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.

6,331 results for “disallowance”+ Section 33clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai6,331Delhi5,663Bangalore2,063Chennai1,827Kolkata1,366Ahmedabad860Hyderabad702Jaipur576Pune413Indore394Surat389Chandigarh370Raipur282Nagpur178Amritsar166Rajkot159Karnataka158Cochin149Visakhapatnam147Lucknow121Agra98Cuttack89Allahabad58SC55Jodhpur53Guwahati50Ranchi48Calcutta48Panaji47Patna47Telangana36Dehradun25Kerala21Varanasi16Jabalpur14Punjab & Haryana6Orissa4Rajasthan3Himachal Pradesh2ANIL R. DAVE AMITAVA ROY L. NAGESWARA RAO1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1Tripura1

Key Topics

Section 14A117Section 143(3)76Addition to Income66Disallowance60Section 14829Deduction29Section 115J26Section 143(1)25Section 14724Section 271(1)(c)

D.C.I.T. CENT. CIR. - 7(2), MUMBAI vs. RAJAHMUNDHRY EXPRESSWAY LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals are dismissed

ITA 6487/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri G. Manjunatha

disallowance made while computing book profit under section 115JB of the Act. This ground is dismissed. 32. In the result, assessee‟s appeal for is partly allowed. ITA no.6487/Mum./2017 Revenue’s Appeal – A.Y. 2008–09 33

ELARA CAPITAL (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT- CIRCLE 6(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1569/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Elara Capital (India) Pvt. Ltd., The Acit-Circle 6(2)(2), Tower 3, 21St Floor, One Room No. 506, 5Th Floor, Vs. International Center, Senapati Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Karve Road, Mumbai- Road (West), Mumbai-400013. 400020. Pan No. Aabce 6487 B Appellant Respondent

Showing 1–20 of 6,331 · Page 1 of 317

...
22
Section 10B20
Depreciation16
For Appellant: Mr. Milind DattaniFor Respondent: Mr. P.D. Chogule (Addl. CIT)
Section 14A

33 which ruled ruled ruled in in in the the the absence absence absence of of of any any any exempt exempt exempt income, income, income, disallowance under Section

STRIDES PHARMA SCIENCE LTD.,NAVI MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT -5(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result ITA number 1004/M/2021 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2016 – 17 is allowed

ITA 1004/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Strides Pharma Science Ltd. Dcit 15(1)(2) 201, Devavrata, Sector-17, Aayakar Bhavan, M K Road, Vs. Vashi, Navi Mumbai, 400703 Mumbai 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcs8104P

For Respondent: Ms Samruddhi Hande SR DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 92C

section 92CA of the Act amounting to INR 9,5,.43,090, details of which are provided below. 2. Imputation of interest on the Share application money pending allotment - INR 9,25,35,248 [ Page 3 and 4 of the Final Assessment Order] The learned AO/ the learned TPO and the Hon'ble DRP erred in facts

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

section 14A r.w.r 8D to Rs. 67,84,065/- and deleted 25 ITA 4172/M/13-5749-5750/M/15-110- 111/M/16 Bajaj Electricals Limited the disallowance made towards prior period expenditure. Both the assessee and the revenue are in appeal against the order of the CIT(A). ITA 5749 Mum 2015 – Revenue's appeal 33

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

section 14A r.w.r 8D to Rs. 67,84,065/- and deleted 25 ITA 4172/M/13-5749-5750/M/15-110- 111/M/16 Bajaj Electricals Limited the disallowance made towards prior period expenditure. Both the assessee and the revenue are in appeal against the order of the CIT(A). ITA 5749 Mum 2015 – Revenue's appeal 33

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

section 14A r.w.r 8D to Rs. 67,84,065/- and deleted 25 ITA 4172/M/13-5749-5750/M/15-110- 111/M/16 Bajaj Electricals Limited the disallowance made towards prior period expenditure. Both the assessee and the revenue are in appeal against the order of the CIT(A). ITA 5749 Mum 2015 – Revenue's appeal 33

