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.

735 results for “disallowance”+ Section 2(23)(x)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,072Mumbai735Jaipur228Ahmedabad129Chennai129Chandigarh126Raipur125Bangalore117Kolkata113Hyderabad102Surat58Pune43Indore42Guwahati32Nagpur30Rajkot28Lucknow26SC21Cochin20Jodhpur20Visakhapatnam15Amritsar13Allahabad11Cuttack11Agra8Patna7Jabalpur3Dehradun1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Addition to Income80Section 143(3)75Section 14A65Disallowance60Section 14739Section 4032Section 271(1)(c)31Deduction28Section 143(1)24Section 153A

UTILITY SUPPLY PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(4) MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 3585/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Apr 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Dhaval Shah, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Smiti Samant, Ld. D.R
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 250Section 56(2)(via)Section 56(2)(viia)

disallowance of shares of\nprivate companies only but not "any property” as mentioned in the\nsection 56(2)(vii) of the Act. The AO further observed that\nexplanation applicable to section 56(2)(viia) is only related to \"fair\nmarket value” as described in the explanation to section 56(2)(vii)\nof the Act, not the other explanations.\nThe

Showing 1–20 of 735 · Page 1 of 37

...
20
Section 43C18
Penalty17

BAJAJ INTERNATIONAL REALTY PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-1(2), MUMBAI

In the result both the appeals of the parties are partly allowed for In the result both the appeals of the parties are partly allowed for the statistical purposes

ITA 5321/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. ARFor Respondent: Shri Kirit Kamdar
Section 4Section 43C

Section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, quantified at tax Act, 1961, quantified at ₹1,19,32,795/-. 8.1 Briefly stated, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee was Briefly stated, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee was Briefly stated, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee was holding investments in quoted and unquoted shares amounting to lding

BAJAJ INTERNATIONAL REALTY PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, 1(2)1, MUMBAI

In the result both the appeals of the parties are partly allowed for In the result both the appeals of the parties are partly allowed for the statistical purposes

ITA 5319/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. ARFor Respondent: Shri Kirit Kamdar
Section 4Section 43C

Section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, quantified at tax Act, 1961, quantified at ₹1,19,32,795/-. 8.1 Briefly stated, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee was Briefly stated, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee was Briefly stated, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee was holding investments in quoted and unquoted shares amounting to lding

THE GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 5(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1596/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2013-14
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 43B

23. Ground No.13 relating to credit not granted for Dividend Distribution Tax paid has not been pressed, therefore, the same is dismissed as not pressed. 24. In ground No.15-17 and additional ground Nos. 1 & 2 relating to TP adjustment on performance guarantee given on behalf of the AE, the facts in brief which has been stated are that the assessee

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADD/JOINT/DEPUTY/ACIT, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

ITA 569/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2024AY 2017-18
Section 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)(ii)Section 36(2)(viia)

disallowance to the suo-moto disallowance offered by the assessee and the\nsaid relief has not been considered by the CIT (A). 4. The Id. AR with regard to the plea that\ndisallowance should be restricted to the suo-moto disallowance, submitted that the\nassessee has investments which are in the nature of stock in trade and also are strategic

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

disallowed by the AO should be allowed as a deduction. Through additional ground the assessee is making an additional claim of Rs. 3,36,85,160/- towards ESOP expenditure being the difference between the value of shares using Fair Value method of Rs.4,95,88,603 and the intrinsic value of Rs.1,59,03,443 debited in the books

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

disallowed by the AO should be allowed as a deduction. Through additional ground the assessee is making an additional claim of Rs. 3,36,85,160/- towards ESOP expenditure being the difference between the value of shares using Fair Value method of Rs.4,95,88,603 and the intrinsic value of Rs.1,59,03,443 debited in the books

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

disallowed by the AO should be allowed as a deduction. Through additional ground the assessee is making an additional claim of Rs. 3,36,85,160/- towards ESOP expenditure being the difference between the value of shares using Fair Value method of Rs.4,95,88,603 and the intrinsic value of Rs.1,59,03,443 debited in the books

DCIT CIR 5(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. THE GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2076/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 43B

disallowance of interest expenditure of Rs.42,75,635/-suo moto made by the assessee company in the Return of Income as being capital in nature, but has brought to tax the receipt of a capital nature in the hands of the assessee. 14 The Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd. 19. However, ld. AO in his final assessment order held that

ACIT-CIRCLE-5(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2426/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 43B

disallowance of interest expenditure of Rs.42,75,635/-suo moto made by the assessee company in the Return of Income as being capital in nature, but has brought to tax the receipt of a capital nature in the hands of the assessee. 14 The Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd. 19. However, ld. AO in his final assessment order held that

DCIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4056/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2024AY 2012-13
Section 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)(ii)Section 36(2)(viia)

23 ITR 832 (Guj.) have upheld the legal\nproposition that where mistake in assessment is caused by either an erroneous\nconstruction of transaction or due to its non- consideration, or caused by a mistake of law\napplicable even where there has been a complete disclosure of all relevant facts upon\nwhich a correct assessment could have been based, would

GOLD COIN APARTMENTS CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 22(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3185/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vidyadhar KhandekarFor Respondent: Shri Asif Karmal
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

disallowance on the contending the Assessee was entitled to claim deduction of INR.3,15,256/- under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. 4. We have heard both the sides on the issue and have perused the material on record. 5. The appeal preferred by the Assessee is delayed by 101 days. In the application seeking condonation of delay

