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.

2,125 results for “disallowance”+ Section 43(5)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi2,464Mumbai2,125Chennai607Ahmedabad502Bangalore482Jaipur445Hyderabad398Kolkata319Chandigarh228Raipur215Pune201Indore199Surat143Amritsar116Rajkot113Cochin112Visakhapatnam95Nagpur82Guwahati75SC65Lucknow63Jodhpur52Allahabad49Agra31Cuttack29Patna29Ranchi27Dehradun15Varanasi11Jabalpur10Panaji8A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1

Key Topics

Section 20180Section 14A65Disallowance61Addition to Income53Section 143(3)44Section 153C25Section 1425Deduction25Penalty20Transfer Pricing

ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 19(1), MUMBAI vs. KETAN ANIL SHAH, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2188/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Asst. Commissioner Of Ketan Anil Shah Income-Tax 19(1), Mumbai, 44/B Rajul Apartment Vs. Matru Mandir, Room No.203, J Mehta Marg, Napean Sea Grant Road, Mumbai-400 007 Road, Mumbai-400 006 Pan No. Aaips 9400 J Appellant Respondent : Revenue By Smt. Madhumalti Ghosh, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Anish Shah, Ca & Shri Haridas Bhat Date Of Hearing : 01/12/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 19/01/2023

For Appellant: Shri Anish Shah, CA &For Respondent: Revenue by Smt. Madhumalti Ghosh, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 28Section 45V

disallowed the losses as claimed by the assessee on the ground transactions has carried out by the assessee are speculative transactions settled wi the assessee are speculative transactions settled with delivery in terms of th delivery in terms of Section 43(5

Showing 1–20 of 2,125 · Page 1 of 107

...
18
Section 13217
Section 80I15

M/S. VISION MILLENIUM EXPORTS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 7(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal

ITA 1645/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: BEFORESHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Khandelwal,ARFor Respondent: Ms. Neena Jeph, (CIT DR)
Section 143(3)

disallowed as business loss as the same was a loss from speculation business. The reply of the assessee is already reproduced in earlier para and assessee is already reproduced in earlier para and the same is found to be devoid of any the same is found to be devoid of any merit.Section 43(5) of the Act reads as under

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

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

5) with wisdom, the Parliament amended Section 43 wisdom, the Parliament amended Section 43 effect from 1 April 2006 in relation to the business of effect from 1 April 2006 in relation to the business of effect from 1 April 2006 in relation to the business of trading in derivatives, Parliament brought about a trading in derivatives, Parliament brought about

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

THERMO FISHER SCIENTIFIC INDIA PVT LTD. ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-15(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 769/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Thermo Fisher Scientific India Dy. Cit-15(3)(1), Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 360, Aayakar Vs. 403-404, ‘B’ Wing, Delphi, Bhavan, New Marine Lines, Hiranandani Business Park, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400076. Pan No. Aabct 3207 A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Mr. Mudit Nagpal, CIT-DR
Section 43(1)

5. A homogeneous reading of the provisions of sections 2(1B). 32 A homogeneous reading of the provisions of sections 2(1B). 32 A homogeneous reading of the provisions of sections 2(1B). 32 and 43 of the Act make it evident that in an amalgamation of the and 43 of the Act make it evident that in an amalgamation

BRIGHT PAINTS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 12(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the ground no

ITA 6817/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member), SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri. Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri. Leyaqat Ali, SR. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 14ASection 250Section 73

disallowance made by the ld. AO. 7. The learned Authorised Representative ('ld. AR' for short) for the assessee contended that trading in derivatives was carried out by the assessee through recognized stock exchange and the same cannot be considered as speculative loss as per clause (d) of the proviso to Section 43(5

GEECEE VENTURES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3975/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rahul SardaFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 80I

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under Section 14A read with Rule 8D while computing taxable income under normal provision of the Act and while computing ‘Book Profits’ for the purpose of Section 115JB of the Act does not call for any interference. 36. During the course of hearing it was contended on behalf of the Revenue that

ACIT-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. GEECEE VENTURES LIMITED, MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4119/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rahul SardaFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 80I

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under Section 14A read with Rule 8D while computing taxable income under normal provision of the Act and while computing ‘Book Profits’ for the purpose of Section 115JB of the Act does not call for any interference. 36. During the course of hearing it was contended on behalf of the Revenue that

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

disallowed under Section 43B. 42. The operative para of the said decision is as under: 6. We have carefully examined the scope and ambit of Section 43B of the Act. In our view, this section has two parts. The first part is that whether the interest paid in addition will at all be deductible under this section

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

disallowed under Section 43B. 42. The operative para of the said decision is as under: 6. We have carefully examined the scope and ambit of Section 43B of the Act. In our view, this section has two parts. The first part is that whether the interest paid in addition will at all be deductible under this section

LAFFANS PETROCHEMICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-10(2) (1) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 300/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.298 से 300/मुं/2022 ("न.व. 2014-15,2015-16 एवं 2017-18)

