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.

907 results for “disallowance”+ Section 153Cclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,107Mumbai907Chennai384Bangalore365Jaipur228Hyderabad168Cochin104Ahmedabad74Amritsar71Chandigarh66Pune61Indore60Kolkata55Guwahati42Allahabad42Nagpur33Visakhapatnam30Surat28Karnataka25Lucknow23Raipur22Rajkot16Dehradun14Cuttack13Agra11Kerala9Patna8Jodhpur5Calcutta3Rajasthan1Telangana1Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 153C167Section 153A104Addition to Income78Section 143(3)72Section 13243Disallowance37Section 143(2)25Search & Seizure23Section 14A22Section 148

D G LAND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -4(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year

ITA 404/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Respondent: Mr. Sanjeev Mehta a/w Saurabh
Section 132Section 4

disallowing of Rs.1,08,40,272/- being difference in stamp being difference in stamp duty value and sale price of some properties sold during the year, duty value and sale price of some properties sold during the year, duty value and sale price of some properties sold during the year, under section 43CA of the Act. under section 43CA

D G LAND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -4(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year

Showing 1–20 of 907 · Page 1 of 46

...
19
Section 14717
Bogus/Accommodation Entry16
ITA 403/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Respondent: Mr. Sanjeev Mehta a/w Saurabh
Section 132Section 4

disallowing of Rs.1,08,40,272/- being difference in stamp being difference in stamp duty value and sale price of some properties sold during the year, duty value and sale price of some properties sold during the year, duty value and sale price of some properties sold during the year, under section 43CA of the Act. under section 43CA

D G LAND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -4(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year

ITA 402/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Respondent: Mr. Sanjeev Mehta a/w Saurabh
Section 132Section 4

disallowing of Rs.1,08,40,272/- being difference in stamp being difference in stamp duty value and sale price of some properties sold during the year, duty value and sale price of some properties sold during the year, duty value and sale price of some properties sold during the year, under section 43CA of the Act. under section 43CA

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. JIVESH DEVELOPERS & PROPERTIES P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue‟s appeals are dismissed

ITA 5643/MUM/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Pradhan

disallowed assessee‟s claim of deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act for the assessment years 20050–06 to 2011–12. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid decision of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred appeals before the first appellate authority. 6. In the appeals preferred for assessment years 2005–06 to 2010– 11, wherein, proceedings were initiated under section

ESSEL MINING & INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year

ITA 1970/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Essel Mining & Industries Ltd., Dy. Cit, Central Circle-1(4), Industry House, 18Th Floor, 10, 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Building, Camac Street, Vs. Mk Road, Kolkata-700017. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaace 6607 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Jcit, Central Circle-1(4), M/S Essel Mining & Industries Room No. 902, Pratishtha Ltd., Bhavan, 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Vs. Industry House, 18Th Floor, 10, Building Annexe, Camac Street, Mumbai-400020. Kolkata-700017. Pan No. Aaace 6607 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Essel Mining & Industries Dy. Cit, Central Circle-1(4), Ltd., 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Building, Vs. Industry House, 18Th Floor, 10, Mk Road

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh Thar/
Section 132(1)Section 153C

153C r.w.s. was to start the computation of income under section 153 was to start the computation of income under section 153 153A with the last assessed income or last income upheld in 153A with the last assessed income or last incom 153A with the last assessed income or last incom appellate proceedings appellate proceedings and then add the disallowance

ESSEL MINING & INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year

ITA 1020/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Essel Mining & Industries Ltd., Dy. Cit, Central Circle-1(4), Industry House, 18Th Floor, 10, 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Building, Camac Street, Vs. Mk Road, Kolkata-700017. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaace 6607 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Jcit, Central Circle-1(4), M/S Essel Mining & Industries Room No. 902, Pratishtha Ltd., Bhavan, 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Vs. Industry House, 18Th Floor, 10, Building Annexe, Camac Street, Mumbai-400020. Kolkata-700017. Pan No. Aaace 6607 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Essel Mining & Industries Dy. Cit, Central Circle-1(4), Ltd., 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Building, Vs. Industry House, 18Th Floor, 10, Mk Road

