Search: disallowance | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

41 results for “disallowance”+ Section 23Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi76 Mumbai41 Kolkata41 Chennai19 Telangana14 Hyderabad7 Jaipur6 Jodhpur6 Indore5 Bangalore5 Pune4 Ahmedabad3 Ranchi2 Panaji2 Varanasi2 Karnataka1 SC1 Nagpur1 Raipur1

Key Topics

Section 4052 Section 19533 Disallowance29 Section 143(3)22 Deduction19 Section 50C13 Addition to Income13 Section 14A12 Section 234D12 Section 10

ITO (E) 1(3), MUMBAI vs. INDIAN INSITUTION OF MATERIALS MANAGEMENT, NAVI MUMBAI

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

ITA 6629/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Nk Pradhan, Am

For Appellant: Shri Satischandra Rajore, DRFor Respondent: Shri Niraj Sheth, AR

disallowed the exemption. We noted the facts that the assessee has claimed exemption under section 10(23A) of the Act with

INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MATERIALS MANAGEMENT,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO (E) 1(3), MUMBAI

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

ITA 7106/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai

Showing 1–20 of 41 · Page 1 of 3

11

Double Taxation/DTAA8

24 May 2019

AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Nk Pradhan, Am

For Appellant: Shri Satischandra Rajore, DRFor Respondent: Shri Niraj Sheth, AR

Section 143(3)

disallowed the exemption. We noted the facts that the assessee has claimed exemption under section 10(23A) of the Act with

INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MATERIALS MANAGEMENT,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO E II(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 3414/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Nk Pradhan, Am

For Appellant: Shri Satischandra Rajore, DRFor Respondent: Shri Niraj Sheth, AR

disallowed the exemption. We noted the facts that the assessee has claimed exemption under section 10(23A) of the Act with

I.T.O. (EXEMPTION)-1(3), MUMBAI vs. INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MATERIAL MANAGEMENT, MUMBAI

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

ITA 3103/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Nk Pradhan, Am

For Appellant: Shri Satischandra Rajore, DRFor Respondent: Shri Niraj Sheth, AR

disallowed the exemption. We noted the facts that the assessee has claimed exemption under section 10(23A) of the Act with

ASIA INVESTMENTS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 916/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

section 14A\n- Rs. 6,02,49,724/-\n(ii) Disallowance out of professional\n- Rs. 1,60,00,000/-\nexpenses\n(iii) Disallowance of U.K. Guest\n- Rs. 1,02,63,993/-\nHouse Expenses\n(iv) Share of loss from partnership\n- Rs.\n1,125/-\n3.8. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.AO, the assessee preferred appeal\nbefore the Ld.CIT

INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MATERIALS MANAGEMENT ,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEMPTIONS-1(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 7430/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Indian Institute Of The Income Tax Officer Materials Management, Exemptions -1(3), Plot No.102 & 104, 509, 5Th Floor, Sector 15, Vs. Piramal Chambers, Industrial Area, Lalbaug, Cbd Belapur B.A. Road, Navi Mumbai – 400 601 Parel, Mumbai – 400 012 Pan: Aaaai0056P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Income Tax Officer (E)- M/S. Indian Institute Of 1(3), Materials Management, Room No.511, 5Th Floor, Plot No.102 & 104, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Sector 15, Lalbaug, Industrial Area, Parel, Mumbai – 400 012 Cbd Belapur Navi Mumbai – 400 614 Pan: Aaaai0056P (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Niraj Sheth, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Jodal Raj Singh, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 14.10.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.12.2020 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Jodal Raj Singh, D.R

disallowed the exemption. We noted the facts that the assessee has claimed exemption under section 10(23A) of the Act with

DY CIT, CC--1(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S MAHENDRA BROTHERS EXPORTS P. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 127/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

section 43(5)(d) are not clearly attracted". Admittedly, this ground is similar to ground which has been decided above, therefore, in view or our finding given above, the revenue's ground does not survive and accordingly the same is dismissed. Resultantly, revenue's appeal stands dismissed. To sum-up: Assessee's appeal stands partly allowed and that

MOHAMMED KHALID HABIB PARIHAR,MUMBAI vs. I.T.O., WARD-31(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3345/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri. Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Haridas BhattFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 50C

disallowance of Rs. 2,40,000/- pertaining to brokerage paid towards immovable property sold during the year may please be deleted.” 3. The main grievance of the assessee is against the adoption of the value of land as determined by the Stamp Duty Authority, without referring the valuation to a Valuation Officer under section

BSI SECURITIES INTERNATIONAL LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT RG 4(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6992/MUM/2008[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jul 2017AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Paresh SapariaFor Respondent: Ms.Pooja Swaroop

disallowance of assessee’s claim for bad debts / business loss. 4. Brief facts of the case are as under:- 4.1 The assessee has debited Rs. 48,15,863 as bad debt. The assessee was asked to furnish the details of same along with the party wise breakup of debts, details of margin money collected, copy of ledger account

NIAMAT MAHROOF VIRJI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 17(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 1964/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1964/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Niamat Mahroof Virji, I.T.O. 17(3)(3), बनाम/ Unit 232, 2 Nd Floor, Piramal Chambers, V. Bussa Udyog Bhavan, Opp Parel P.O., T.J. Road, Mumbai. Sewree. Mumbai – 400 015. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aahpv1071H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Neil Philip

