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.

164 results for “disallowance”+ Section 10(2)(xv)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi183Mumbai164Jaipur42Chandigarh40SC39Hyderabad27Visakhapatnam23Guwahati22Kolkata17Bangalore16Jodhpur14Nagpur13Ahmedabad12Chennai12Surat12Pune9Raipur8Indore6Rajkot5Lucknow4Cuttack4Ranchi3Amritsar1Allahabad1Cochin1Dehradun1

Key Topics

Section 14A100Addition to Income76Section 143(3)63Disallowance54Deduction30Section 26329Natural Justice19Section 6817Capital Gains16Section 115J

TATA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADDL.C.I.T., RANGE-2(3), MUMBAI

ITA 3676/MUM/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2024AY 2005-06
For Respondent: Shri P.C Chhottary
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

xv)", "Section 10(34)", "Section 2(28A)", "Section 35D", "Section 37" ], "issues": "The primary issue was the disallowance of expenses

JYOTI AJIT KULKARNI,PUNE vs. DCIT CENT. CIR. 5(3), MUMBAI

ITA 5069/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2024AY 2007-08

disallowance of business expenses and addition for unexplained jewelry were partly or wholly deleted based on case law and circulars. The Revenue's appeal concerning commission was dismissed.", "result": "Assessee's appeals allowed (fully/partly), Revenue's appeal dismissed", "sections": [ "Section 132", "Section 153A", "Section 143(3)", "Section 41", "Section 68", "Section 69", "Section 10(4A)", "Section 10(2)(xv

Showing 1–20 of 164 · Page 1 of 9

...
15
Section 80I13
Section 2813

ASST CIT (LTU) 1, MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED (AS A SUCCESSOR TO ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1248/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Ms. A. Alankrutha, Sr. DR
Section 10BSection 115JSection 14ASection 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 37Section 40Section 43BSection 80I

disallowed under Section 43B. 42. The operative para of the said decision is as under: 6. We have carefully examined the scope and ambit of Section 43B of the Act. In our view, this section has two parts. The first part is that whether the interest paid in addition will at all be deductible under this section

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED (AS A SUCCESSOR TO ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT LTU, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1065/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Ms. A. Alankrutha, Sr. DR
Section 10BSection 115JSection 14ASection 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 37Section 40Section 43BSection 80I

disallowed under Section 43B. 42. The operative para of the said decision is as under: 6. We have carefully examined the scope and ambit of Section 43B of the Act. In our view, this section has two parts. The first part is that whether the interest paid in addition will at all be deductible under this section

CREDIT GUARANTEE FUND TRUST FOR MICRO AND SMALL ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (E) , MUMBAI

ITA 2684/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Karkhanis, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

disallowed deduction of Rs.9,92,75,616/- being 15% of the income derived by the assessee trust under section 11(1)(a) of the Act. The AO accordingly framed the assessment under section 143(3) read with section 144B of the Act. 7 M/s. Credit Guarantee Fund Trust For Micro And Small Enterprises 3. The assessee carried the matter before

JYOTI AJIT KULKARNI,PUNE vs. DCIT CENT. CIR. 5(3), MUMBAI

ITA 5070/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2024AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri ChandrasekharFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair – (SR DR)

disallowance of any\namount out of it by the ITO under section 10(4A).”\n“Section 10(4A) casts a duty and confers the power on the Income-tax\nOfficer not to allow any deduction in respect of any remuneration or\nbenefit or amenity to any director or any person who has a\n13\nITA No. 5067, 5069 Το

YES BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 2(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue and assessee he appeals of the Revenue and assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes

ITA 3501/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit-2(2)(2), M/S Yes Bank Ltd., Room No. 545, 5Th Floor, 9Th Floor, Nehru Centre, Discovery Of Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, India, Dr. Ab Road, Worli, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400018. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacy 2068 D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Yes Bank Ltd., Dcit-2(2)(2), 9Th Floor, Nehru Centre, Room No. 545, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Discovery Of India, Dr. Ab Vs. Bhavan, Road, Worli, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400018. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacy 2068 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh Thar/Ms. Ayushi ModaniFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, DR
Section 14ASection 251

disallowance of brokerage paid on HTM securities be deleted. paid on HTM securities be deleted. GROUND NO. IX: SETTING ASIDE TO THE AO THE GROUND GROUND NO. IX: SETTING ASIDE TO THE AO THE GROUND GROUND NO. IX: SETTING ASIDE TO THE AO THE GROUND ON SECTION 36(1)(viia) OF THE ACT: ON SECTION 36(1)(viia

DCIT-2(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. YES BANK LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue and assessee he appeals of the Revenue and assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes

ITA 3239/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit-2(2)(2), M/S Yes Bank Ltd., Room No. 545, 5Th Floor, 9Th Floor, Nehru Centre, Discovery Of Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, India, Dr. Ab Road, Worli, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400018. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacy 2068 D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Yes Bank Ltd., Dcit-2(2)(2), 9Th Floor, Nehru Centre, Room No. 545, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Discovery Of India, Dr. Ab Vs. Bhavan, Road, Worli, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400018. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacy 2068 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh Thar/Ms. Ayushi ModaniFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, DR
Section 14ASection 251

disallowance of brokerage paid on HTM securities be deleted. paid on HTM securities be deleted. GROUND NO. IX: SETTING ASIDE TO THE AO THE GROUND GROUND NO. IX: SETTING ASIDE TO THE AO THE GROUND GROUND NO. IX: SETTING ASIDE TO THE AO THE GROUND ON SECTION 36(1)(viia) OF THE ACT: ON SECTION 36(1)(viia

JYOTI AJIT KULKARNI,PUNE vs. DCIT CENT. CIR. 5(3), MUMBAI

In the result ground no. 3 raised by the assessee is allowed and AO is directed to give benefit on whole deposit of Rs