For Appellant: S/Shri Haridas Bhat & Shekhar GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha
Section 43Section 43(5)

section 43(5) of the Act and the decision cited above, we have no hesitation in holding that the income generated from trading in commodities in the instant case is not a speculative transaction and is assessable as ‘business income’ of the assessee. Consequently, appeal by the assessee is allowed. ITA NO.2552/Mum/2021-.A.Y.2014-15: 11. The Revenue in its appeal has assailed

ACIT 2 (2)(1), MUMBAI vs. LAFFANS PETROCHEMICALS LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2552/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.298 से 300/मुं/2022 ("न.व. 2014-15,2015-16 एवं 2017-18)

For Appellant: S/Shri Haridas Bhat & Shekhar GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha
Section 43Section 43(5)

section 43(5) of the Act and the decision cited above, we have no hesitation in holding that the income generated from trading in commodities in the instant case is not a speculative transaction and is assessable as ‘business income’ of the assessee. Consequently, appeal by the assessee is allowed. ITA NO.2552/Mum/2021-.A.Y.2014-15: 11. The Revenue in its appeal has assailed

LAFFANS PETROCHEMICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 10(2) (2) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 299/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.298 से 300/मुं/2022 ("न.व. 2014-15,2015-16 एवं 2017-18)

For Appellant: S/Shri Haridas Bhat & Shekhar GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha
Section 43Section 43(5)

section 43(5) of the Act and the decision cited above, we have no hesitation in holding that the income generated from trading in commodities in the instant case is not a speculative transaction and is assessable as ‘business income’ of the assessee. Consequently, appeal by the assessee is allowed. ITA NO.2552/Mum/2021-.A.Y.2014-15: 11. The Revenue in its appeal has assailed

LAFFANS PETROCHEMICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR -10(2) (1) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 298/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.298 से 300/मुं/2022 ("न.व. 2014-15,2015-16 एवं 2017-18)

For Appellant: S/Shri Haridas Bhat & Shekhar GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha
Section 43Section 43(5)

section 43(5) of the Act and the decision cited above, we have no hesitation in holding that the income generated from trading in commodities in the instant case is not a speculative transaction and is assessable as ‘business income’ of the assessee. Consequently, appeal by the assessee is allowed. ITA NO.2552/Mum/2021-.A.Y.2014-15: 11. The Revenue in its appeal has assailed

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

43. We heard the parties and perused the material on record. The ld. AR presented similar arguments with regard to the commission expenditure and prayed that the issue may be remitted back to the AO with a direction to disallow only the commission paid those vendors which the AO disallowed in the earlier years. The ld AR also submitted

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

43. We heard the parties and perused the material on record. The ld. AR presented similar arguments with regard to the commission expenditure and prayed that the issue may be remitted back to the AO with a direction to disallow only the commission paid those vendors which the AO disallowed in the earlier years. The ld AR also submitted

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

43. We heard the parties and perused the material on record. The ld. AR presented similar arguments with regard to the commission expenditure and prayed that the issue may be remitted back to the AO with a direction to disallow only the commission paid those vendors which the AO disallowed in the earlier years. The ld AR also submitted

ACIT, CC 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4321/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kothari and Shri Ronak Vasavada, CAsFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani, CIT DR and Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 1

disallowance from - - - - - 5 1 - 5 reimbursement of expenditure to director 17 Unexplained cash loan recd from Paresh - - - - - - - 4 4 - - 1, 2 Shah u/s. 69A 18 Adjustment in 143(1) for treatment of - - - - - - - - - contingent liability 19 Payment in Ethopia based on WhatsApp - - - - - - - - 4 chat u/s. 69C 20 Payment to Manoj Patel based on - - - - - - - - - WhatsApp chat u/s.69C 21 Payment to Ramesh Chand

ACIT, CC-6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4318/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kothari and Shri Ronak Vasavada, CAsFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani, CIT DR and Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 1

disallowance from - - - - - 5 1 - 5 reimbursement of expenditure to director 17 Unexplained cash loan recd from Paresh - - - - - - - 4 4 - - 1, 2 Shah u/s. 69A 18 Adjustment in 143(1) for treatment of - - - - - - - - - contingent liability 19 Payment in Ethopia based on WhatsApp - - - - - - - - 4 chat u/s. 69C 20 Payment to Manoj Patel based on - - - - - - - - - WhatsApp chat u/s.69C 21 Payment to Ramesh Chand

ACIT, CC 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4319/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kothari and Shri Ronak Vasavada, CAsFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani, CIT DR and Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 1

disallowance from - - - - - 5 1 - 5 reimbursement of expenditure to director 17 Unexplained cash loan recd from Paresh - - - - - - - 4 4 - - 1, 2 Shah u/s. 69A 18 Adjustment in 143(1) for treatment of - - - - - - - - - contingent liability 19 Payment in Ethopia based on WhatsApp - - - - - - - - 4 chat u/s. 69C 20 Payment to Manoj Patel based on - - - - - - - - - WhatsApp chat u/s.69C 21 Payment to Ramesh Chand