section

DAPPU NAVEEN KUMAR (HUF),HYDERABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE 8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 1546/HYD/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Oct 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal &
Section 133ASection 148Section 2(14)

disallowance of expenditure claimed by the respective assessees towards sale of their extent of land. 8. Aggrieved, the assessee is in second appeal before us by raising the following revised and additional grounds of appeal: “1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (A) is against the law, weight Rs.1,82,82,192/- of evidence and probabilities

KONDE NARASIMHA (HUF),HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE 8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 1590/HYD/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Oct 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal &
Section 133ASection 148Section 2(14)

disallowance of expenditure claimed by the respective assessees towards sale of their extent of land. 8. Aggrieved, the assessee is in second appeal before us by raising the following revised and additional grounds of appeal: “1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (A) is against the law, weight Rs.1,82,82,192/- of evidence and probabilities

SRI JILAKARA NARASIMHA, R.R. DIST,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE -8(1),, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 54/HYD/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Oct 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal &
Section 133ASection 148Section 2(14)

disallowance of expenditure claimed by the respective assessees towards sale of their extent of land. 8. Aggrieved, the assessee is in second appeal before us by raising the following revised and additional grounds of appeal: “1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (A) is against the law, weight Rs.1,82,82,192/- of evidence and probabilities

DAPPU NARASIMHA ( LARGER HUF),HYDERABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE 8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 1545/HYD/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Oct 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal &
Section 133ASection 148Section 2(14)

disallowance of expenditure claimed by the respective assessees towards sale of their extent of land. 8. Aggrieved, the assessee is in second appeal before us by raising the following revised and additional grounds of appeal: “1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (A) is against the law, weight Rs.1,82,82,192/- of evidence and probabilities

DAPPU RAMULU (HUF),HYDERABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE 8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 1543/HYD/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Oct 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal &
Section 133ASection 148Section 2(14)

disallowance of expenditure claimed by the respective assessees towards sale of their extent of land. 8. Aggrieved, the assessee is in second appeal before us by raising the following revised and additional grounds of appeal: “1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (A) is against the law, weight Rs.1,82,82,192/- of evidence and probabilities

JILKARA CHINNA SATAIAH (HUF),HYDERABAD vs. ASST.CIT,CIRCLE - 8(1),, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 209/HYD/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Oct 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal &
Section 133ASection 148Section 2(14)

disallowance of expenditure claimed by the respective assessees towards sale of their extent of land. 8. Aggrieved, the assessee is in second appeal before us by raising the following revised and additional grounds of appeal: “1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (A) is against the law, weight Rs.1,82,82,192/- of evidence and probabilities

DAPPU NARASIMHA (HUF), RR DIST,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 915/HYD/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Oct 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal &
Section 133ASection 148Section 2(14)

disallowance of expenditure claimed by the respective assessees towards sale of their extent of land. 8. Aggrieved, the assessee is in second appeal before us by raising the following revised and additional grounds of appeal: “1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (A) is against the law, weight Rs.1,82,82,192/- of evidence and probabilities

KONDE MALLESH(HUF),HYDERABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE 8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 1541/HYD/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Oct 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal &
Section 133ASection 148Section 2(14)

disallowance of expenditure claimed by the respective assessees towards sale of their extent of land. 8. Aggrieved, the assessee is in second appeal before us by raising the following revised and additional grounds of appeal: “1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (A) is against the law, weight Rs.1,82,82,192/- of evidence and probabilities

MALI CHANDRASEKHAR (HUF), R.R. DISTRICT,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 913/HYD/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Oct 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal &
Section 133ASection 148Section 2(14)

disallowance of expenditure claimed by the respective assessees towards sale of their extent of land. 8. Aggrieved, the assessee is in second appeal before us by raising the following revised and additional grounds of appeal: “1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (A) is against the law, weight Rs.1,82,82,192/- of evidence and probabilities

MALI NARASIMHA (HUF), R.R. DISTRICT,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 914/HYD/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Oct 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal &
Section 133ASection 148Section 2(14)

disallowance of expenditure claimed by the respective assessees towards sale of their extent of land. 8. Aggrieved, the assessee is in second appeal before us by raising the following revised and additional grounds of appeal: “1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (A) is against the law, weight Rs.1,82,82,192/- of evidence and probabilities

KONDE ANJAIAH (HUF),HYDERABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE 8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 1539/HYD/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Oct 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal &
Section 133ASection 148Section 2(14)

disallowance of expenditure claimed by the respective assessees towards sale of their extent of land. 8. Aggrieved, the assessee is in second appeal before us by raising the following revised and additional grounds of appeal: “1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (A) is against the law, weight Rs.1,82,82,192/- of evidence and probabilities