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.

643 results for “disallowance”+ Section 239clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi818Mumbai643Chennai297Bangalore189Kolkata167Ahmedabad57Jaipur57Raipur55Hyderabad52Pune38Surat29Amritsar28Chandigarh23Lucknow20Indore16Cuttack16Rajkot15Karnataka12SC7Panaji7Jodhpur6Ranchi6Nagpur6Cochin5Guwahati5Patna4Telangana4Agra4Varanasi2Jabalpur2Punjab & Haryana2Allahabad2Visakhapatnam1Kerala1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)79Section 14A65Disallowance60Addition to Income51Deduction44Section 271(1)(c)30Section 80I22Section 4020Section 6819Transfer Pricing

DCIT 4(1), MUMBAI vs. DEUTSCHE EQUITIES INDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 8033/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Anil SantFor Respondent: Shri P.J. Pardiwala
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 92D

disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 11.5. Per Contra, the stand of the Assessee is that the VSAT/Leased Line Charges and Transaction Charges were paid in respect of standard facility provided by the stock exchanges to its members. The aforesaid charges are charges by the stock exchanges from members to recover the cost of providing infrastructure

ACIT CIR. 8(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. AFCONS INFRASTRUCTURE LTD., MUMBAI

Showing 1–20 of 643 · Page 1 of 33

...
19
Section 14718
Section 36(1)(viia)17

In the result, Department’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 4269/MUM/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2016AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz, Accountant Mbmer & Shri Saktijit Dey

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry a/wFor Respondent: Shri Jasbir Chauhan
Section 14A

section 14A is called for. In view of such decision, ground no.(ii) having become infructuous is dismissed. 40. In ground no.(iii), Department has challenged the decision of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of lease rental. 41. Brief facts are, the Assessing Officer in the course of assessment proceedings

ASHOK PIRAMAL MANAGEMENT CORPORAITON LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 6(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly confirm the order of CIT(A) deleting the addition though on a different ground pleaded by the ld. AR. Thus, this ground stands dismissed

ITA 4401/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Saktijit Deym/S. Ashok Piramal Management Asstt. Commissioner Of Corporation Limited Income Tax, Ward 6(1) Peninsula Spenta, 2Nd Floor Room No. 506, 5Th Floor Vs. Mathuradas Mills Compound Aayakar Bhavan Senapati Bapat Marg M.K. Road, Mumbai 400020 Lower Parel, Mumbai 400013 Pan - Aafca5278E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ronak DoshiFor Respondent: Shri T. Roumauan Paite
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 195Section 195(1)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 9

section 195(1) of the Act and the Indo-France DTAA and therefore the question of disallowance would not arise. In view of the above, it is prayed that the AO be directed to delete the disallowance of professional fees amounting to Rs.26,05,239

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

239 ITR 355 (Calcutta HC)) and Southern Electrodes Ltd vs ACIT (111 TTJ 143 (Hyderabad Trib)). 28. The ld. DR on the other hand, submitted that as per section 43B(a) interest is very much part of the statutory liability and therefore, should be included for the purpose of allowability under the said section. The ld. DR placed reliance

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

239 ITR 355 (Calcutta HC)) and Southern Electrodes Ltd vs ACIT (111 TTJ 143 (Hyderabad Trib)). 28. The ld. DR on the other hand, submitted that as per section 43B(a) interest is very much part of the statutory liability and therefore, should be included for the purpose of allowability under the said section. The ld. DR placed reliance

DEUTSCHE EQUITIES INDIA PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL.C.I.T. RG. 4(1), MUMBAI

ITA 8354/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2024AY 2005-06
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40

disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act.\n11.5.\nPer Contra, the stand of the Assessee is that the VSAT/Leased\nLine Charges and Transaction Charges were paid in respect of\nstandard facility provided by the stock exchanges to its members.\nThe aforesaid charges are charges by the stock exchanges from\nmembers to recover the cost of providing infrastructure

JAWAHAR B. PUROHIT,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22XC, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

ITA 7209/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 201Section 21Section 40Section 40a

section 133A on 16- 11-2009 may be seen in which he has stated that these bills are bogus and no transaction has taken place. 3. Sundry Page Page 31- 24,00,000 This amount Debtors No. No. 03- Is on 19,20 10, 2005 account of point amount b) of receivable 9.1 from debtor Shayona Corporation. Since the amount

JAWAHAR B. PUROHIT,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22XC, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

ITA 7214/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 201Section 21Section 40Section 40a

section 133A on 16- 11-2009 may be seen in which he has stated that these bills are bogus and no transaction has taken place. 3. Sundry Page Page 31- 24,00,000 This amount Debtors No. No. 03- Is on 19,20 10, 2005 account of point amount b) of receivable 9.1 from debtor Shayona Corporation. Since the amount

M. R. CONSTRUCTION,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

ITA 790/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 201Section 21Section 40Section 40a

section 133A on 16- 11-2009 may be seen in which he has stated that these bills are bogus and no transaction has taken place. 3. Sundry Page Page 31- 24,00,000 This amount Debtors No. No. 03- Is on 19,20 10, 2005 account of point amount b) of receivable 9.1 from debtor Shayona Corporation. Since the amount

