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.

27 results for “disallowance”+ Section 268Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi40Ahmedabad34Mumbai27Cochin22Bangalore9Kolkata7Chennai6Karnataka6Indore2Jaipur2Lucknow1Chandigarh1Nagpur1

Key Topics

Section 44B21Section 143(3)17Addition to Income15Section 6814Disallowance14Section 14A10Section 4010Section 1449Section 268A7Deduction

ASST CIT CIR 6(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. ASK INVESTMENT MANAGERS P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical

ITA 534/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year 2012-13 Acit M/S Ask Investment Circle-6(1)(2), Managers Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ R. No.536, 5Th Floor, 1St Floor Bandbox House, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Dr. Ab Road, Worli, M. K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400030 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aafca2302P Shri Nitin Waghmode-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri J.D. Mistri Sr. Advocate

Section 115JSection 14A

section 14A is that expenditure incurred in relation to income, which does not form part of total income under the Act, shall not be allowed as deduction. This clearly implies that assessee should have earned some income during the relevant previous year, which does not form part of the total income under the provisions of the Act and some expenditure

ASST. CIT- 5(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHRI DINESH HARICHAND SHAH, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year n the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year n the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year

Showing 1–20 of 27 · Page 1 of 2

7
Section 1476
Depreciation5
ITA 3927/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Mr. Mahaveer JainFor Respondent: 12/08/2025
Section 68

disallowed under section 57(iii) of the Act. 3.5 Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee placed reliance on variou Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee placed reliance on variou Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee placed reliance on various judicial pronouncements and contended that the statutory onus judicial pronouncements and contended that the statutory onus judicial pronouncements

ACIT 5(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. DINESH HARICHAND SHAH, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year n the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year n the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year

ITA 1594/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Mr. Mahaveer JainFor Respondent: 12/08/2025
Section 68

disallowed under section 57(iii) of the Act. 3.5 Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee placed reliance on variou Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee placed reliance on variou Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee placed reliance on various judicial pronouncements and contended that the statutory onus judicial pronouncements and contended that the statutory onus judicial pronouncements

ACIT RG 8(3), MUMBAI vs. UNITED HEALTHCARE INIDA P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 4403/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2009-10 The Asstt. Commissioner Of M/S. United Healthcare India Income Tax-8(3), Pvt. Ltd., Room No.217, 3A, Gundecha Enclave, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Kherani Road, M.K. Marg, Saki Naka, Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai - 72 Pan: Aaacs 9480R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Asstt. Commissioner Of M/S. United Healthcare India Income Tax (Tds)-3(1), Pvt. Ltd., R.No.1012, 10Th Floor, 3B, Gundecha Enclave, Vs. Smt. K.G. Mittal Ayurvedic Kherani Road, Hospital Building, Saki Naka, Andheri (E), Charni Road, Mumbai - 72 Mumbai – 400 002 Pan: Aaacs 9480R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Sodhani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G.M. Doss, D.R
Section 194Section 194JSection 201Section 40

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) is warranted in this case, when the assessee has not claimed any expenditure at all. 8. Now coming to the appeal of the Revenue for A.Y. 2010-11 i.e. ITA No.2940/M/2014. ITA No.2940/M/2014 for A.Y 2010-11 4 ITA No.4403/M/2012 & ITA No.2940/M/2014 M/s. United Healthcare India Pvt. Ltd. 9. The Revenue has agitated

ACIT (TDS) 3(1), MUMBAI vs. UNITED HEALTHCARE INDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 2940/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2009-10 The Asstt. Commissioner Of M/S. United Healthcare India Income Tax-8(3), Pvt. Ltd., Room No.217, 3A, Gundecha Enclave, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Kherani Road, M.K. Marg, Saki Naka, Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai - 72 Pan: Aaacs 9480R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Asstt. Commissioner Of M/S. United Healthcare India Income Tax (Tds)-3(1), Pvt. Ltd., R.No.1012, 10Th Floor, 3B, Gundecha Enclave, Vs. Smt. K.G. Mittal Ayurvedic Kherani Road, Hospital Building, Saki Naka, Andheri (E), Charni Road, Mumbai - 72 Mumbai – 400 002 Pan: Aaacs 9480R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Sodhani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G.M. Doss, D.R
Section 194Section 194JSection 201Section 40

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) is warranted in this case, when the assessee has not claimed any expenditure at all. 8. Now coming to the appeal of the Revenue for A.Y. 2010-11 i.e. ITA No.2940/M/2014. ITA No.2940/M/2014 for A.Y 2010-11 4 ITA No.4403/M/2012 & ITA No.2940/M/2014 M/s. United Healthcare India Pvt. Ltd. 9. The Revenue has agitated

MADHUR REALTORS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO 8(3)-1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed and appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be partly allowed

