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.

78 results for “disallowance”+ Section 79clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai3,672Delhi2,952Bangalore1,188Chennai1,000Kolkata798Ahmedabad706Hyderabad385Jaipur363Indore326Surat255Pune234Chandigarh227Cochin171Raipur135Rajkot133Cuttack119Nagpur87Visakhapatnam84Lucknow78Karnataka78Amritsar73Allahabad52Calcutta46Ranchi34Guwahati33Agra32Jodhpur31Patna30Dehradun22Panaji21SC17Jabalpur15Varanasi15Telangana14Rajasthan4Punjab & Haryana3Kerala2Gauhati1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Uttarakhand1Orissa1

Key Topics

Section 1192Section 2(15)55Addition to Income55Section 12A46Section 143(3)40Section 14A40Disallowance34Exemption32Natural Justice25Section 263

DCIT, LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P. STATE SUGAR CORPORATION LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 587/LKW/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow16 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 14A

disallowance irrespective of the fact whether such income has been earned during the financial year or not.” I.T.A. No.227/Lkw/2020, 229/Lkw/20, 587/Lkw/19, 485/Lkw/19, 588/Lkw/19 4 I.T.A. No.588/Lkw/2019 “1. Learned CIT(A) had erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.5,79,43,101/- u/s 14A of the Act without appreciating the fact that Section

DCIT, RANGE-6, LUCKNOW vs. M/S. U.P. STATE SUGAR CORPORATION LTD.,, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 229/LKW/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow16 May 2025

Showing 1–20 of 78 · Page 1 of 4

24
Section 153C22
Section 14821
AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 14A

disallowance irrespective of the fact whether such income has been earned during the financial year or not.” I.T.A. No.227/Lkw/2020, 229/Lkw/20, 587/Lkw/19, 485/Lkw/19, 588/Lkw/19 4 I.T.A. No.588/Lkw/2019 “1. Learned CIT(A) had erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.5,79,43,101/- u/s 14A of the Act without appreciating the fact that Section

DCIT, LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P. STATE SUGAR CORPORATION LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 485/LKW/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow16 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 14A

disallowance irrespective of the fact whether such income has been earned during the financial year or not.” I.T.A. No.227/Lkw/2020, 229/Lkw/20, 587/Lkw/19, 485/Lkw/19, 588/Lkw/19 4 I.T.A. No.588/Lkw/2019 “1. Learned CIT(A) had erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.5,79,43,101/- u/s 14A of the Act without appreciating the fact that Section

DCIT, LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P. STATE SUGAR CORPORATION LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 588/LKW/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow16 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 14A

disallowance irrespective of the fact whether such income has been earned during the financial year or not.” I.T.A. No.227/Lkw/2020, 229/Lkw/20, 587/Lkw/19, 485/Lkw/19, 588/Lkw/19 4 I.T.A. No.588/Lkw/2019 “1. Learned CIT(A) had erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.5,79,43,101/- u/s 14A of the Act without appreciating the fact that Section

U.P. STATE SUGAR CORPORATION LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT, RANGE-VI, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 227/LKW/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow16 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 14A

disallowance irrespective of the fact whether such income has been earned during the financial year or not.” I.T.A. No.227/Lkw/2020, 229/Lkw/20, 587/Lkw/19, 485/Lkw/19, 588/Lkw/19 4 I.T.A. No.588/Lkw/2019 “1. Learned CIT(A) had erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.5,79,43,101/- u/s 14A of the Act without appreciating the fact that Section

M/S R.K. ENGINEERS SALES LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WARD - 3, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 124/LKW/2021[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 May 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2019-20 M/S R. K. Engineers Sales V. The Dcit Limited Ward 3 B-116, 1St Floor Lucknow Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aabcr8335D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Ms Shweta Mittal, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 17 05 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 05 2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Ms Shweta Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R
Section 139(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

79,500/-, disallowing a sum of Rs.3,38,458/- by applying the provisions of section 36(1)(va) of the I.T. Act. 3. Aggrieved

M/S MODEL TANNERS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,KANPUR vs. ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KANPUR

In the result, ITA No. 374/LKW/2017 is partly allowed while ITA No

ITA 374/LKW/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Jan 2026AY 2005-06
For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Jaiswal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Puneet Kumar, CIT DR
Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 801BSection 80I

79 (Gau) of 2012 dated 22.01.2015” It was further submitted that if the observation of the ld. AO was to be subscribed to then the order of the Hon’ble High Court would result in meaning that six assessment years was to be considered from the date of search as per section 153A and not as per the first proviso

M/S MODEL TANNERS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,KANPUR vs. ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KANPUR

In the result, ITA No. 374/LKW/2017 is partly allowed while ITA No

ITA 375/LKW/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Jan 2026AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Jaiswal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Puneet Kumar, CIT DR
Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 801BSection 80I

79 (Gau) of 2012 dated 22.01.2015” It was further submitted that if the observation of the ld. AO was to be subscribed to then the order of the Hon’ble High Court would result in meaning that six assessment years was to be considered from the date of search as per section 153A and not as per the first proviso

