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.

45 results for “disallowance”+ Section 195(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,456Mumbai1,428Chennai588Bangalore514Ahmedabad309Kolkata286Jaipur195Hyderabad152Pune146Chandigarh94Cochin58Raipur56Surat52Karnataka52Rajkot52Visakhapatnam46Indore45Calcutta41Lucknow38Cuttack31Nagpur26Guwahati24Patna13SC10Allahabad8Dehradun8Agra8Panaji7Jodhpur6Telangana6Amritsar6Jabalpur4Ranchi2Orissa2ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Rajasthan1Kerala1Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Addition to Income38Section 10(38)30Section 143(3)27Disallowance21Section 143(2)18Section 6816Section 133A16Section 40A(3)14Deduction14Survey u/s 133A

THE ACIT, 5(1), INDORE vs. M/S. SYMBIOTIC PHARMALAB LTD., INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 373/IND/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Dec 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2009-10 Acit 5(1), M/S. Symbiotic Indore बनाम/ Pharmalab Ltd. 385, Vs. Pigdamber, Rau, Indore (Revenue) (Respondent) Pan: Aagcs9311 Revenue By Shri Ashima Gupta, Cit- Dr Respondent By Shri Ajay Tulsiyan & Kapil Shah, Cas Date Of Hearing: 29.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.12.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad, A.M: This Appeal Of Revenue Pertaining To A.Y. 2009-10 Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-Ii, Indore, (In Short ‘Cit(A)’), Dated 31.12.2015 Which Is Arising Out Of The Order U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961(Hereinafter Called As The ‘Act’) Framed On M/S. Symboitic Pharmalab Ltd. Itano.373/Ind/2016 05.12.2011 By Acit, 5(1) Indore. The Revenue Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Restricting The Addition Of Rs. 2,60,50,027/- To Rs.3,74,195/- & Addition Made By The Ao 'After Disallowing U/S 35(2Ab) Deleted To The Extent Of Rs. 2,56,75,832/- On Account Of R&D Expenditure Without Appreciating The Fact That The Assessing Officer Had Pointed Out That Disr Has Not Issue Report In Form 3Cl To Dgit Exemption & Even When No Satisfactory Clarification Was Given By The Assessee To The Ao.” “2.Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Deleting The Disallowance Of Rs. 9,97,920/- Made By The Ao On Account Of Foreign Exchange Loss Without Appreciating The Fact That The Assessing Officer Had Pointed Out That The Loss Claimed By The Assessee In The Year Of Fluctuation In The Rate Of Exchange Or The Same Is Allowable Only In The Year' Of Repayment Of Such Loans.”

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

Showing 1–20 of 45 · Page 1 of 3

12
Section 14A10
Section 699
Section 35

2,60,50,027/- is hereby directed to be restricted to Rs.3,74,195/-and the disallowance to the extent of -Rs.2,56,75,832/- is deleted. This ground of appeal is allowed. 10. From perusal of the above detailed findings of fact by Ld. CIT(A) which remains uncontroverted by the Ld. Departmental Representative(DR), we find that

THE ACIT, 1(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S. ANDRITZ HYDRO PVT. LTD., RAISEN

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

ITA 349/IND/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Feb 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

Section 143(3)Section 144C

section 9(1)(vi) and section 9(1)(vii)of the Act as well as under India- Austria Tax Treaty on which TDS was not made hence, the AO has rightly disallowed the same under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 6.5. We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused the material available

M/S ANDRITZ HYDRO PRIVATE LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS V A TECH HYDRO INDAI PVT. LTD.),MANDIDEEP vs. THE ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

ITA 316/IND/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Feb 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

Section 143(3)Section 144C

section 9(1)(vi) and section 9(1)(vii)of the Act as well as under India- Austria Tax Treaty on which TDS was not made hence, the AO has rightly disallowed the same under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 6.5. We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused the material available

M/S. ANDRITZ HYDRO PRIVATE LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS VA TECH HYDRO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

ITA 157/IND/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

Section 143(3)Section 144C

section 9(1)(vi) and section 9(1)(vii)of the Act as well as under India- Austria Tax Treaty on which TDS was not made hence, the AO has rightly disallowed the same under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 6.5. We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused the material available

THE DCIT, 1(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S. ANDRITZ HYDRO PVT. LTD., RAISEN

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

ITA 265/IND/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

Section 143(3)Section 144C

section 9(1)(vi) and section 9(1)(vii)of the Act as well as under India- Austria Tax Treaty on which TDS was not made hence, the AO has rightly disallowed the same under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 6.5. We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused the material available