ITA 5067/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal- A.Y.2007-08 - A.Y.2008-09 - A.Y.2009-10 - A.Y.2010-11 - A.Y.2011-12 - A.Y.2012-13

For Appellant: Shri ChandrasekharFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair – (SR DR)

disallowance of any amount out of it by the ITO under section 10(4A).” “Section 10(4A) casts a duty and confers the power on the Income-tax Officer not to allow any deduction in respect of any remuneration or benefit or amenity to any director or any person who has a Mrs. JYOTI AJIT KULKARNI substantial interest

ACIT - 2(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. YES BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

ITA 3017/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2024AY 2015-16
Section 14ASection 251Section 35DSection 8D(2)

2)iii) to the suo moto disallowance\nmade by the Appellant.\n4. The Appellant prays that the AO be directed to restrict the\ndisallowance u/s. 14A of the Act, to the suo-moto disallowance made\nby the Appellant.\nGROUND NO. VII: ORDER MADE ON THE BASIS OF SURMISES AND\nASSUMPTIONS WHILE CONFIRMING DISALLOWANCE U/S. 35D OF\nTHE

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

ITA 709/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Pradip Kapasi CAFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Akhade CIT DR
Section 10Section 132Section 139Section 143Section 153A

disallowance of exemption under section 10 (38) of the act for all these assessment years so far as jurisdiction is concerned. 034. Of course, merits of each of the addition would be decided separately as per separate grounds raised. 035. With respect to the argument of the assessee that for assessment year 2015 – 16 an intimation was issued on 19/1/2016

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

ITA 711/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Pradip Kapasi CAFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Akhade CIT DR
Section 10Section 132Section 139Section 143Section 153A

disallowance of exemption under section 10 (38) of the act for all these assessment years so far as jurisdiction is concerned. 034. Of course, merits of each of the addition would be decided separately as per separate grounds raised. 035. With respect to the argument of the assessee that for assessment year 2015 – 16 an intimation was issued on 19/1/2016

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

ITA 718/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Pradip Kapasi CAFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Akhade CIT DR
Section 10Section 132Section 139Section 143Section 153A

disallowance of exemption under section 10 (38) of the act for all these assessment years so far as jurisdiction is concerned. 034. Of course, merits of each of the addition would be decided separately as per separate grounds raised. 035. With respect to the argument of the assessee that for assessment year 2015 – 16 an intimation was issued on 19/1/2016

MOHAN GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRLE - 5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

ITA 2089/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Pradip Kapasi CAFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Akhade CIT DR
Section 10Section 132Section 139Section 143Section 153A

disallowance of exemption under section 10 (38) of the act for all these assessment years so far as jurisdiction is concerned. 034. Of course, merits of each of the addition would be decided separately as per separate grounds raised. 035. With respect to the argument of the assessee that for assessment year 2015 – 16 an intimation was issued on 19/1/2016

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

ITA 712/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Pradip Kapasi CAFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Akhade CIT DR
Section 10Section 132Section 139Section 143Section 153A

disallowance of exemption under section 10 (38) of the act for all these assessment years so far as jurisdiction is concerned. 034. Of course, merits of each of the addition would be decided separately as per separate grounds raised. 035. With respect to the argument of the assessee that for assessment year 2015 – 16 an intimation was issued on 19/1/2016

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

ITA 710/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Pradip Kapasi CAFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Akhade CIT DR
Section 10Section 132Section 139Section 143Section 153A

disallowance of exemption under section 10 (38) of the act for all these assessment years so far as jurisdiction is concerned. 034. Of course, merits of each of the addition would be decided separately as per separate grounds raised. 035. With respect to the argument of the assessee that for assessment year 2015 – 16 an intimation was issued on 19/1/2016

MOHAN THANKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

ITA 713/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Pradip Kapasi CAFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Akhade CIT DR
Section 10Section 132Section 139Section 143Section 153A

disallowance of exemption under section 10 (38) of the act for all these assessment years so far as jurisdiction is concerned. 034. Of course, merits of each of the addition would be decided separately as per separate grounds raised. 035. With respect to the argument of the assessee that for assessment year 2015 – 16 an intimation was issued on 19/1/2016

ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI vs. HDFC LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 3785/MUM/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate and Shri Ninad Patade, CAFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT DR
Section 1

XV. Additional claim of the Assessee with regard to inadvertent suo- moto disallowance made during the course of the assessment proceedings. XVI. Refund of excess dividend distribution tax (DDT). XVII. Transfer pricing adjustment in respect of specified domestic transactions (SDT) covered by section 40A(2)(b). XVIII. Disallowance of year-end provisions. XIX. Increasing the book profit computed u/s. 115JB

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

ITA 5033/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate and Shri Ninad Patade, CAFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT DR
Section 1

XV. Additional claim of the Assessee with regard to inadvertent suo- moto disallowance made during the course of the assessment proceedings. XVI. Refund of excess dividend distribution tax (DDT). XVII. Transfer pricing adjustment in respect of specified domestic transactions (SDT) covered by section 40A(2)(b). XVIII. Disallowance of year-end provisions. XIX. Increasing the book profit computed u/s. 115JB

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT 1(1), MUMBAI

ITA 2867/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate and Shri Ninad Patade, CAFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT DR
Section 1

XV. Additional claim of the Assessee with regard to inadvertent suo- moto disallowance made during the course of the assessment proceedings. XVI. Refund of excess dividend distribution tax (DDT). XVII. Transfer pricing adjustment in respect of specified domestic transactions (SDT) covered by section 40A(2)(b). XVIII. Disallowance of year-end provisions. XIX. Increasing the book profit computed u/s. 115JB