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh Thar/
Section 132(1)Section 153C

153C r.w.s. was to start the computation of income under section 153 was to start the computation of income under section 153 153A with the last assessed income or last income upheld in 153A with the last assessed income or last incom 153A with the last assessed income or last incom appellate proceedings appellate proceedings and then add the disallowance

RUPAL KASHYAP MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC-4(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 6191/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 10(38)Section 127(2)Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153D

disallowed and taxed accordingly in the relevant years? Ans. Sir, I am not aware that D. B. (International) Stock Brokers Limited is a paper company or not. All documentary evidences including demat statement and contract notes pertaining to D. B. (International) Stock Brokers Limited within a week’s time. 5. Further, as is mentioned in the relevant para

RUPAL KASHYAP MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 6193/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 10(38)Section 127(2)Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153D

disallowed and taxed accordingly in the relevant years? Ans. Sir, I am not aware that D. B. (International) Stock Brokers Limited is a paper company or not. All documentary evidences including demat statement and contract notes pertaining to D. B. (International) Stock Brokers Limited within a week’s time. 5. Further, as is mentioned in the relevant para

RUPAL KASHYAP MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC-4(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 6192/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 10(38)Section 127(2)Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153D

disallowed and taxed accordingly in the relevant years? Ans. Sir, I am not aware that D. B. (International) Stock Brokers Limited is a paper company or not. All documentary evidences including demat statement and contract notes pertaining to D. B. (International) Stock Brokers Limited within a week’s time. 5. Further, as is mentioned in the relevant para

RUPAL KASHYAP MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 6195/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 10(38)Section 127(2)Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153D

disallowed and taxed accordingly in the relevant years? Ans. Sir, I am not aware that D. B. (International) Stock Brokers Limited is a paper company or not. All documentary evidences including demat statement and contract notes pertaining to D. B. (International) Stock Brokers Limited within a week’s time. 5. Further, as is mentioned in the relevant para

KREZ HOTEL & REALTY LTD,MUMBAI vs. JTCIT (OSD) CEN CIR 39, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4575/MUM/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: S/Shri Hari RahejaFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Meean
Section 132Section 153Section 153ASection 153CSection 2(22)(e)Section 36(1)(iii)

section 153C of the Income Tax Act and therefore the notice issued by the A.O. u/s 153 A r.w.s. 153C of the Income Tax Act is illegal, void, bad in law and /or without jurisdiction and therefore the impugned order is liable to be quashed. M/s. Krez Hotel & Realty Ltd. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case

KREZ HOTEL & REALTY LTD,MUMBAI vs. JTCIT (OSD) CEN CIR 39, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4574/MUM/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: S/Shri Hari RahejaFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Meean
Section 132Section 153Section 153ASection 153CSection 2(22)(e)Section 36(1)(iii)

section 153C of the Income Tax Act and therefore the notice issued by the A.O. u/s 153 A r.w.s. 153C of the Income Tax Act is illegal, void, bad in law and /or without jurisdiction and therefore the impugned order is liable to be quashed. M/s. Krez Hotel & Realty Ltd. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case

KREZ HOTEL & REALTY LTD,MUMBAI vs. JTCIT (OSD) CEN CIR 39, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4576/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: S/Shri Hari RahejaFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Meean
Section 132Section 153Section 153ASection 153CSection 2(22)(e)Section 36(1)(iii)

section 153C of the Income Tax Act and therefore the notice issued by the A.O. u/s 153 A r.w.s. 153C of the Income Tax Act is illegal, void, bad in law and /or without jurisdiction and therefore the impugned order is liable to be quashed. M/s. Krez Hotel & Realty Ltd. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case

