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.

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

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai221Delhi64Rajkot36Indore24Ahmedabad24Kolkata21Pune18Chennai13Bangalore13Hyderabad9Jaipur9Lucknow8Nagpur4Surat3Amritsar3Guwahati3Raipur2Jodhpur2Ranchi2Dehradun2Cochin2Agra1Karnataka1Chandigarh1Kerala1

Key Topics

Section 153C21Section 80I19Section 26315Section 153A8Deduction7Section 801B6Disallowance6Section 143(1)5Section 80P4Section 115J

M/S ALLAHDAD TANNERY,KANPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 620/LKW/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow20 Aug 2025AY 2004-05
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 801BSection 80HSection 80ISection 8O

801B read with section 801A (9) /80IB (13) specifically provided\nthat where any amount of profits and gains of any Industrial taking of an\nassessee is claimed and allowed u/s 80IA for any assessment year, in\nsuch a situation deduction to the extent of such profits and gain shall not be\nallowed under any of sections 80HH to 8ORRA. That

M/S MODEL EXIM,KANPUR vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), KANPUR

3
Addition to Income3
Natural Justice2

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 137/LKW/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow05 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriam/S. Model Exim Pcit (Central) V. 624-C, Defence Colony, 7/81-B, Tilak Nagar, Jajmau, Kanpur-208010. Kanpur. Pan:Aadfm6163H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Swaran Singh, C.A. Respondent By: Smt Namita S. Pandey, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 29 10 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 05 11 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Swaran Singh, C.AFor Respondent: Smt Namita S. Pandey, CIT(DR)
Section 139Section 153CSection 153DSection 263Section 263(1)

9(1)(vii) thereof to deduct income tax at source from the sum of Rs. 36,37,279/- which he has debited in Profit & Loss account as ‘Sales promotion’. Therefore there was a clear cut liable for deduct tax at source and having failed in deducting the same amount was liable to be disallowed as per provisions of section

VIDYUT TRANSMISSION KARMACHARI VETAN BHOGI CREDIT COOPERATIVE SOCIETY,LUCKNOW vs. CPC BANGALORE/ITO-2(1), LUCKNOW

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 464/LKW/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow19 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

9 of the paper book. That the disallowance has been made merely because the return was filed beyond the due date specified u/s 139(1) accordingly filed u/s 139(4). Copy of acknowledgement for filing of ITR is at page 10 of the Paper book. It is prayed that the provisions of section 143(1)(a)(ii) state as under

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

801B) which disallowance is arbitrary and be deleted. 06. Because the CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that sale proceeds of licence of Rs.2,31,21,485 and duty draw back Rs.95,10,794/- are all part of the revenue account relating to and belonging to the industrial undertaking and its activity the same is eligible for deduction u/s.80IB

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

801B) which disallowance is arbitrary and be deleted. 06. Because the CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that sale proceeds of licence of Rs.2,31,21,485 and duty draw back Rs.95,10,794/- are all part of the revenue account relating to and belonging to the industrial undertaking and its activity the same is eligible for deduction u/s.80IB

M/S RAHMAN INDUSTRIES LTD,KANPUR vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI, KANPUR

ITA 528/LKW/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow10 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Rahman Industries Ltd. V. The Acit-6 184/167, Wazidpur, Jajmau Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aaacr6862N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Smt. Sheela Chopra, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 03 03 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 10 03 2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Sheela Chopra, CIT (DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37Section 801BSection 80I

801B, which disallowance is contrary to facts, bad in law and be deleted. 7. Because on a proper consideration of facts and circumstances of the case, even after the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Liberty India Vs. CIT, the facts of the case materially differ, the CIT(A) has erred on facts

M/S ALLIANCE BUILDERS & CONTRACTORS LTD.,KANPUR vs. ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KANPUR

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

ITA 126/LKW/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow05 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Alliance Builders & Asst.Commissioner Of V. Contractors Ltd Income Tax, Central Circle-2 C/O 24/4, The Mall, Kanpur. Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Allen Ganj, Kanpur. Pan:Aaeca8217A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28 11 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Shubham Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl
Section 115JSection 142Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 40aSection 80I

9. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming disallowance made by AO on account of travelling expenses of Rs.2,91,960/-. 10. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming disallowance made by AO on account of payment made to contractor by provision of section 40a(ia) of the Act. 11. That

SHIVA NEETI DEVELOPERS,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(4), KANPUR

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

ITA 699/LKW/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow21 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2014-15 Shiva Neeti Developers V. The Income Tax Officer 3A/185, Azad Nagar Ward 3(4) Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Abqfs8644D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Abhinav Mehrotra, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Amit Nigam, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 19 10 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 21 10 2022 O R D E R This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.8.2017 Of The Ld. Cit(A)-I, Kanpur For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds:

For Appellant: Shri Abhinav Mehrotra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Nigam, D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 44ASection 801BSection 80ASection 80I

801B, the deduction should been allowed on the basis that the decision favourable to the assessee should have been accepted. 7. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals-1) has further erred in law as well as on facts in not appreciating that provisions of section 80IB are incentive provisions and the same were to be liberally construed