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.

5,325 results for “disallowance”+ Section 36(1)(iii)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai5,325 Delhi4,467 Bangalore1,670 Chennai1,375 Kolkata1,243 Ahmedabad748 Jaipur521 Hyderabad487 Chandigarh395 Pune384 Indore288 Surat252 Raipur245 Amritsar195 Karnataka158 Rajkot156 Visakhapatnam140 Nagpur133 Cochin124 Lucknow96 Agra87 Cuttack78 Guwahati69 Telangana65 Allahabad61 SC60 Calcutta51 Jodhpur45 Panaji44 Ranchi25 Varanasi23 Patna20 Kerala18 Dehradun16 Jabalpur12 Punjab & Haryana11 Rajasthan7 Orissa1 MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1 RANJAN GOGOI PRAFULLA C. PANT1 Himachal Pradesh1 H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1 ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1 ANIL R. DAVE AMITAVA ROY L. NAGESWARA RAO1 A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1 A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 14A71 Section 143(3)63 Disallowance60 Addition to Income54 Section 115J32 Deduction32 Section 4024 Section 271(1)(c)20 Section 25018 Section 153A

BOMBAY MINERALS LIMITED,KHAMBHALIA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue

ITA 5410/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Mr. Gaurang R. Sanghavi (Virtually appeared)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

disallowance of notional interest under section 36(1)(iii) without considering the fact that the assessee under section 36(1

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CICLE-3(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. BOMBAY MINERALS LIMITED, GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue

Showing 1–20 of 5,325 · Page 1 of 267

...

17

Section 132(4)16

Business Income13

ITA 5409/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed

ITAT Mumbai

12 Mar 2026

AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Mr. Gaurang R. Sanghavi (Virtually appeared)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

disallowance of notional interest under section 36(1)(iii) without considering the fact that the assessee under section 36(1

BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-2(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

ITA 1451/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1452/Mum/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT (DR)

Section 10Section 14ASection 250Section 32Section 90

disallowance of interest on perpetual bonds. 62. The brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue, as emanating from the record, are: During the assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to show cause as to why the perpetual bonds should not be treated as equity and consequently the interest paid on such bonds should be allowed under section 36

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

ITA 1547/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1452/Mum/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT (DR)

Section 10Section 14ASection 250Section 32Section 90

disallowance of interest on perpetual bonds. 62. The brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue, as emanating from the record, are: During the assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to show cause as to why the perpetual bonds should not be treated as equity and consequently the interest paid on such bonds should be allowed under section 36

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

ITA 1548/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2018-2019

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT (DR)

Section 10Section 14ASection 250Section 32Section 90

section 36(1)(iii) of the\nAct. Accordingly, the AO disallowed the amount of Rs.160,77,00,000 claimed\nas deduction

BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. THE NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, MUMBAI

ITA 1452/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT (DR)

Section 10Section 14ASection 250Section 32Section 90

section 36(1)(iii) of the\nAct. Accordingly, the AO disallowed the amount of Rs.160,77,00,000 claimed\nas deduction

DY..C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S STATE BANK OF MYSORE, BANGALORE

ITA 684/BANG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved & Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Shri P.C. Chhotaray, Spl. Counsel

Section 2Section 250Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 41(1)

section 36(1)(iv) & (v) of the Income Tax Act,1961?” iii. Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in allowing a loss of Rs. 16,84,481/-on revaluation of on account of loss permanent category investments, even though the same is a notional loss and inadmissible

STATE BANK OF MYSORE,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

ITA 661/BANG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved & Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Shri P.C. Chhotaray, Spl. Counsel

Section 2Section 250Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 41(1)

section 36(1)(iv) & (v) of the Income Tax Act,1961?” iii. Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in allowing a loss of Rs. 16,84,481/-on revaluation of on account of loss permanent category investments, even though the same is a notional loss and inadmissible

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 3(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

ITA 3173/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Section 115JSection 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

section 14A of\nthe Act at Rs.1867,45,30,421/-.\n(i) Disallowance to bad-debts u/s 36(1)(vii)\n(ii) Disallowance of amortized rent\n(iii

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 3(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

ITA 2943/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

section 14A of the Act at Rs. 1867,45,30,421/-. (i) Disallowance to bad-debts u/s 36(1)(vii) - Rs. 84,46,95,341/- (ii) Disallowance of amortized rent - Rs. 60,79,783/- (iii

SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(3)(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 2970/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

section 14A of the Act at Rs. 1867,45,30,421/-. (i) Disallowance to bad-debts u/s 36(1)(vii) - Rs. 84,46,95,341/- (ii) Disallowance of amortized rent - Rs. 60,79,783/- (iii

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 3(3)(1), MUMBAI , MUMBAI vs. SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

ITA 3160/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

section 14A of the Act at Rs. 1867,45,30,421/-. (i) Disallowance to bad-debts u/s 36(1)(vii) - Rs. 84,46,95,341/- (ii) Disallowance of amortized rent - Rs. 60,79,783/- (iii

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 3(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

ITA 2893/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Section 115JSection 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

section 14A of\nthe Act at Rs.1867,45,30,421/-.\n\n(i) Disallowance to bad-debts u/s 36(1)(vii)\n(ii) Disallowance of amortized rent\n(iii

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 3(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

ITA 2894/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

section 14A of the Act at Rs. 1867,45,30,421/-. (i) Disallowance to bad-debts u/s 36(1)(vii) - Rs. 84,46,95,341/- (ii) Disallowance of amortized rent - Rs. 60,79,783/- (iii

SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(3)(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 2971/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Section 115JSection 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

section 14A of\nthe Act at Rs.1867,45,30,421/-.\n(i) Disallowance to bad-debts u/s 36(1)(vii)\n(ii) Disallowance of amortized rent\n(iii

ACIT (LTU)-1, MUMBAI vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 882/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri C Naresh, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT D/R

Section 115JSection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

disallowed Rs.471,05,05,075/-.\n5. 1. The assessee agitated the matter before ld. CIT(A) and vehemently\ncontended that the assessee had written off bad debts of Rs.923.67 Crore\nafter reducing the opening credit balance in the provision for bad and\ndoubtful debts account u/s 36(1)(viia) of Rs.452.61 Crores and claimed\nthe balance amount of Rs.471.06 Crores

DY..C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S STATE BANK OF MYSORE, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue Ground-3 is dismissed

ITA 683/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 41(1)

36(1)(viia)\n34. This ground is identical to ground 2 of assessee's appeal in ITA\nNo.660/Bang/2015, which we have already deliberated upon and decided in favour\nof the assessee. The facts and circumstances are stated to be identical; therefore,\nthe decision arrived at therein shall apply mutatis mutandis to ground 1 in this\nappeal also.\nGround 1

STATE BANK OF MYSORE,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue Ground-3 is dismissed

ITA 660/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Account Member & Shri Anikesh Banerjeestate Bank Of India Vs Joint Commissioner Of Income-Tax, (Erstwhile State Bank Of Large Tax Payers Unit, Bangalore Mysore Prior To Merger) Local Head Office Compliance Department, 4Th Floor, 65, St. Marks Road, Bangalore-560 001 Pan: Aaccs0155P Appellant Respondent Deputy Commissioner Of Vs State Bank Of Mysore Income-Tax, Ltu, Circle-1, Head Office, Finance & Accounts Bangalore Department, Kg Road, Bangalore- 560 009 Pan: Aaccs0155P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved & Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Shri P.C. Chhotaray, Spl. Counsel

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 41(1)Section 41(4)

36 ITA 660 & 683/Bang /2015 State Bank of India / State Bank of Mysore Accordingly, the Ground 2 of revenue is dismissed. Ground 3 : Relief in respect of addition under section 14A 38. During impugned assessment year the assessee earned Rs. 1,49,50,000/- on interest earned on tax free bonds and Rs. 24,23,27,401/- on dividends from

LAQSHYA MEDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CIRCLE 10(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1339/MUM/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhaillaqshya Media Limited, Jaganlaxmi, Laqshya House, Next To Rameshwar Temple, Saraswati Baug, Society Road, Jogeshwari (E), ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400060 Pan : Aaacl5004C V/S Acit – 10(1)(1), ……………… Respondent Mumbai

For Appellant: Shri Ravi SawanaFor Respondent: Shri Aditya M. Rai, Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(iii)

36(1)(iii) of the Act. 6. The learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, granted partial relief to the assessee and directed the AO to reduce the disallowance by the amount already disallowed by the assessee under section

KAMAT HOTELS (INDIA) LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, MUMBAI

ITA 913/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das

Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 36(1)(iii) a. Learned CIT(A) erred in disallowing Rs. 24,37,53,214/- being interest