RAJDHANI NAGAR SAHKARI BANK LTD,LUCKNOW vs. DY.CIT, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 114/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 May 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: \nSh. K.R. Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: \nSh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 36(1)(v)Section 43B

disallowances should not be made on account of Section 14A of the Act. In response, the assessee submitted that the investment in shares was made out of its own fund. The assessee had sufficient reserves and surplus of Rs.15,99,55,165/-. The dividend income of Rs.96,370/- was received on account of old shares and no expenses had been

RAJDHANI NAGAR SAHKARI BANK LTD,LUCKNOW vs. DY.CIT, LUCKNOW

ITA 112/LKW/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 May 2025AY 2015-16
Section 36(1)(v)Section 43B

disallowances\nshould not be made on account of Section 14A of the Act. In response, the assessee\nsubmitted that the investment in shares was made out of its own fund. The assessee\nhad sufficient reserves and surplus of Rs.15,99,55,165/-. The dividend income of\nRs.96,370/- was received on account of old shares and no expenses had been

ABHAY BENARA,KANPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KANPUR

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

ITA 267/LKW/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow13 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2013-14 Abhay Benara, The Deputy V. Commissioner Of Income C/O 24/4, The Mall Kanpur-208001. Tax, Central Circle-1 Kanpur. Pan:Adlpb2007Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Adv. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 10 12 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 13 12 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl
Section 143(2)Section 57Section 68

79,271/- is being disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee.” 9. The Ld. CIT(A) affirmed the view of AO by observing as under : - “b. The second issue pertains to allowability of interest payment on the deposits/loans. It is seen that the assessee is running the business and for this business the borrowed money

RAJDHANI NAGAR SAHKARI BANK LTD,LUCKNOW vs. DY. CIT, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 113/LKW/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 May 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: \nSh. K.R. Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: \nSh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. CIT-
Section 36(1)(v)Section 43B

disallowances\nshould not be made on account of Section 14A of the Act. In response, the assessee\nsubmitted that the investment in shares was made out of its own fund. The assessee\nhad sufficient reserves and surplus of Rs.15,99,55,165/-. The dividend income of\nRs.96,370/- was received on account of old shares and no expenses had been

M/S. SHARANG PLAST ENGGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-6, LUCKNOW

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

ITA 431/LKW/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Jun 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: \nShri P. K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: \nShri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl
Section 143(3)Section 40ASection 40A(3)Section 48A(3)

section 40A(3A) and consequently the addition of Rs.6,73,200/- ought to have been deleted by the CIT(A).\n11, BECAUSE the order appealed against is contrary to the facts, law and principles of natural justice.”\n(B) In this case, assessment order dated 29/11/2017 was passed by the Assessing Officer (“AO”), u/s 143(3) of the Income

ROHILKHAND EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST,BAREILLY vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BAREILLY

In the result, both appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 182/LKW/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 Sept 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: \nSh. Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: \nSh. S.H. Usmani, CIT DR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 80GSection 80G(5)

disallowances that are\nrequired to be made can only be sustainable within the mandate of those\nprovisions.\n\n12.\nBefore we proceed to adjudicate upon the merits of the additions, it is\nimportant to address the legal grounds that have been raised by the assessee\nagainst the two assessments. In the assessment year 2017-18, the assessee has\ndrawn

ROHILKHAND EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST,BAREILLY vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BAREILLY

In the result, both appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 181/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.181 & 182/Lkw/2024 A.Ys.2017-18 & 2018-19 Rohilkhand Educational Vs. Dcit, Charitable Trust, Bareilly Central Circle, Bareilly Pan: Aaatr6902J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assesseeby: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Sh. S.H. Usmani, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.09.2025 O R D E R Per Bench: [ These Two Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Lucknow Dated 19.03.2024 & 22.03.2024, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, For The A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19, Dismissing The Appeals Of The Assessee Against Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “(1).That The Ld. Authorities Below Have Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Not Considering The Fact That In The Alleged Assessment Order, The Columns Of Name Of Assessee, Pan, Asst Year, Date Of Assessment & Section Under Which Passed, Are Blank. (2)That The Ld. Authorities Below Have Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Treating The Demand As Valid Which Was Not Computed On The Basis Of Orderthat May Not Be Termed To Be An Order Under Section 143(3). (3) That A Demand Of Tax As Computed In The Computation Sheet Is Without Jurisdiction Void-Ab-Inito & Is Liable To Be Annulled. (4) That The Ld. Authorities Below Have Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 736591857/-Comprising  Corpus Donation Aggregating To Rs 7,68,95,000/-, A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.H. Usmani, CIT DR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 13(3)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80GSection 80G(5)

disallowances that are required to be made can only be sustainable within the mandate of those provisions. 12. Before we proceed to adjudicate upon the merits of the additions, it is important to address the legal grounds that have been raised by the assessee against the two assessments. In the assessment year 2017-18, the assessee has drawn our attention

INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3), LUCKNOW vs. U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

In the result ITA Nos.532 & 533/Lkw/2014 and ITA Nos

ITA 533/LKW/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Feb 2025AY 2008-09
Section 11Section 12A

79 ITD 1 (Del).\nthe ld. CIT(A) held that in the case of the assessee, the purpose of\naccumulation of setting apart the income to attain the objects showed a lack of\napplication of mind and specificity as prescribed in section 11(2) of the Act. He,\ntherefore, held that if the contention of the assessee were

ACIT CIRCLE 3, LUCKNOW vs. RAJDHANI NAGAR SAHKARI BANK LTD, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 141/LKW/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Before Shri Kul Bharat & Before Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyshri Nikhil Choudharyshri Nikhil Choudharyita Nos. 112 To 114/Lkw/2024 A.Ys. 2015-16 To 2017-18 Rajdhani Nagar Sahkari Rajdhani Nagar Sahkari Vs. Dcit Bank Ltd P.K. Complex, Raja Ram Mohan P.K. Complex, Raja Ram Mohan 555Ga/86, Sardari Khera, 555Ga/86, Sardari Khera, Rai Marg, Lucknow-226001. 226001. Alambagh, Lucknow-226006 226006 Pan:Aaaar1269D (Appellant) (Respondent) (Respondent) A.Y.2016-17 Acit Circle-3 Vs. Rajdhani Nagar Sahkari Bank Rajdhani Nagar Sahkari Bank 57 Ram Tirath Marg Pratyaksh 57 Ram Tirath Marg Pratyaksh Ltd Kar Bhawan, Lucknow Kar Bhawan, Lucknow-226001 555Ga/86, Sardari Khera, 555Ga/86, Sardari Khera, Alambagh, Lucknow-226006 226006 Pan: Aaaar1269D (Appellant) (Respondent) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. K.R. Rastogi, C.A. Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Addl. Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: Date Of Pronouncement: 22.05.2025 O R D E R Per Bench.: These Four Appeals Have Been Have Been Filed For The Assessment Years 2015 For The Assessment Years 2015-16, 2016- 17 & 2017-18 By The Assessee & Revenue Ssessee & Revenue Against The Respective Orders Of The Respective Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 02.02.2024, 05.02.2024 & 05.02.2024 Delhi Dated 02.02.2024, 05.02.2024 & 05.02.2024. While The Delhi Dated 02.02.2024, 05.02.2024 & 05.02.2024 Assessee Is In Appeal In Assessment Years 2015 Assessee Is In Appeal In Assessment Years 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18, The Revenue 18, The Revenue

For Appellant: Sh. K.R. Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl
Section 36(1)(v)

disallowances should not be made on account of Section 14A of the Act. In response, the assessee submitted that the investment in shares was made out of its own fund. The assessee had sufficient reserves and surplus of Rs.15,99,55,165/-. The dividend income of Rs.96,370/- was received on account of old shares and no expenses had been

RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY,GONDA vs. DCIT/ACIT (CENTRAL)-2, LUCKNOW

ITA 348/LKW/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Dec 2025AY 2015-16
Section 145(3)Section 54FSection 69

disallowances of expenses on\nnon adherence of TDS provision under section 40A(3) of the Act, where profit is\nestimated.\n\n9. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in\ndeleting the addition of Rs.12,01,000/- computed addition of Rs.61,31,000/- \nagainst actual consideration of Rs.31

SUBHASH JAISWAL ASSOCIATES,BAREILLY vs. PCIT BAREILLY, BAREILLY

ITA 100/LKW/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Dec 2025AY 2017-18
Section 143(3)Section 263

disallowance made by\nhim - Held, yes\nWhere Section 45 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Capital gains - Chargeable\nas (Business income v. capital gains: share dealing) Assessment year\n2011-12 Assessing Officer made enquiry in respect of sale of shares and\nloss incurred by assessee on sale of such shares was allowed to be set\noff against profit on sale

ASTT. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW vs. M/S APCO INFRATECH PVT. LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, appeal of the Revenue and Cross Objection of the assessee are dismissed, as indicated above

ITA 66/LKW/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow05 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G. D. Padamahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2014-15 The Asstt. Commissioner V. M/S Apco Infratech Pvt. Ltd Of Income Tax B-9, Vibhuti Khand Central Circle Ii Gomti Nagar Lucnow Lucknow Pan:Aadca5639H (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.19/Lkw/2017 [In Ita No.66/Lkw/2017] Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Apco Infratech Pvt. Ltd V. The Asstt. Commissioner Of B-9, Vibhuti Khand Income Tax Gomti Nagar Central Circle Ii Lucknow Lucnow Pan:Aadca5639H (Cross Objector) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Kumar Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Neil Jain, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 194Section 80Section 80I

79,000/- since the Assessee has disputed the conduct of such transaction and such assertion has not been controverted or rebutted by the Revenue with any material or evidence. 3. Because on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) -3, Lucknow has grossly erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.3