M.R. CONSTRUCTION,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 22,

In the result, in the case of M

ITA 3709/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 201Section 21Section 40Section 40a

section 133A on 16- 11-2009 may be seen in which he has stated that these bills are bogus and no transaction has taken place. 3. Sundry Page Page 31- 24,00,000 This amount Debtors No. No. 03- Is on 19,20 10, 2005 account of point amount b) of receivable 9.1 from debtor Shayona Corporation. Since the amount

JAWAHAR B. PUROHIT,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22XC, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

ITA 7208/MUM/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 201Section 21Section 40Section 40a

section 133A on 16- 11-2009 may be seen in which he has stated that these bills are bogus and no transaction has taken place. 3. Sundry Page Page 31- 24,00,000 This amount Debtors No. No. 03- Is on 19,20 10, 2005 account of point amount b) of receivable 9.1 from debtor Shayona Corporation. Since the amount

M.R. CONSTRUCTION,.,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

ITA 3711/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 201Section 21Section 40Section 40a

section 133A on 16- 11-2009 may be seen in which he has stated that these bills are bogus and no transaction has taken place. 3. Sundry Page Page 31- 24,00,000 This amount Debtors No. No. 03- Is on 19,20 10, 2005 account of point amount b) of receivable 9.1 from debtor Shayona Corporation. Since the amount

ASST CIT CC-22, MUMBAI vs. JAWAHAR PUROHIT, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

ITA 6848/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 201Section 21Section 40Section 40a

section 133A on 16- 11-2009 may be seen in which he has stated that these bills are bogus and no transaction has taken place. 3. Sundry Page Page 31- 24,00,000 This amount Debtors No. No. 03- Is on 19,20 10, 2005 account of point amount b) of receivable 9.1 from debtor Shayona Corporation. Since the amount

ASST CIT CC-22, MUMBAI vs. JAWAHAR PUROHIT, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

ITA 6847/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 201Section 21Section 40Section 40a

section 133A on 16- 11-2009 may be seen in which he has stated that these bills are bogus and no transaction has taken place. 3. Sundry Page Page 31- 24,00,000 This amount Debtors No. No. 03- Is on 19,20 10, 2005 account of point amount b) of receivable 9.1 from debtor Shayona Corporation. Since the amount

JAWAHAR B. PUROHIT,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22XC, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

ITA 7212/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 201Section 21Section 40Section 40a

section 133A on 16- 11-2009 may be seen in which he has stated that these bills are bogus and no transaction has taken place. 3. Sundry Page Page 31- 24,00,000 This amount Debtors No. No. 03- Is on 19,20 10, 2005 account of point amount b) of receivable 9.1 from debtor Shayona Corporation. Since the amount

DCIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI vs. M.R. CONSTRUCTION, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

ITA 3645/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 201Section 21Section 40Section 40a

section 133A on 16- 11-2009 may be seen in which he has stated that these bills are bogus and no transaction has taken place. 3. Sundry Page Page 31- 24,00,000 This amount Debtors No. No. 03- Is on 19,20 10, 2005 account of point amount b) of receivable 9.1 from debtor Shayona Corporation. Since the amount

DCIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI vs. M.R. CONSTRUCTION, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

ITA 3646/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 201Section 21Section 40Section 40a

section 133A on 16- 11-2009 may be seen in which he has stated that these bills are bogus and no transaction has taken place. 3. Sundry Page Page 31- 24,00,000 This amount Debtors No. No. 03- Is on 19,20 10, 2005 account of point amount b) of receivable 9.1 from debtor Shayona Corporation. Since the amount

M.R. CONSTRUCTION,.,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

ITA 3710/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 201Section 21Section 40Section 40a

section 133A on 16- 11-2009 may be seen in which he has stated that these bills are bogus and no transaction has taken place. 3. Sundry Page Page 31- 24,00,000 This amount Debtors No. No. 03- Is on 19,20 10, 2005 account of point amount b) of receivable 9.1 from debtor Shayona Corporation. Since the amount

ACIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI vs. M.R. CONSTRUCTION, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

ITA 1144/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 201Section 21Section 40Section 40a

section 133A on 16- 11-2009 may be seen in which he has stated that these bills are bogus and no transaction has taken place. 3. Sundry Page Page 31- 24,00,000 This amount Debtors No. No. 03- Is on 19,20 10, 2005 account of point amount b) of receivable 9.1 from debtor Shayona Corporation. Since the amount

JAWAHAR B. PUROHIT,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22XC, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

ITA 7210/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 201Section 21Section 40Section 40a

section 133A on 16- 11-2009 may be seen in which he has stated that these bills are bogus and no transaction has taken place. 3. Sundry Page Page 31- 24,00,000 This amount Debtors No. No. 03- Is on 19,20 10, 2005 account of point amount b) of receivable 9.1 from debtor Shayona Corporation. Since the amount