KREZ HOTEL & REALTY LTD,MUMBAI vs. JTCIT (OSD) CEN CIR 39, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4577/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: S/Shri Hari RahejaFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Meean
Section 132Section 153Section 153ASection 153CSection 2(22)(e)Section 36(1)(iii)

section 153C of the Income Tax Act and therefore the notice issued by the A.O. u/s 153 A r.w.s. 153C of the Income Tax Act is illegal, void, bad in law and /or without jurisdiction and therefore the impugned order is liable to be quashed. M/s. Krez Hotel & Realty Ltd. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case

DCIT CEN CIR 2(3), MUMBAI vs. EMPIRE MALL P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are treated as dismissed on the ground that it is of academic importance whereas the cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1541/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh MehtaFor Respondent: Shri A.G. Bhatkar
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

disallowed a sum of `14,17,804/- for A.Y. 2007-08 and `17,48,744/- for A.Y. 2009-10 on the ground that it is capital expenditure incurred prior to commencement of business. 6. Aggrieved, assessee contended before the CIT(A) that the proceedings under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153C

DCIT CEN CIR 2(3), MUMBAI vs. EMPIRE MALL P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are treated as dismissed on the ground that it is of academic importance whereas the cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1543/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh MehtaFor Respondent: Shri A.G. Bhatkar
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

disallowed a sum of `14,17,804/- for A.Y. 2007-08 and `17,48,744/- for A.Y. 2009-10 on the ground that it is capital expenditure incurred prior to commencement of business. 6. Aggrieved, assessee contended before the CIT(A) that the proceedings under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153C

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENT. CIR. - 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1053/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale ()

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh Thar/ Ms. AyushiFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 148Section 153C

153C of the Act, the Assessing Officer again again questioned the assesseevide notice under section 142(1) dated 29/12//2015 ide notice under section 142(1) dated 29/12//2015, as ide notice under section 142(1) dated 29/12//2015 why the alleged professional fee of why the alleged professional fee of ₹10,53,83,193/ 193/-shown to have been

JCIT CENT. CIR. - 1(4), MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1557/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale ()

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh Thar/ Ms. AyushiFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 148Section 153C

153C of the Act, the Assessing Officer again again questioned the assesseevide notice under section 142(1) dated 29/12//2015 ide notice under section 142(1) dated 29/12//2015, as ide notice under section 142(1) dated 29/12//2015 why the alleged professional fee of why the alleged professional fee of ₹10,53,83,193/ 193/-shown to have been

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENT. CIR. - 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1054/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale ()

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh Thar/ Ms. AyushiFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 148Section 153C

153C of the Act, the Assessing Officer again again questioned the assesseevide notice under section 142(1) dated 29/12//2015 ide notice under section 142(1) dated 29/12//2015, as ide notice under section 142(1) dated 29/12//2015 why the alleged professional fee of why the alleged professional fee of ₹10,53,83,193/ 193/-shown to have been

JCIT CENT. CIR. - 1(4), MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1559/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Grasim Industries Limited, The Dcit Cc-1(4), Corporate Finance Division, Room No. 902, 9Th Floor, Old Vs. A-2, Aditya Birla Centre, S.K. Cgo Building, M.K. Road, Ahire Marg, Worli, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400030. Pan No. Aaacg 4464 B Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Jcit (Osd), Central Circle- Grasim Industries Limited, 1(4), A-Wing, 2Nd Floor, Aditya Room No. 902, Pratishtha Vs. Birla Centre, S.K. Ahire Bhavan, 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Marg, Worli, Building Annexe, Mumbai-400030. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacg 4464 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Yogesh Thar & Mr. Chaitanya Joshi Revenue By : Dr. Kishor Dhule, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 03/04/2024 : Date Of Pronouncement 29/04/2024

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh Thar &For Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153C

disallowances again in the proceedings under section 153C proceedings under section 153C r.w.. 153A of the IT Act is unwarranted