ITO 2(5), INDORE vs. M/S I PARADISE INFOMEDIA P LTD., INDORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 813/IND/2018[13-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Nov 2022

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.D.RFor Respondent: Shri Santosh Deshmukh & Shri
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 5

disallowed under Section 40(a)(i) of the Act, which was, in turn, deleted by the Ld.CIT(A) with the following observations: “4.1.1The section 195 states that any person responsible for paving to a non-resident or a foreign company, any sum chargeable to tax under the Act is required to deduct tax at source at the rates

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -5(1), INDORE vs. M/S SUNDERDEEP CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. , INDORE

In the result both the appeals of the revenue vide ITA No

ITA 784/IND/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

195 6,121,220 2,151,975 449,875 285,000 3.5 The learned AO during the proceedings for AY 2013-14 had called 4 customers of the appellant company and had recorded their statements, These persons were Shri Nirmal Charid Tiwari, Shri Rampukar Tiwari, Shri Anil Malik and Shri Jagdish Narayan Prasad (Father of customer Dr. Shailender Kumar

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -5(1), INDORE vs. M/S SUNDERDEEP CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. , INDORE

In the result both the appeals of the revenue vide ITA No

ITA 786/IND/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

195 6,121,220 2,151,975 449,875 285,000 3.5 The learned AO during the proceedings for AY 2013-14 had called 4 customers of the appellant company and had recorded their statements, These persons were Shri Nirmal Charid Tiwari, Shri Rampukar Tiwari, Shri Anil Malik and Shri Jagdish Narayan Prasad (Father of customer Dr. Shailender Kumar

ACIT 2 (1), INDORE vs. M/S JILA INDUSTRIES LTD, DHAR

In the result this appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 806/IND/2018[10-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Feb 2022

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R.Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyanivirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2010-11 Acit-2(1), Indore M/S. Jiji Industries Ltd., (Formerly Known As बनाम/ Krishna Profiles Pvt. Ltd.), Vs. Plot No.316, Sejwaya, Billod, Dhar (Mp) (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A.N. - Aacck 1383 M Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ca Date Of Hearing: 02.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.02.2022

Section 143(3)

2 Jiji Industries Ltd. (formerly known as Krishna Profiles P. Ltd.) certain additions. Aggrieved by the order of assessment, the assessee filed appeal to Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) deleted additions and allowed the appeal. Being aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue has preferred this appeal and now before us. 4. Ground

DCIT- (CENTRAL)-3, INDORE vs. MRS. JATINDER KAUR BHATIA, KHANDWA

Appeals are dismissed and assessee’s

ITA 207/IND/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 132Section 153ASection 40A(3)Section 69

disallowance made by CIT(A). Consequently, we uphold order of CIT(A) and the grounds raised by revenue are dismissed. Page 14 of 46 Mrs. Jatinder Kaur Bhatia ITA Nos. 206 & 207/Ind/2023 & ITANo.227/Ind/2023 AY 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2018-19 Ground No. 3 to 5: 14. In these grounds, the revenue has challenged the CIT(A)’s action of deleting

DCIT- (CENTRAL)-3, INDORE vs. MRS. JATINDER KAUR BHATIA, KHANDWA

Appeals are dismissed and assessee’s

ITA 206/IND/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 132Section 153ASection 40A(3)Section 69

disallowance made by CIT(A). Consequently, we uphold order of CIT(A) and the grounds raised by revenue are dismissed. Page 14 of 46 Mrs. Jatinder Kaur Bhatia ITA Nos. 206 & 207/Ind/2023 & ITANo.227/Ind/2023 AY 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2018-19 Ground No. 3 to 5: 14. In these grounds, the revenue has challenged the CIT(A)’s action of deleting

MRS. JATINDER KAUR BHATIA,KHANDWA vs. ACIT- (CENTRAL) UJJAIN, UJJAIN

Appeals are dismissed and assessee’s

ITA 227/IND/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 132Section 153ASection 40A(3)Section 69

disallowance made by CIT(A). Consequently, we uphold order of CIT(A) and the grounds raised by revenue are dismissed. Page 14 of 46 Mrs. Jatinder Kaur Bhatia ITA Nos. 206 & 207/Ind/2023 & ITANo.227/Ind/2023 AY 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2018-19 Ground No. 3 to 5: 14. In these grounds, the revenue has challenged the CIT(A)’s action of deleting

DCIT (CENTRAL), BHOPAL vs. SHAILENDRA SHARMA, BHOPAL

In the result the appeals of the assessee for the Assessment

ITA 305/IND/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 142(1)Section 153A

195), it was held/averred, as follows, by the Hon'ble ITAT: "In order to give a different colour, the Id. DR contended that this disallowance was made on protective basis only and hence cannot be equated with the substantive disallowance. We have noted above about the validity and presumption of the protective assessment in general. Protective assessment cannot be pendent

GOPAL MUWEL,MANAWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DHAR

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

ITA 554/IND/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshigopal Muwel, Ito बनाम/ Morad, Manawar, Dhar Vs. Dhar (Pan: Caapm6256Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Lucky Singhal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 27.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 06.02.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 253Section 44ASection 57

195 (Madras HC), genuine business expenses cannot be disallowed solely because they are cash-paid OR supported by self-made vouchers, especially when their necessity is commercially evident.” 3. Record of Hearing 3.1 The hearing in the matter took place before this Tribunal on 27.01.2026 when the Ld. AR for & on behalf of the Assessee appeared before us & interalia contended

DECENT INDUSTRIES P. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. ITO-1(2), BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 356/IND/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani(Virtual Hearing) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Decent Industries Ito-1(2), Private Ltd, Bhopal 5Th Floor, Corporate Park, बनाम/ Db City Area Hills, Vs. Opp. M.P. Nagar Zone I, Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaeca6271G Assessee By Ms. Shilpa Gupta & Shri N.K. Gupta Revenue By Shri V.K. Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 04.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.08.2024

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 68

disallowance of expenses u/s 14A. Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal and made detailed Page 3 of 44 M/s Decent Industries Pvt. Ltd ITA No. 356/Ind/2023 – AY 2012-13 submissions but did not get any success. Still aggrieved, the assessee has come in next appeal before us. 3. The grounds raised by assessee are as under

CRISP SOCIETY ,BHOPAL vs. DCIT EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 298/IND/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Goyal & Shri
Section 11Section 2(15)

disallowance u/s. 11 and taxing entire income of the appellant as business income, contrary to the facts and without considering provisions of section 11 of the Act. 3. The ld CIT(A) erred in applying the provisos to section 2(15) and therefore treating Rs. 1,50,21,153 as business income from trade and commerce. (Tax Effect

CRISP SOCIETY,BHOPAL vs. DCIT -EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 297/IND/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Goyal & Shri
Section 11Section 2(15)

disallowance u/s. 11 and taxing entire income of the appellant as business income, contrary to the facts and without considering provisions of section 11 of the Act. 3. The ld CIT(A) erred in applying the provisos to section 2(15) and therefore treating Rs. 1,50,21,153 as business income from trade and commerce. (Tax Effect

SMT. MAMTA SINGH,INDORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 3(1), INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 306/IND/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2013-14 Smt. Mamta Singh Vs Acit-3(1) Ef-14, Scheme No.54, Indore Vijay Nagar, Indore

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145Section 145(3)Section 2Section 45

disallowance of Rs 8,97,000/- made by AO while computing income from sale of the above lands in respect of brokerage expenses incurred by appellant for sale of above lands.” 3. Ground No. 1 & 2. Apropos Ground No. 1 & 2 at the outset Ld. Counsel for the assessee requested for not pressing these grounds, therefore Ground No. 1& 2

SHRI DWARKA PRASAD TAYAL ,SENDHWA vs. THE ITO , KHARGON

In the result appeal of the assessee ITA No

ITA 284/IND/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Oct 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2011-12

Section 142(1)(ii)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80C

195 of the Compilation. On perusal of the same, it is evident that, time allowed to submit the report was till 15-04- 2014. The extension was sought by the Auditor on 23-04-2014 which was not correct. Since, the extension in any case be sought on or before 15-04-2014. After expiry of the time as allowed

THE ITO , SENDHWA vs. SHRI DWARKA PRASAD TAYAL , SENDHWA

In the result appeal of the assessee ITA No

ITA 334/IND/2018[11-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Oct 2020

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2011-12

Section 142(1)(ii)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80C

195 of the Compilation. On perusal of the same, it is evident that, time allowed to submit the report was till 15-04- 2014. The extension was sought by the Auditor on 23-04-2014 which was not correct. Since, the extension in any case be sought on or before 15-04-2014. After expiry of the time as allowed