ITA 7125/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.7125/Mum/2013 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Shree Madhur Realtors Pvt. बिधम/ Ito 8(3)-1 Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai. Ltd. A-38, Nandjyot Vs. Industrial Estate Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400072. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6153/Mum/2014 & 35/M/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11) बिधम/ Ito 8(3)-1 Aayakar Bhavan, M/S. Madhur Realtors Pvt. Ltd. A-38, Nandjyot Mumbai. Vs. Industrial Estate Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400072. Co. No.41/Mum/2016 (Arising Out Of Ita. No. 6153/Mum/2014) (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Shree Madhur Realtors P. बिधम/ Ito 8(3)-1 Aayakar Bhavan, Ltd. A-38, Nandjyot Mumbai Vs. Industrial Estate, Kurla Andheri Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400072 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaics7097J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai (Dr) Assessee By: Shri M. Subramanian सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 01.06.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2018

For Appellant: Shri M. SubramanianFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai (DR)
Section 24

268A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 which read as under *(•4) The Appellate Tribunal or Court, hearing such appeal or reference, shall have regard to the orders, instructions or directions issued under sub-section (1) and the circumstances under which such appeal or application for reference was filed or not filed in respect of any case

DCIT CEN CIR 5(1), MUMBAI vs. AMIT CAPITAL & SECURITIES P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 961/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm Dcit, Cent Cir – 5(1) Vs. M/S. Amit Capital & R.No.1928, 19Th Floor Securities Pvt. Ltd., 47A, 3Rd Floor, Plot No.308, Air India Building, Nariman Point Hanuman Building Mumbai Perin, Nariman Point Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aaaca4219Q Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 14ASection 153ASection 260ASection 268A

disallowance made by the learned assessing officer of Rs. 7,70,906/- should be deleted. 2.Your appellant craves to add, alter/ or amend any of the grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing of appeal. 3. We have heard learned DR and found that Revenue is in further appeal for deleting addition of Rs.7,70,906/- u/s.14A

ITO 11(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. DR. AVINASH CHANDRA TIWARI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of assessee as well as appeal of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1936/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2016AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Mr. Mehul Shah
Section 143(3)Section 68

disallowed the claim of the assessee. AO also held that the account opening sum of Rs.1,01,000/- explained to be out of accumulation of savings and agricultural income was also unsubstantiated and therefore, rejected the claim. During appellate proceedings, the matter of Rs.30.5 lakhs was remanded to the AO along with the issue regarding agricultural income. In the Remand

AVINASH CHANDRA TIWARI,MUMBAI vs. I.T.O.11(2)-1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of assessee as well as appeal of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2079/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2016AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Mr. Mehul Shah
Section 143(3)Section 68

disallowed the claim of the assessee. AO also held that the account opening sum of Rs.1,01,000/- explained to be out of accumulation of savings and agricultural income was also unsubstantiated and therefore, rejected the claim. During appellate proceedings, the matter of Rs.30.5 lakhs was remanded to the AO along with the issue regarding agricultural income. In the Remand

BLUE DART EXPRESS LTD,MUMBAI vs. JT CIT (OSD) RG 8(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4153/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: D.T. Garasia & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Suman Kumar, D.R

disallowance is not justifiable in accordance with law. Therefore, we allowed the claim of the expenses in all on account of fleet and hire charges handling and cleaning charges in the interest of justice. Accordingly, we set aside the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue and allowed the claim of the assessee against the revenue.” 13. Respectfully

DCIT 8(1), MUMBAI vs. BLUE DART EXPRESS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4433/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: D.T. Garasia & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Suman Kumar, D.R

disallowance is not justifiable in accordance with law. Therefore, we allowed the claim of the expenses in all on account of fleet and hire charges handling and cleaning charges in the interest of justice. Accordingly, we set aside the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue and allowed the claim of the assessee against the revenue.” 13. Respectfully

BLUE DART EXRESS LTD,MUMBAI vs. JCIT (OSD) RG 8(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1949/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: D.T. Garasia & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Suman Kumar, D.R

disallowance is not justifiable in accordance with law. Therefore, we allowed the claim of the expenses in all on account of fleet and hire charges handling and cleaning charges in the interest of justice. Accordingly, we set aside the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue and allowed the claim of the assessee against the revenue.” 13. Respectfully

DCIT 8(1), MUMBAI vs. BLUE DART EXPRESS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2004/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: D.T. Garasia & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Suman Kumar, D.R

disallowance is not justifiable in accordance with law. Therefore, we allowed the claim of the expenses in all on account of fleet and hire charges handling and cleaning charges in the interest of justice. Accordingly, we set aside the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue and allowed the claim of the assessee against the revenue.” 13. Respectfully

ACIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. PORTESCAP INDIA PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed as In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed as In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 2975/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Acit-2(3)(1), Portescap India Pvt. Ltd., 522, Aayakar Bhawan, Unit No. 2, Sdf-1, Vs. M.K. Road, Churchgate Seeepz.Sez.Andheri(East), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400096. Pan No. Aaack 4896 K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Krishna Kumar, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Ms. Kinjal Patel

Disallowance of Portescap India Pvt. Ltd. 2 deduction claimed deduction claimed , us. 43B of the Act of Rs. 1,49.35,897/ , us. 43B of the Act of Rs. 1,49.35,897/-without appreciating the facts that the assessee is not eligible to claim the appreciating the facts that the assessee is not eligible to claim the appreciating the facts that

ACIT CIR 6(3), MUMBAI vs. MEDIIONS EXPORTS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 4595/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Lalan,ARFor Respondent: Shri Suman Kumar, DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 268A(2)(a)

Section 268A(2)(a) w.e.f. 01.04.1999 which clarifies that if appeal is not filed by the revenue owing to low tax effect for any AY on any issue, it cannot be contended that income tax authority has acquiesced in the decision on the disputed issue. 4. The appellant prays that the order of Ld. CIT(A) on the above grounds

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. HITESH SHANTILAL MEHTA, MUMBAI

In the result, the cross-objections filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 7796/MUM/2025[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2026AY 2000-01

Bench: the Tribunal, as stipulated under CBDT Circular No.09/2024 dated 17.09.2024. It was also not the case of the Revenue that the present appeals fall within any of the exceptions carved out in the said Circular. In view of this admitted position and having regard to the binding nature of the Circular, which expressly applies even to pending appeals, the maintainability of the Revenue's appeals stands squarely governed by the said Circular. 3

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 268ASection 57

section 268A of the Act embodies a clear and deliberate policy decision to regulate departmental litigation and to ensure that appeals involving insignificant tax effect do not occupy the time of appellate fora. Such Circulars are binding on the Revenue authorities and, once the conditions stipulated therein are satisfied, the Tribunal is obliged to give effect to the same

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. HITESH SHANTILAL MEHTA, MUMBAI

In the result, the cross-objections filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 7797/MUM/2025[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2026AY 2004-05

Bench: the Tribunal, as stipulated under CBDT Circular No.09/2024 dated 17.09.2024. It was also not the case of the Revenue that the present appeals fall within any of the exceptions carved out in the said Circular. In view of this admitted position and having regard to the binding nature of the Circular, which expressly applies even to pending appeals, the maintainability of the Revenue's appeals stands squarely governed by the said Circular. 3

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 268ASection 57

section 268A of the Act embodies a clear and deliberate policy decision to regulate departmental litigation and to ensure that appeals involving insignificant tax effect do not occupy the time of appellate fora. Such Circulars are binding on the Revenue authorities and, once the conditions stipulated therein are satisfied, the Tribunal is obliged to give effect to the same

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. HITESH SHANTILAL MEHTA, MUMBAI

In the result, the cross-objections filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 7798/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 268ASection 57

section 268A of the Act embodies a clear and deliberate policy decision to regulate departmental litigation and to ensure that appeals involving insignificant tax effect do not occupy the time of appellate fora. Such Circulars are binding on the Revenue authorities and, once the conditions stipulated therein are satisfied, the Tribunal is obliged to give effect to the same

DCIT CIR 22(1), NAVI MUMBAI vs. POSITIVE INDUSTRIES, MUMBAI

ITA 1843/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2009-10 The Dcit, M/S. Positive Industries, Cir-22(1), 305/306, Vindhyachal Chs, Room No.411, 4Th Floor, 7Th Road, Neelkanth Vally, Vs. Tower No.6, Rajawadi, Ghatkopar (E), Vashi Station Complex, Mumbai – 400 077 Mumbai - 400703 Pan: Aadfp 8298A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R. Parikh, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. S. Pandian, D.R
Section 12A

section 268A of the Income Tax Act. 5. Now coming to the cross objection filed by the assessee i.e. CO No.103/M/2014. 4 M/s. Positive Industries CO No.103/M/2014 6. The assessee has raised three issues in its cross objections. The first issue is relating to disallowance

JT. CIT (OSD), CC-3(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. VENUS INTERNATIONAL , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 277/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Apr 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Milind DattaniFor Respondent: Shri S.N.Kabra
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 268A

disallowance on sale of shares to M/s First Financial Services Ltd. 2. The fact in brief is that the assessee filed its return of income on 15.09.2015 declaring a total income of Rs.18,89,900/-. The case was subject to scrutiny assessment and notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was 2 ITA No.277/Mum/2021 A.Y. 2015-16 Jt.CIT