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.

10,125 results for “disallowance”+ Section 18clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai10,125Delhi8,771Bangalore3,133Chennai2,820Kolkata2,615Ahmedabad2,052Pune1,767Hyderabad1,446Jaipur1,403Chandigarh818Surat811Indore754Raipur487Visakhapatnam459Cochin386Rajkot355Amritsar348Cuttack347Karnataka331Nagpur299Lucknow235Agra156Jodhpur154Guwahati141Panaji131Ranchi100Allahabad99Telangana99SC99Patna69Calcutta60Dehradun57Jabalpur37Kerala37Varanasi34Punjab & Haryana8Orissa6A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN6Rajasthan5Himachal Pradesh4Gauhati2A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1Tripura1D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1ANIL R. DAVE AMITAVA ROY L. NAGESWARA RAO1RANJAN GOGOI PRAFULLA C. PANT1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)74Section 14A72Addition to Income63Disallowance49Section 1031Deduction29Section 25026Section 14724Section 115J24Section 271(1)(c)

D.C.I.T. CENT. CIR. - 7(2), MUMBAI vs. RAJAHMUNDHRY EXPRESSWAY LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals are dismissed

ITA 6487/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri G. Manjunatha

disallowance under section 80IA of the Act is wholly 18 Rajahmundry Expressway Ltd. without jurisdiction, hence, untenable. As regards the merits

ELARA CAPITAL (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT- CIRCLE 6(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1569/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Elara Capital (India) Pvt. Ltd., The Acit-Circle 6(2)(2), Tower 3, 21St Floor, One Room No. 506, 5Th Floor, Vs. International Center, Senapati Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Karve Road, Mumbai- Road (West), Mumbai-400013. 400020. Pan No. Aabce 6487 B Appellant Respondent

Showing 1–20 of 10,125 · Page 1 of 507

...
24
Section 26321
Penalty15
For Appellant: Mr. Milind Dattani
For Respondent: Mr. P.D. Chogule (Addl. CIT)
Section 14A

18 the disallowance under section 14A r.w.r. 8D was worked out with new methodology r.w.r. 8D was worked out with

STRIDES PHARMA SCIENCE LTD.,NAVI MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT -5(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result ITA number 1004/M/2021 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2016 – 17 is allowed

ITA 1004/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Strides Pharma Science Ltd. Dcit 15(1)(2) 201, Devavrata, Sector-17, Aayakar Bhavan, M K Road, Vs. Vashi, Navi Mumbai, 400703 Mumbai 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcs8104P

For Respondent: Ms Samruddhi Hande SR DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 92C

Disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii), Section 37 and Section 38 of the Act amounting to INR 15,34,55,236 (Page 9 to 18

BAJAJ ELECTRICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 2(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly we remit the impugned issue back to the AO with similar directions. The grounds raised by the assessee in this regard are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 110/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Rakesh Ranjan-CIT-DR &
Section 115Section 14ASection 250

section 14A 53,98,087 - Disallowance of Prior Period Expenditure 3,92,675 Total Addition in dispute before the Tribunal 57,90,762 Tax on Income at normal rates 17,37,229 Add: Surcharge @7.5% 1,30,292 18

DCIT 2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. BAJAJ ELECTRICALS LTD, MUMBAI

Accordingly we remit the impugned issue back to the AO with similar directions. The grounds raised by the assessee in this regard are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5749/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Rakesh Ranjan-CIT-DR &
Section 115Section 14ASection 250

section 14A 53,98,087 - Disallowance of Prior Period Expenditure 3,92,675 Total Addition in dispute before the Tribunal 57,90,762 Tax on Income at normal rates 17,37,229 Add: Surcharge @7.5% 1,30,292 18

BAJAJ ELECTRICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 2(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly we remit the impugned issue back to the AO with similar directions. The grounds raised by the assessee in this regard are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4172/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Rakesh Ranjan-CIT-DR &
Section 115Section 14ASection 250

section 14A 53,98,087 - Disallowance of Prior Period Expenditure 3,92,675 Total Addition in dispute before the Tribunal 57,90,762 Tax on Income at normal rates 17,37,229 Add: Surcharge @7.5% 1,30,292 18

APL LOGISTICS (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 10(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6480/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2022AY 2008-09
Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

section 14A r.w.r 8D can be made. We would also like to observe here that the provisions of Rule 8D were inserted by the Income Tax (5th Amendment) Rules 2008 w.e.f 24.03.2008. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. DCIT reported as 328 ITR 81 has held that the provisions

DCIT 10(1), MUMBAI vs. APL LOGISTICS (INDIA) P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6473/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2022AY 2008-09
Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

section 14A r.w.r 8D can be made. We would also like to observe here that the provisions of Rule 8D were inserted by the Income Tax (5th Amendment) Rules 2008 w.e.f 24.03.2008. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. DCIT reported as 328 ITR 81 has held that the provisions