THE GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIRCLE 5(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and\nappeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1795/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2015-16
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 43B

x 1% p.a.\n31. Before us ld. Counsel submitted that this issue is covered by\nthe decision of the Tribunal in assessee's own case for the\npreceding assessment years, however, he submitted that the\nTribunal had taken a different view for A.Y.2008-09 as compared\nto A.Y.2009-10 and 2010-11. In A.Y.2008-09, the Tribunal vide\nits order dated 11/08/2022 agreed

THE GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 5(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee (ITA number 1597/M/2018) is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1597/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Narfendrakumar Choudhary , Jm & & The Great Eastern Shipping Co. The Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income-Tax, Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Range-5(3), Esplanade House, 2 N D Floor, Vs. Room No.525B, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaact1565C The Dy. Commissioner Of Income- The Great Eastern Shipping Co. Tax, Ltd. Range-5(3), Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Vs. Esplanade House, 2 N D Floor, Room No.525B, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Mumbai-400 020 Fort, Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Jeet Kamdar , Shri Falee HFor Respondent: Shri
Section 115Section 14Section 143Section 144C

23,672,543 and disallowance under section 14 A of ₹ 115,296,911 made by the learned assessing officer pursuant to the order of the learned transfer pricing officer and subject to the direction of the learned dispute resolution panel dated 12/11/2014. 03. Assessee is aggrieved with the same and has preferred this appeal before us raising following grounds

DCIT CIR 5(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. THE GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee (ITA number 1597/M/2018) is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2077/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhary , Jm & & The Great Eastern Shipping Co. The Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income-Tax, Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Range-5(3), Esplanade House, 2 Nd Floor, Vs. Room No.525B, 5 Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaact1565C The Dy. Commissioner Of Income- The Great Eastern Shipping Co. Tax, Ltd. Range-5(3), Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Vs. Esplanade House, 2 Nd Floor, Room No.525B, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Mumbai-400 020 Fort, Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Jeet Kamdar , Shri Falee HFor Respondent: Shri
Section 115Section 14Section 143Section 144C

23,672,543 and disallowance under section 14 A of ₹ 115,296,911 made by the learned assessing officer pursuant to the order of the learned transfer pricing officer and subject to the direction of the learned dispute resolution panel dated 12/11/2014. 03. Assessee is aggrieved with the same and has preferred this appeal before us raising following grounds

THE GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 5(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee (ITA number 1597/M/2018) is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1216/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Narfendrakumar Choudhary , Jm & & The Great Eastern Shipping Co. The Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income-Tax, Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Range-5(3), Esplanade House, 2 N D Floor, Vs. Room No.525B, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaact1565C The Dy. Commissioner Of Income- The Great Eastern Shipping Co. Tax, Ltd. Range-5(3), Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Vs. Esplanade House, 2 N D Floor, Room No.525B, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Mumbai-400 020 Fort, Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Jeet Kamdar , Shri Falee HFor Respondent: Shri
Section 115Section 14Section 143Section 144C

23,672,543 and disallowance under section 14 A of ₹ 115,296,911 made by the learned assessing officer pursuant to the order of the learned transfer pricing officer and subject to the direction of the learned dispute resolution panel dated 12/11/2014. 03. Assessee is aggrieved with the same and has preferred this appeal before us raising following grounds

THE GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 5(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee (ITA number 1597/M/2018) is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 374/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Narfendrakumar Choudhary , Jm & & The Great Eastern Shipping Co. The Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income-Tax, Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Range-5(3), Esplanade House, 2 N D Floor, Vs. Room No.525B, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaact1565C The Dy. Commissioner Of Income- The Great Eastern Shipping Co. Tax, Ltd. Range-5(3), Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Vs. Esplanade House, 2 N D Floor, Room No.525B, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Mumbai-400 020 Fort, Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Jeet Kamdar , Shri Falee HFor Respondent: Shri
Section 115Section 14Section 143Section 144C

23,672,543 and disallowance under section 14 A of ₹ 115,296,911 made by the learned assessing officer pursuant to the order of the learned transfer pricing officer and subject to the direction of the learned dispute resolution panel dated 12/11/2014. 03. Assessee is aggrieved with the same and has preferred this appeal before us raising following grounds

THE GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING COMPANY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 5(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and\nappeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1129/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2011-12
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 43B

x 1% p.a.\n31. Before us ld. Counsel submitted that this issue is covered by\nthe decision of the Tribunal in assessee's own case for the\n19\nITA No. 1129/Mum/2016\nThe Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd.\npreceding assessment years, however, he submitted that the\nTribunal had taken a different view for A.Y.2008-09 as compared\nto A.Y.2009-10

HDFC BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

ITA 1783/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)

x C Where A amount of expenditure by way of = interest other than the amount of interest included in clause (i) incurred during the previous year: B the average of value of investment, = income from which does not or shall not form part of the total income, as appearing in the balance 3451,64,41,000 sheet of the assessee

DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. HDFC BANK LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

ITA 3374/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)

x C Where A amount of expenditure by way of = interest other than the amount of interest included in clause (i) incurred during the previous year: B the average of value of investment, = income from which does not or shall not form part of the total income, as appearing in the balance 3451,64,41,000 sheet of the assessee