Section 143(3)Section 48Section 50CSection 54E

23A, sub-section (5) of section 24, section 34AA, section 35 and section 37 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957), shall, with necessary modifications, apply in relation to such reference as they apply in relation to a reference made by the Assessing Officer under sub-section (1) of section 16A of that Act. Explanation.—For the purposes

ASST CIT RANGE 11(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. TOTAL OIL INDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2127/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri Avaneesh Tiwari

Section 195Section 234DSection 40Section 9(1)(vii)

disallowing the expenditure u/s 40(a)(i) is upheld and the ground raised by the appellant is dismissed.” 8. On appraisal of the above said finding, we noticed that the matter of controversy has been decided by the CIT(A) on the basis of decision of Bombay High Court in the case of Orient

ACIT CIR 11(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. TOTAL OIL INDIA P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2128/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri Avaneesh Tiwari

Section 195Section 234DSection 40Section 9(1)(vii)

disallowing the expenditure u/s 40(a)(i) is upheld and the ground raised by the appellant is dismissed.” 8. On appraisal of the above said finding, we noticed that the matter of controversy has been decided by the CIT(A) on the basis of decision of Bombay High Court in the case of Orient

TOTAL OIL INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 11(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1878/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri Avaneesh Tiwari

Section 195Section 234DSection 40Section 9(1)(vii)

disallowing the expenditure u/s 40(a)(i) is upheld and the ground raised by the appellant is dismissed.” 8. On appraisal of the above said finding, we noticed that the matter of controversy has been decided by the CIT(A) on the basis of decision of Bombay High Court in the case of Orient

TOTAL OIL INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 11(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1877/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri Avaneesh Tiwari

Section 195Section 234DSection 40Section 9(1)(vii)

disallowing the expenditure u/s 40(a)(i) is upheld and the ground raised by the appellant is dismissed.” 8. On appraisal of the above said finding, we noticed that the matter of controversy has been decided by the CIT(A) on the basis of decision of Bombay High Court in the case of Orient

ACIT 11(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. TOTAL OIL INDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 4300/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri S. Usmani (DR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

disallowing the expenditure u/s 40(a)(i) is upheld and the ground raised by the appellant is dismissed.” 8. On appraisal of the above said finding, we noticed that the matter of controversy has been decided by the CIT(A) on the basis of decision of Bombay High Court in the case of Orient

TOTAL OIL INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 8(3), MUMBAI

ITA 4135/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri S. Usmani (DR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

disallowing the expenditure u/s 40(a)(i) is upheld and the ground raised by the appellant is dismissed.” 8. On appraisal of the above said finding, we noticed that the matter of controversy has been decided by the CIT(A) on the basis of decision of Bombay High Court in the case of Orient

DY CIT 11 (3)(1), MUMBAI vs. TOTAL OIL INDIA PVT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross

ITA 6997/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy&F Shri Amarjit Singhdy. Commissioner Of Vs. Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax-11(3)(1) 3Rd Floor, The Leela Room No. 204, Aayakar Galleria, Bhavan, M.K.Road, Andheri (E) Marine Lines Mumbai 400 059 Mumbai – 400 020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaace2175M Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Ajay Kumar Sharma

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40

disallowed an amount of Rs.4,63,41,493/- as per the provisions of Sec. 195 r.w.s 9(1)(vii) and Sec. 40(a)(i) of the Act. 4. The assessee filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has allowed the appeal of the assessee after following the decision of ITAT, Mumbai in the case

TOTAL OIL INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 11(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 245/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd., V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax 3Rd Floor, The Leela Galleria Circle – 11(3)(1) Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (E) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai – 400 059 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aaace2175M (Appellant) (Respondent) Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. M/S. Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd., 3Rd Floor, The Leela Galleria Circle – 11(3)(1) Room No. 204, 2Nd Floor Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400 059 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aaace2175M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri Amit Pratap Singh

Section 195Section 234DSection 244ASection 40Section 9(1)(vii)

disallowing the expenditure u/s 40(a)(i) is upheld and the ground raised by the appellant is dismissed.” 8. On appraisal of the above said finding, we noticed that the matter of controversy has been decided by the CIT(A) on the basis of decision of Bombay High Court in the case of Orient

DCIT- 11 (3)(1), MUMBAI vs. TOTAL OIL INDIA PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 361/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd., V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax 3Rd Floor, The Leela Galleria Circle – 11(3)(1) Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (E) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai – 400 059 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aaace2175M (Appellant) (Respondent) Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. M/S. Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd., 3Rd Floor, The Leela Galleria Circle – 11(3)(1) Room No. 204, 2Nd Floor Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400 059 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aaace2175M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri Amit Pratap Singh

Section 195Section 234DSection 244ASection 40Section 9(1)(vii)

disallowing the expenditure u/s 40(a)(i) is upheld and the ground raised by the appellant is dismissed.” 8. On appraisal of the above said finding, we noticed that the matter of controversy has been decided by the CIT(A) on the basis of decision of Bombay High Court in the case of Orient

ACIT 17(1), MUMBAI vs. ELVE CORPORATION, MUMBAI

ITA 3564/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 195Section 195(2)Section 40

section 40(a)(i) should not be deducted in the event there is a failure to deduct the tax at source in terms of Chapter XVII-B. Therefore, a sum ought to be of the nature payable under sub-clause (i) outside India or in India to a non-resident, not being a company, or to a foreign company