APL LOGISTICS (INDIA) P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 10(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4150/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2022AY 2006-07
Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

section 14A r.w.r 8D can be made. We would also like to observe here that the provisions of Rule 8D were inserted by the Income Tax (5th Amendment) Rules 2008 w.e.f 24.03.2008. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. DCIT reported as 328 ITR 81 has held that the provisions

DCIT 10(1), MUMBAI vs. APL LOGISTICS (INDIA ) P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6471/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2022AY 2007-08
Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

section 14A r.w.r 8D can be made. We would also like to observe here that the provisions of Rule 8D were inserted by the Income Tax (5th Amendment) Rules 2008 w.e.f 24.03.2008. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. DCIT reported as 328 ITR 81 has held that the provisions

APL LOGISTICS (INDIA) P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 10(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6482/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2022AY 2007-08
Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

section 14A r.w.r 8D can be made. We would also like to observe here that the provisions of Rule 8D were inserted by the Income Tax (5th Amendment) Rules 2008 w.e.f 24.03.2008. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. DCIT reported as 328 ITR 81 has held that the provisions

APL LOGISTICS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 14(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2917/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2022AY 2009-10
Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

section 14A r.w.r 8D can be made. We would also like to observe here that the provisions of Rule 8D were inserted by the Income Tax (5th Amendment) Rules 2008 w.e.f 24.03.2008. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. DCIT reported as 328 ITR 81 has held that the provisions

SICOM LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesee is partly allow for statistical purpose and the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1694/MUM/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Nov 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judicialmember Sicom Ltd, Vs. Dy Commissioner Of Solitaire Corporate Income Tax Circle Park, Bldg No.04, 3(3)(1), Chakala, Andheri(E), 6Th Floor, Room No. Mumbai-400093. 609,Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai- 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं.Pan/Gir No. Aaacs5524J (अपीलाथ"/Applicant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Dy Commissioner Of Vs. Sicom Ltd, Income Tax Circle Solitaire Corporate Park, 3(3)(1), Bldg No.04, Chakala, 6Th Floor, Room No. Andheri(E), 609,Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400093. Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai- 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं.Pan/Gir No. Aaacs5524J (अपीलाथ"/Applicant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 10(34)Section 14ASection 234BSection 36(1)(ii)Section 36(1)(iii)

section 14A. After giving adjustment to Suo-moto disallowance of Rs.87,18,148 made by the appellant, the disallowance restricted

MACROTECH DEVELOPRS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(3), MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed

ITA 2239/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 928Section 92B

disallowance made under section 14A of the Act to the book profits computed under section 115JB of the Act. ITA Nos. 2266 & 2239/Mum/2022 Macrotech Developers Ltd; A.Ys. 17-18 & 18

MACROTECH DEVELOPERS LTD.(SUCCESSOR TO BELLISSIMO CROWN BUILDMART PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(3), MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed

ITA 2266/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 928Section 92B

disallowance made under section 14A of the Act to the book profits computed under section 115JB of the Act. ITA Nos. 2266 & 2239/Mum/2022 Macrotech Developers Ltd; A.Ys. 17-18 & 18

BAJAJ ELECTRICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 2(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly we remit the impugned\nissue back to the AO with similar directions. The grounds raised by the assessee in\nthis regard are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 111/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2025AY 2011-12
Section 115Section 14ASection 250

section 14A\nGround No. 1 to 15\n(ii) Adhoc Disallowance in respect of commission expenses - Ground No. 16 to 18

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

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

ITA 3238/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye, CIT
Section 14ASection 35DSection 40

Disallowance under Section 14A of the Act of ₹3,65,18,979/-. II. Disallowance of deduction under Section 35D of the Act of ₹2,82,80,291/-. III. Brokerage

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

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

ITA 3498/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye, CIT
Section 14ASection 35DSection 40

Disallowance under Section 14A of the Act of ₹3,65,18,979/-. II. Disallowance of deduction under Section 35D of the Act of ₹2,82,80,291/-. III. Brokerage

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

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

ITA 3500/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye, CIT
Section 14ASection 35DSection 40

Disallowance under Section 14A of the Act of ₹3,65,18,979/-. II. Disallowance of deduction under Section 35D of the Act of ₹2,82,80,291/-. III. Brokerage

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

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

ITA 3237/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye, CIT
Section 14ASection 35DSection 40

Disallowance under Section 14A of the Act of ₹3,65,18,979/-. II. Disallowance of deduction under Section 35D of the Act of ₹2,82,80,291/-. III. Brokerage