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.

4,740 results for “disallowance”+ Section 54clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai4,740Delhi4,191Bangalore1,387Chennai1,382Kolkata1,003Ahmedabad670Hyderabad459Jaipur442Indore338Pune307Chandigarh225Surat224Raipur222Nagpur147Visakhapatnam134Cochin127Rajkot115Amritsar105Lucknow104Cuttack93Karnataka89Allahabad54Jodhpur45Calcutta42Ranchi40Guwahati30SC30Telangana28Agra28Panaji23Patna19Dehradun19Varanasi18Kerala14Jabalpur10Punjab & Haryana6Rajasthan4Orissa2Himachal Pradesh2Gauhati1

Key Topics

Disallowance62Addition to Income56Section 14A55Section 143(3)53Section 5439Deduction39Section 80I36Section 271(1)(c)24Section 115J23Exemption

TARUN KUMAR RATAN SINGH RATHI,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 32(1), MUMBAI

ITA 2695/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2024AY 2015-16
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54

disallowing the amount to the tune Rs. 3,26,44,994/-\nunder section 54 of the act of the assessee

VAIJANTHI MAHAVIR OZA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(IT)-3(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 5799/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5799/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) बिाम/ Vaijanthi Mahavir Oza, Income Tax Officer- C/O. Chhajed & Doshi, (International Taxation)- 101, Hubtown Solaris, 3(3)(1) V. N.S Phadke Marg, Room No. 1628, Near East West Flyover, 16Th Floor Andheri (E), Air India Building Mumbai- 400069 Mumbai स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Abepo5631J (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Piyush Chhajjed Revenue By: Miss. Deepika Arora (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 09.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.04.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 5799/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 23.06.2017, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-57, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2014-15, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Assessment Order Dated 23.12.2016 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2014-15. I.T.A. No.5799/Mum/2017

Showing 1–20 of 4,740 · Page 1 of 237

...
18
Section 10A15
Section 143(2)12
For Appellant: Shri. Piyush ChhajjedFor Respondent: Miss. Deepika Arora (DR)
Section 1Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54F

disallowing the claim on the basis of the following: i. By making a reference to section 1 of the Act which relates to Short title, extent and commencement of the Act and mentions that the Act extends to the whole of India. The AO's view is that the assessee cannot claim benefit of section 54

FAROOQ ABDULLA MERCHANT,MUMBAI vs. ITO 23 (1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, Ground No. V raised by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7906/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Blefarooq Abdulla Merchant V. Income Tax Officer- Ward – 23(1)(4) Matru Mandir, Tardev Road A-1401, Poseidon Tower Mumbai – 400 007 Versova, Yari Road Above Indian Bank, Versova Andheri (W), Mumbai - 400061 Pan: Ahupm7426K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vimal Punamiya Department Represented By : Smt. Vranda U. Matkarni

Section 143(2)Section 54Section 54(1)

disallowed. 7. In response, Ld. AR of the assessee vide reply dated 21.12.2016 submitted as under: - “This is with reference to my aforesaid client's scrutiny assessment for the assessment year 2014-15 and in connection with show cause dated 15.12.2016, under my client's instruction I have to state that: 1. Section 54

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 of deprecation by invoking the provisions of section 40A(2) of the Act. 48 Rajahmundry Expressway Ltd. 53. This issue is identical to the issue raised by the Revenue in its appeal being ITA no.6587/Mum./2017. Following our decision therein, the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 54

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 115JB of the Act 7. Disallowance of weighted deduction amounting to INR 17,54,78,992 claimed under Section

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 - Rs. 1,05,10,437/- (ii) Disallowance of Prior period expenditure - Rs. 54,83,149/- (iii) Disallowance

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 - Rs. 1,05,10,437/- (ii) Disallowance of Prior period expenditure - Rs. 54,83,149/- (iii) Disallowance

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 - Rs. 1,05,10,437/- (ii) Disallowance of Prior period expenditure - Rs. 54,83,149/- (iii) Disallowance

RANI JAGDISH SAHDEVAN,MUMBAI vs. ITO 25 (3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid findings

ITA 162/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Ajay SinghFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Vijay, CIT–DR
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54Section 54(2)

section 54 of the Act be not disallowed in respect of amount deposited in Capital Gains Scheme. In reply, the assessee

DIPTI NALIN PARIKH,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD - 17(1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 3274/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri M Balaganeshdipti Nalin Parikh, Crescent Bay T4 Apt. 3103-3104, Near, Parel Bhoiwada, Opp. Cancer Society, Jeerabai Wadai Road, Parel (E), Mumbai-400012 Pan: Aabpp5053F ............ Appellant Vs. Ito-17(1)(4), 115, 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400020 ............ Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Subramanian, ARFor Respondent: Sh. Sonia Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 54Section 54(1)

disallow the claim made u/s 54 or 54F.” 13. We have heard the rival contentions of the parties and perused the material available on record. The section

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

54,79,458/- (₹12,53,95,654 interest interest expenditure expenditure of of 12,53,95,654 – ₹10,99,16,196) was accordingly disallowed on a proportionate basis 10,99,16,196) was accordingly disallowed on a proportionate basis 10,99,16,196) was accordingly disallowed on a proportionate basis in the ratio of average investments to average total assets

AMIRALI AKBARALI ENGINEER,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 24(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 289/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2012-13 Amirali Akbarali Engineer, Vs Acit, A/201, Senha Apna Ghar, Ward-24(1), Unit No.11, Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Swami Samarth Nagar, Mumbai Andheri (West), Mumbai-400053 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aacpe9331N

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54F

54,234/-, on account of Long Term Capital Gain, under section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act). 2. During hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee explained that the assessee is a share holder of the company M/s Rajdeep Realtors Pvt. Ltd., purchased shares, which were sold for a consideration of Rs.3

DEEPANKAR MOGHA,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISATNT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 17(1) , MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed

ITA 4801/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara (Jm) & Shri Girish Agrawal (Am)

Section 143(3)Section 27Section 54

section 54 disallowance. There is hardly in dispute in both learned lower authorities have invoked reasoning in rejecting assessee’s 54

SATISH NIKAM,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO 19(3)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal stands allowed

ITA 1012/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Parida a/wFor Respondent: Shri Manjunatha Swamy
Section 54

disallowance of claim of exemption under section 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"). 3. Briefly

VISHWANTAH ACHARAYA,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 11(1), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 6872/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain Shri Vishwanath Acharya A C I T – 11(1) 1701-A Wing, Brook Hill Aayakar Bhavan Towers, Near Lokhandwala Vs. M.K. Road Complex, Andheri (W) Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400058 Pan – Aagpa0144D Appellant Respondent A C I T – 16(1) Shri Vishwanath Acharya Room No. 439 1701-A Wing, Brook Hill Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Towers, Near Lokhandwala M.K. Road Complex, Andheri (W) Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400058 Pan – Aagpa0144D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. SinghFor Respondent: Shri Ravinder Sindhu
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 54

section 54 of the Act, deleted the disallowance of 20% of professional expenses and allowed the assessee partial relief on the disallowances

ACIT 16(1), MUMBAI vs. VISHWANATH ACHARYA, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 7232/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain Shri Vishwanath Acharya A C I T – 11(1) 1701-A Wing, Brook Hill Aayakar Bhavan Towers, Near Lokhandwala Vs. M.K. Road Complex, Andheri (W) Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400058 Pan – Aagpa0144D Appellant Respondent A C I T – 16(1) Shri Vishwanath Acharya Room No. 439 1701-A Wing, Brook Hill Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Towers, Near Lokhandwala M.K. Road Complex, Andheri (W) Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400058 Pan – Aagpa0144D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. SinghFor Respondent: Shri Ravinder Sindhu
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 54

section 54 of the Act, deleted the disallowance of 20% of professional expenses and allowed the assessee partial relief on the disallowances

MACROTECH DEVELOPRS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(3), MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed

ITA 2239/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 928Section 92B

54,199,690/– by disallowance under section 14 A of the act while calculating MAT liability under section 115JB of the act 4. The learned

MACROTECH DEVELOPERS LTD.(SUCCESSOR TO BELLISSIMO CROWN BUILDMART PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(3), MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed

ITA 2266/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 928Section 92B

54,199,690/– by disallowance under section 14 A of the act while calculating MAT liability under section 115JB of the act 4. The learned

ITO 16(1)(4), MUMBAI vs. SHASHANKA GHOSH, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6751/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer-16(1)(4), Vs Shri Shashanka Ghosh, Room No.438, 4Th Floor, C-701, Jay Bharat Chs Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Off. Yari Road,Near Amarnath M. K. Road, Tower, Varsova Andher (West), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400061 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Acwpg5915E

Section 54

disallowed the claimed exemption under section 54 of the Act on the plea that the assessee did not enter into

BAJAJ INTERNATIONAL REALTY PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, 1(2)1, MUMBAI

In the result both the appeals of the parties are partly allowed for In the result both the appeals of the parties are partly allowed for the statistical purposes

ITA 5319/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. ARFor Respondent: Shri Kirit Kamdar
Section 4Section 43C

Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D of the Act under the provisions of section 115JB D of the Act under the provisions of section 115JB [Rs.50,54