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.

933 results for “disallowance”+ Section 1aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai933Delhi917Bangalore517Chennai351Kolkata208Ahmedabad167Jaipur144Hyderabad138Pune115Raipur95Cochin68Karnataka54Indore54Chandigarh53Surat43Cuttack30Nagpur29Rajkot26Panaji25SC20Visakhapatnam20Jodhpur19Lucknow18Guwahati14Ranchi12Telangana10Jabalpur10Agra8Patna6Varanasi6Amritsar5Dehradun3Kerala2Punjab & Haryana2Allahabad2Orissa1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Calcutta1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)51Addition to Income39Deduction38Section 20137Section 4036Disallowance36Section 10A30Section 201(1)28Section 14A26Section 153A

SUNBEAM MONOCHEM P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 8(2)(2), MUMBAI

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

ITA 524/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Ita No. 524 & 525/Mum/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 & 2017-18 Sunbeam Monochem (P) Ltd., Acit, Circle-8(2)(2), 201/B Runwal & Omkar E- Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Square, Opp. Sion Chunabhatti Mumbai-400020. Singnal, Eastern Express Highway, Sion (E) Mumbai-400 002. Pan No. Aabcs 8172 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Mayur Makadia, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Paresh Deshpande, Dr : Date Of Hearing 24/04/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 27/04/2023 Order

For Appellant: Mr. Mayur Makadia, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Paresh Deshpande, DR
Section 263

1A) read with Section 50 of the Act read with Section 50 of the Act and offered as ‘Capital and offered as ‘Capital Gains, if any, or there would be a resultant decrease in the Gains, if any, or there would be a resultant decrease in the Gains, if any, or there would be a resultant decrease in the claim

DCIT (OSD)(TDS)-2(3) , MUMBAI vs. TOTAL ENERGIES MARKETING INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Showing 1–20 of 933 · Page 1 of 47

...
22
Section 25021
TDS17

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 128/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, &For Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das &
Section 14Section 17Section 194HSection 201Section 36Section 4Section 6

1A) amounting to ₹ 61,767,495/–. Accordingly the assessee company was directed to pay the above defaulted amount of ₹ 128,184,156/–. 10. Assessee aggrieved with the above order preferred an appeal before National Faceless Appeal Centre Delhi (the learned CIT – A) who passed an appellate order on 14/11/2022 wherein he held that :- a) With respect to the tax deduction

DCIT (OSD)(TDS)-2(3), MUMBAI vs. TOTAL ENERGIES MARKETING INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 130/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, &For Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das &
Section 14Section 17Section 194HSection 201Section 36Section 4Section 6

1A) amounting to ₹ 61,767,495/–. Accordingly the assessee company was directed to pay the above defaulted amount of ₹ 128,184,156/–. 10. Assessee aggrieved with the above order preferred an appeal before National Faceless Appeal Centre Delhi (the learned CIT – A) who passed an appellate order on 14/11/2022 wherein he held that :- a) With respect to the tax deduction

DCIT (OSD)(TDS)-2(3) , MUMBAI vs. TOTAL ENERGIES MARKETING INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 131/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, &For Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das &
Section 14Section 17Section 194HSection 201Section 36Section 4Section 6

1A) amounting to ₹ 61,767,495/–. Accordingly the assessee company was directed to pay the above defaulted amount of ₹ 128,184,156/–. 10. Assessee aggrieved with the above order preferred an appeal before National Faceless Appeal Centre Delhi (the learned CIT – A) who passed an appellate order on 14/11/2022 wherein he held that :- a) With respect to the tax deduction

DCIT (OSD)(TDS)-2(3), MUMBAI vs. TOTAL ENERGIES MARKETING INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 129/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, &For Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das &
Section 14Section 17Section 194HSection 201Section 36Section 4Section 6

1A) amounting to ₹ 61,767,495/–. Accordingly the assessee company was directed to pay the above defaulted amount of ₹ 128,184,156/–. 10. Assessee aggrieved with the above order preferred an appeal before National Faceless Appeal Centre Delhi (the learned CIT – A) who passed an appellate order on 14/11/2022 wherein he held that :- a) With respect to the tax deduction

DCIT (OSD)(TDS)-2(3), MUMBAI vs. TOTAL ENERGIES MARKETINGS INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 127/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, &For Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das &
Section 14Section 17Section 194HSection 201Section 36Section 4Section 6