ASIA INVESTMENTS PVT.. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT ,CIRCLE 2 (1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeal

ITA 6209/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Respondent: Mr. Kalpesh Unadkat &
Section 14A

33,64,56,570/-. The assessee, on its own accord, made a assessee, on its own accord, made a suo-motu disallowance of ₹10,53,55,857/- under section

APL LOGISTICS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 14(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2917/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2022AY 2009-10
Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

Disallowance under section 14A r.w.r 8D. & 2917 M 15- APL Logistics (India) Pvt. Ltd. The ld. Counsel submitted that the issue raised in the present appeal are identical to the issues adjudicated by the Tribunal in assessee’s appeal for AY 2006-07 & 2007-08. The ld. Counsel pointed that the submissions made while addressing the issue

DCIT 10(1), MUMBAI vs. APL LOGISTICS (INDIA ) P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6471/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2022AY 2007-08
Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

Disallowance under section 14A r.w.r 8D. & 2917 M 15- APL Logistics (India) Pvt. Ltd. The ld. Counsel submitted that the issue raised in the present appeal are identical to the issues adjudicated by the Tribunal in assessee’s appeal for AY 2006-07 & 2007-08. The ld. Counsel pointed that the submissions made while addressing the issue

APL LOGISTICS (INDIA) P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 10(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6482/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2022AY 2007-08
Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

Disallowance under section 14A r.w.r 8D. & 2917 M 15- APL Logistics (India) Pvt. Ltd. The ld. Counsel submitted that the issue raised in the present appeal are identical to the issues adjudicated by the Tribunal in assessee’s appeal for AY 2006-07 & 2007-08. The ld. Counsel pointed that the submissions made while addressing the issue

DCIT 10(1), MUMBAI vs. APL LOGISTICS (INDIA) P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6473/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2022AY 2008-09
Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

Disallowance under section 14A r.w.r 8D. & 2917 M 15- APL Logistics (India) Pvt. Ltd. The ld. Counsel submitted that the issue raised in the present appeal are identical to the issues adjudicated by the Tribunal in assessee’s appeal for AY 2006-07 & 2007-08. The ld. Counsel pointed that the submissions made while addressing the issue

APL LOGISTICS (INDIA) P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 10(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4150/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2022AY 2006-07
Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

Disallowance under section 14A r.w.r 8D. & 2917 M 15- APL Logistics (India) Pvt. Ltd. The ld. Counsel submitted that the issue raised in the present appeal are identical to the issues adjudicated by the Tribunal in assessee’s appeal for AY 2006-07 & 2007-08. The ld. Counsel pointed that the submissions made while addressing the issue

APL LOGISTICS (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 10(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6480/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2022AY 2008-09
Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

Disallowance under section 14A r.w.r 8D. & 2917 M 15- APL Logistics (India) Pvt. Ltd. The ld. Counsel submitted that the issue raised in the present appeal are identical to the issues adjudicated by the Tribunal in assessee’s appeal for AY 2006-07 & 2007-08. The ld. Counsel pointed that the submissions made while addressing the issue

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-CIRCLE 6(1)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. 360 ONE PRIME LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for t, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for t, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3201/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Asst. Cit Circle-6(1)(2), 360 One Prime Ltd., Room No. 506, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Iifl Centre, Kamala City, Senapati Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (W), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aabcc 3347 E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Krishnakumar, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Pritesh Mehta
Section 115JSection 14A

disallowance computed under Rule 8D cannot be imported into the provisions of section 115JB of the Act for computing the rovisions of section 115JB of the Act for computing the rovisions of section 115JB of the Act for computing the book profit. 4.1 As far as the issue of dissatisfaction to the claim of the As far as the issue

SAPHALE PARISAR BIGARSHETI , SAHKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT, SAPHALE,MUMBAI vs. PCIT-1, THANE

