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.

24 results for “disallowance”+ Section 801B(9)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai221Delhi64Rajkot36Indore24Ahmedabad24Kolkata21Pune18Chennai13Bangalore13Hyderabad9Jaipur9Lucknow8Nagpur4Surat3Amritsar3Guwahati3Raipur2Jodhpur2Ranchi2Dehradun2Cochin2Agra1Karnataka1Chandigarh1Kerala1

Key Topics

Section 80I74Section 143(3)56Section 8045Section 14741Deduction24Section 801B(10)19Section 14817Addition to Income12Disallowance10Reopening of Assessment

D.K CONSTRUCTION,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO 2 (3), BHOPAL

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

ITA 23/IND/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanid. K Construction Ito 2(3) E 2/21, Pandit Deeendayal Bhopal Complex, Arera Colony, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaafd7121P Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit- Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing 04.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09 .09.2024

Section 158A(1)Section 256Section 257Section 261Section 801B(10)Section 80I

disallowing the claim for deduction under Section 801B (10) (a) of the Act, inspite of a finding of fact by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, the Ultimate fact finding Authority, that the Completion Certificate dated 24.12.2010 filed by the Petitioner clearly mentions that the project was completed in March, 2008? 4.1 As it is clear from the finding

Showing 1–20 of 24 · Page 1 of 2

8
Limitation/Time-bar7
Section 271(1)(c)6

SHRI ABHAY DARE,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO 1(1), BHOPAL

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

ITA 832/IND/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Abhay Dare Ito-1(1) R-18, Gtb Complex Bhopal New Market, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Adqpd5119C Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 31.07.2024

Section 801BSection 801B(10)Section 80I

disallowing the claim of deduction u/s 80IB on both grounds that the assessee has not developed the project but he has sold the Page 4 of 15 ITANo.832/Ind/2016 Abhay Dare individual plots to the buyers and then constructed the houses. Before the Tribunal the assesse has filed written submissions which are extracted as under: “The appellant is a builder

THE ACIT, -2(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTION, BHOPAL

ITA 159/IND/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Oct 2024AY 2010-11
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80Section 801B(10)Section 80I

disallowed qua three\nprojects undertaken by assessee, namely “D.K. Honey Homes”, “D.K.\nDevasthali\" and \"D.K. Cottage” for certain reasons as narrated in\nassessment-order. Aggrieved, the assessee filed first-appeals to CIT(A) and\nsucceeded. Now, the revenue has come in these appeals before us assailing\nthe orders of first-appeal passed by CIT(A).\n4.\nOriginally, the revenue/appellant filed

SHRI RAM BABU SINGH,INDORE vs. DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 328/IND/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Ram Babu Singh, Dcit-1(1) C/O Sv Agrawal & Associates, Bhopal Dadi Dham, 24, Joy Builders Colony, Vs. Near Rafael Tower, Old Palasia, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aelps9945K Assessee By S/Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.05.2024 & 03.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23 .07.2024

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

801B(10) on the profits derived from these projects. Page 9 of 14 ITANo.328/Ind/2023 Ram Babu Singh Further, as mentioned by the A.O, on physical inspection of the project by the District Valuation Officer, it was also found that the appellant had not constructed all the residential units having built up area of less than 1500 sq.ft. The appellant

M/S SAHARA STATES,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 271/IND/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Sept 2024AY 2007-08

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

Section 143(3)Section 801B(10)Section 80I

801B(10). 4. That the Id. CIT(A) has not correctly interpreted the provisions of section 80IB(10) which stood prior to 1.4.2005 and after their amendment from 1.4.2005 in the correct perspective and thereby confirming the denial of deduction to the appellant whose project was approved prior to 31.3.2004. 5. That the order passed

M/S SAHARA STATES,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 22/IND/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Sept 2024AY 2008-09

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

Section 143(3)Section 801B(10)Section 80I

801B(10). 4. That the Id. CIT(A) has not correctly interpreted the provisions of section 80IB(10) which stood prior to 1.4.2005 and after their amendment from 1.4.2005 in the correct perspective and thereby confirming the denial of deduction to the appellant whose project was approved prior to 31.3.2004. 5. That the order passed

M/S BALAJEE STERLING BUILDER,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT-1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, both of the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 597/IND/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 80Section 801B(10)Section 80I

801B(10) and hence the deduction claimed should not have been disallowed. It is respectfully submitted that the ground of appeal number 1 raised by the appellant firm may kindly be allowed and the addition to the returned income made by the assessing officer on account of disallowance of deduction u/s 80IB(10), amounting

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. PRATAAP SNACKS LIMITED, INDORE

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross-objection is allowed

ITA 372/IND/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

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

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80I

9. From a perusal of Section 4(2)(b) of the Act, it is clear that in respect of goods specified in Schedule-II(B), the tax would be levied @ 4 per cent, otherwise, it would be placed in the residuary category and would be charged @ 12.5 per cent. 10. In Bharat Forge & Press Industries (P) Ltd. v. Collector

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. PRATAAP SNACKS LIMITED, INDORE

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross-objection is allowed

ITA 370/IND/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

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

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80I

9. From a perusal of Section 4(2)(b) of the Act, it is clear that in respect of goods specified in Schedule-II(B), the tax would be levied @ 4 per cent, otherwise, it would be placed in the residuary category and would be charged @ 12.5 per cent. 10. In Bharat Forge & Press Industries (P) Ltd. v. Collector

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. PRATAAP SNACKS LIMITED, INDORE

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross-objection is allowed

ITA 371/IND/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

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

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80I

9. From a perusal of Section 4(2)(b) of the Act, it is clear that in respect of goods specified in Schedule-II(B), the tax would be levied @ 4 per cent, otherwise, it would be placed in the residuary category and would be charged @ 12.5 per cent. 10. In Bharat Forge & Press Industries (P) Ltd. v. Collector

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. PRATAAP SNACKS LIMITED, INDORE

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross-objection is allowed

ITA 373/IND/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

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

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80I

9. From a perusal of Section 4(2)(b) of the Act, it is clear that in respect of goods specified in Schedule-II(B), the tax would be levied @ 4 per cent, otherwise, it would be placed in the residuary category and would be charged @ 12.5 per cent. 10. In Bharat Forge & Press Industries (P) Ltd. v. Collector

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. PRATAAP SNACKS LIMITED, INDORE

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross-objection is allowed

ITA 374/IND/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

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

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80I

9. From a perusal of Section 4(2)(b) of the Act, it is clear that in respect of goods specified in Schedule-II(B), the tax would be levied @ 4 per cent, otherwise, it would be placed in the residuary category and would be charged @ 12.5 per cent. 10. In Bharat Forge & Press Industries (P) Ltd. v. Collector

INCOME TAX OFFICER -1(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. AGROH TOLL HIGHWAYS PRIVATE LIMITED, INDORE

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 344/IND/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiincome Tax Agroh Toll Highways Private बनाम/ Officer-1(1), Limited Vs. Indore Floor No.104, Krishna Harmony, 14/2 New Palasia, Indore, Indore (Pan:Aalca2341L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Soumya Bumb, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 25.03.2026 Date Of 27.03.2026 Pronouncement आदेश/ O R D E R

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 80Section 801ASection 801A(7)

disallowed the deduction under section 801A merely on a ground that the audit report was furnished after due date by the appellant. 5.5 Further, the appellant has submitted that furnishing of the auditors' report along with the return be treated as a procedural provision, and the exemption shall not be denied merely on the ground that the audit report

M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTION,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT, 2(1), BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

ITA 24/IND/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80

801B(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by not following the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Commissioner of Custom (Import) Mumbai Vs. Dilip Kumar and Company & Others (TS-336-SC-2018- CUST) and Ram Nath & Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Civil Appeal

THE ACIT (CENTRAL)-I, BHOPAL vs. M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTION, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

ITA 37/IND/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80

801B(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by not following the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Commissioner of Custom (Import) Mumbai Vs. Dilip Kumar and Company & Others (TS-336-SC-2018- CUST) and Ram Nath & Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Civil Appeal

THE ACIT (CENTRAL)-I, BHOPAL vs. M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTION, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

ITA 36/IND/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80

801B(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by not following the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Commissioner of Custom (Import) Mumbai Vs. Dilip Kumar and Company & Others (TS-336-SC-2018- CUST) and Ram Nath & Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Civil Appeal

THE ACIT (CENTRAL)-I, BHOPAL vs. M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTION, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

ITA 35/IND/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80

801B(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by not following the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Commissioner of Custom (Import) Mumbai Vs. Dilip Kumar and Company & Others (TS-336-SC-2018- CUST) and Ram Nath & Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Civil Appeal

THE ACIT (CENTRAL)-I, BHOPAL vs. M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTION, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

ITA 34/IND/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80

801B(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by not following the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Commissioner of Custom (Import) Mumbai Vs. Dilip Kumar and Company & Others (TS-336-SC-2018- CUST) and Ram Nath & Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Civil Appeal

THE ITO, - 2, ITARSI vs. M/S. MANISH KUMAR RAKESH KUMAR, HOSHAGABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 128/IND/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Apr 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2005-06

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80I

disallowing the appellant’s claim of deduction under section 80IB(11A) of the Act which was in turn deleted Manish Kumar Rakesh Kumar by the Learned CIT(A). Hence the instant appeal before us. In fact by and under an order dated 22.09.2015 the appeal preferred by the revenue against the order dated 15.12.2014 passed by the Learned

THE ACIT, CIRCLE, RATLAM vs. M/S. MAHALAXMI INVESTMENT AND TRADING PVT. LTD., RATLAM

ITA 956/IND/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 May 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Miss Madhumita Roy

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80I

section 80IB of the Act and also disallowed purchase at Rs.51,116/- alleged to be bogus purchase. Income assessed at Rs.1,41,58,310/-. 8. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and partly succeeded as Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition for bogus purchase of Rs.51,116/-, allowed the claim of deduction u/s 80IB