1A) amounting to ₹ 61,767,495/–. Accordingly the assessee company was directed to pay the above defaulted amount of ₹ 128,184,156/–. 10. Assessee aggrieved with the above order preferred an appeal before National Faceless Appeal Centre Delhi (the learned CIT – A) who passed an appellate order on 14/11/2022 wherein he held that :- a) With respect to the tax deduction

DCIT (OSD)(TDS)-2(3), MUMBAI vs. TOTAL ENERGIES MARKETING INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 132/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, &For Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das &
Section 14Section 17Section 194HSection 201Section 36Section 4Section 6

1A) amounting to ₹ 61,767,495/–. Accordingly the assessee company was directed to pay the above defaulted amount of ₹ 128,184,156/–. 10. Assessee aggrieved with the above order preferred an appeal before National Faceless Appeal Centre Delhi (the learned CIT – A) who passed an appellate order on 14/11/2022 wherein he held that :- a) With respect to the tax deduction

DCIT (OSD)(TDS)-2(3), MUMBAI vs. TOTAL ENERGIES MARKETING INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 133/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Aug 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, &For Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das &
Section 14Section 17Section 194HSection 201Section 36Section 4Section 6

1A) amounting to ₹ 61,767,495/–. Accordingly the assessee company was directed to pay the above defaulted amount of ₹ 128,184,156/–. 10. Assessee aggrieved with the above order preferred an appeal before National Faceless Appeal Centre Delhi (the learned CIT – A) who passed an appellate order on 14/11/2022 wherein he held that :- a) With respect to the tax deduction

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

1A) of the act for not withholding tax under section 195 of the income tax act pertaining to the payment ITA Nos. 2266 & 2239/Mum/2022 Macrotech Developers Ltd; A.Ys. 17-18 & 18-19 made to architectural consultancy and payment for other services, brokerage payment and reimbursement of expenses. The parties involved were identical to the issue before us. The nature

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

1A) of the act for not withholding tax under section 195 of the income tax act pertaining to the payment ITA Nos. 2266 & 2239/Mum/2022 Macrotech Developers Ltd; A.Ys. 17-18 & 18-19 made to architectural consultancy and payment for other services, brokerage payment and reimbursement of expenses. The parties involved were identical to the issue before us. The nature

DISH TV INDIA LTD vs. ASST CIT RG 11(1), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 3739/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumardish Tv India Ltd. Fc–19, Firm City, Sector–16A ……………. Appellant Noida 400 063 Pan – Aaaca5478M V/S Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Range–11(1), Mumbai Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Appellant Range–16(1), Mumbai V/S Dish Tv India Ltd. 135, Continental Building Dr. A.B. Road, Worli ……………. Respondent Mumbai 400 018 Pan – Aaaca5478M

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Seth a/wFor Respondent: Shri Bhupendra Kumar Singh
Section 142(1)Section 14A

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act can be made. Of course, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) also referred to the order passed by the first appellate authority in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2008–09 and 2010–11 against the order passed under section 201(1) and 201(1A

ZEE ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRISES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. JCIT(TDS)(OSD)-2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, we confirm the appellate order passed by the CIT (A) for assessment year 2013 – 14 and dismiss all the grounds raised by the assessee in this appeal

ITA 2093/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal Advocate and Shri Jay Bhansali ARFor Respondent: Shri ram Krishna Kedia Sr DR
Section 133ASection 201Section 40

disallowed 30% of such expenses under the provisions of section 40 (a) (ia) of the act. vii. Therefore a show cause notice was issued why should not be treated as an “assessee in default” in respect of the provisions under section 201 (1) and 201 (1A

ZEE ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRISES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. JCIT(TDS)(OSD)-2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, we confirm the appellate order passed by the CIT (A) for assessment year 2013 – 14 and dismiss all the grounds raised by the assessee in this appeal

ITA 2097/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal Advocate and Shri Jay Bhansali ARFor Respondent: Shri ram Krishna Kedia Sr DR
Section 133ASection 201Section 40

disallowed 30% of such expenses under the provisions of section 40 (a) (ia) of the act. vii. Therefore a show cause notice was issued why should not be treated as an “assessee in default” in respect of the provisions under section 201 (1) and 201 (1A

ZEE ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRISES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. JCIT(TDS)(OSD)-2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, we confirm the appellate order passed by the CIT (A) for assessment year 2013 – 14 and dismiss all the grounds raised by the assessee in this appeal

ITA 2094/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal Advocate and Shri Jay Bhansali ARFor Respondent: Shri ram Krishna Kedia Sr DR
Section 133ASection 201Section 40

disallowed 30% of such expenses under the provisions of section 40 (a) (ia) of the act. vii. Therefore a show cause notice was issued why should not be treated as an “assessee in default” in respect of the provisions under section 201 (1) and 201 (1A

ZEE ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRISES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. JCIT(TDS)(OSD)-2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, we confirm the appellate order passed by the CIT (A) for assessment year 2013 – 14 and dismiss all the grounds raised by the assessee in this appeal

ITA 2091/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal Advocate and Shri Jay Bhansali ARFor Respondent: Shri ram Krishna Kedia Sr DR
Section 133ASection 201Section 40

disallowed 30% of such expenses under the provisions of section 40 (a) (ia) of the act. vii. Therefore a show cause notice was issued why should not be treated as an “assessee in default” in respect of the provisions under section 201 (1) and 201 (1A

ZEE ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRISES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, OSD(TDS)-2(3), MUMBAI(PRESENT IN CHARGE JCIT CC-2(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, we confirm the appellate order passed by the CIT (A) for assessment year 2013 – 14 and dismiss all the grounds raised by the assessee in this appeal

ITA 2096/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal Advocate and Shri Jay Bhansali ARFor Respondent: Shri ram Krishna Kedia Sr DR
Section 133ASection 201Section 40

disallowed 30% of such expenses under the provisions of section 40 (a) (ia) of the act. vii. Therefore a show cause notice was issued why should not be treated as an “assessee in default” in respect of the provisions under section 201 (1) and 201 (1A

ZEE ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRISES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. JCIT(TDS)(OSD)-2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, we confirm the appellate order passed by the CIT (A) for assessment year 2013 – 14 and dismiss all the grounds raised by the assessee in this appeal

ITA 2092/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal Advocate and Shri Jay Bhansali ARFor Respondent: Shri ram Krishna Kedia Sr DR
Section 133ASection 201Section 40

disallowed 30% of such expenses under the provisions of section 40 (a) (ia) of the act. vii. Therefore a show cause notice was issued why should not be treated as an “assessee in default” in respect of the provisions under section 201 (1) and 201 (1A

ZEE ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRISES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. JCIT(TDS)(OSD)-2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, we confirm the appellate order passed by the CIT (A) for assessment year 2013 – 14 and dismiss all the grounds raised by the assessee in this appeal

ITA 2095/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal Advocate and Shri Jay Bhansali ARFor Respondent: Shri ram Krishna Kedia Sr DR
Section 133ASection 201Section 40

disallowed 30% of such expenses under the provisions of section 40 (a) (ia) of the act. vii. Therefore a show cause notice was issued why should not be treated as an “assessee in default” in respect of the provisions under section 201 (1) and 201 (1A

GREAVES COTTON LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 6(3), MUMBAI

In the result this ground of appeal

ITA 7424/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singhgreaves Cotton Ltd. Acit Circle-6(3), Industry Manor, Appasaheb Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Marathe Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400025. Pan: Aaacg2062M Appellant Respondent Greaves Cotton Ltd. Acit Circle-6(3), Industry Manor, Appasaheb Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Marathe Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400025. Pan: Aaacg2062M Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Smt. Arati Vissanji (Advocate) Respondent By : Shri Abbi Rama Karthikey (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 04.06.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.06.2019 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act

For Appellant: Smt. Arati Vissanji (Advocate)For Respondent: Shri Abbi Rama Karthikey (DR)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 253Section 254(1)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(9)

disallowed contributions to various Employees' Welfare funds being statutory payments that are not covered under section 40A(9) of the Income tax Act, 1961. 5 ITA No. 7424 Mum 2010 & 8533 Mum 2011-Greaves Cotton Ltd. GROUND: E: UNUTILISED CENVAT CREDIT - (Rs. 2,95,78,424/- (-) Rs.l,49,82,050) Rs.l,45,96,374/- (i) On the facts

M/S MAFATLAL INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 881/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(1)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 40

1A filed in the course of appellate proceedings praying for restricting the disallowance to investment which have actually yielded exempt income during the year under consideration. 2. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in law and facts in confirming the disallowance of interest u/s. 36(1)(iii) of the Act to the tune of advance amount of Rs.5,49,735/-given