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

ITA 190/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Saphaleparisarbigarshetisahkaripatsansthamaryadit, Pr. Cit-1, Saphale, Ashar It Vs. Ambika Nagar, Ambika Rice Mill Compound, Park, 6Th Tandulwadi Road, Umbarpada, Saphale East, Dist Floor, Palghar-401 102. Income Tax Office, Wagle Estate, Thane- 400604. Pan No. Aafas 4609 H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Unmesh Narvekar, Ar Revenue By : Dr. Kishor Dhule, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 20/03/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/03/2023 Order

For Appellant: Mr. Unmesh Narvekar, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 80(2)(d)Section 80P(2)(d)

disallowed and added back to income. The Karnataka High Court in the case of PCIT, Hubli Vs. The Karnataka High Court in the case of PCIT, Hubli Vs. The Karnataka High Court in the case of PCIT, Hubli Vs. Totgar Co-op. Sale Society 395 IT 611 dated 16.06.2017 (ITA op. Sale Society 395 IT 611 dated

M/S. TATA INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ITO 2(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed

ITA 4894/MUM/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2016AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Accoutant Member & Shri Sanjay Gargtata Industries Ltd., Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- Bombay House,24,Homi 2 (3) (3), Room No.555, Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi 400 001 Karve Road, Mumbai 400 020 Pan: Aaact 4058 L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By Shri Dinesh Vyas, Ar Respondent By Shri Alok Johri, Dr Date Of Hearing 22-06-2016 Date Of Pronouncement 20-07-2016

Section 10ASection 115JSection 14ASection 36

section 10(33) that was available and not to disallow any part of the expenditure claimed, hence it was not open

ACIT, MUMBAI vs. K RAHEJA CORP PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6083/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2020-21

For Respondent: Mr. Paresh Sondagar, CA
Section 11SSection 14A

33, we uphold the plea of the assessee that no disallowance under section 14A was and in the circumstances of the case

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-7(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S MACROTECH DEVELOPERS LIMITED , MUMBAI

Accordingly should be allowed as a deduction

ITA 2382/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 115JSection 14ASection 92C

disallowance being considered for computing book profit under section 115JB, the CIT(A) held that the same could not be made following various judicial precedence. 7. The Ld.AR submitted the below workings to submit that the own funds of the assessee is more than the investments made in tax free income earning investments. Own Funds workings (Rs in lakhs) Particulars

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CC-7(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S MACROTECH DEVELOPERS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS LODHA DEVELOPERS PVT LTD) (SUCCESSOER OF M/S BELLISSIMO CROWN BUILDMART PVT LTD ), MUMBAI

Accordingly should be allowed as a deduction

ITA 2383/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 115JSection 14ASection 92C

disallowance being considered for computing book profit under section 115JB, the CIT(A) held that the same could not be made following various judicial precedence. 7. The Ld.AR submitted the below workings to submit that the own funds of the assessee is more than the investments made in tax free income earning investments. Own Funds workings (Rs in lakhs) Particulars

SICOM LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesee is partly allow for statistical purpose and the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1694/MUM/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Nov 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judicialmember Sicom Ltd, Vs. Dy Commissioner Of Solitaire Corporate Income Tax Circle Park, Bldg No.04, 3(3)(1), Chakala, Andheri(E), 6Th Floor, Room No. Mumbai-400093. 609,Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai- 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं.Pan/Gir No. Aaacs5524J (अपीलाथ"/Applicant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Dy Commissioner Of Vs. Sicom Ltd, Income Tax Circle Solitaire Corporate Park, 3(3)(1), Bldg No.04, Chakala, 6Th Floor, Room No. Andheri(E), 609,Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400093. Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai- 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं.Pan/Gir No. Aaacs5524J (अपीलाथ"/Applicant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 10(34)Section 14ASection 234BSection 36(1)(ii)Section 36(1)(iii)

section 14A applies irrespective of whether shares are held to gain control or as stock-in-trade. In view of the above decisions which are relevant to the instant case, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of the AO to recomputed the disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule