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.

4,046 results for “disallowance”+ Section 63clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai4,046Delhi3,580Bangalore1,373Chennai1,139Ahmedabad957Kolkata921Hyderabad657Pune654Jaipur576Indore419Chandigarh327Cochin245Surat182Raipur161Visakhapatnam127Cuttack114Lucknow113Rajkot97Karnataka93Amritsar92Nagpur89Ranchi69Allahabad68Jodhpur49Calcutta40Telangana37Guwahati36SC31Dehradun28Patna23Panaji20Agra19Kerala15Varanasi11Jabalpur9Punjab & Haryana5Rajasthan3Orissa2ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1RANJAN GOGOI PRAFULLA C. PANT1Bombay1

Key Topics

Section 14A91Section 143(3)82Disallowance64Addition to Income60Deduction35Section 115J25Section 4025Section 271(1)(c)22Depreciation21Section 143(2)

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 under section 14A of the Act. 61. This ground is identical to ground no.11, raised by the assessee in its appeal being ITA no.6518/Mum./2017. Following our decision therein, the ground raised by the assessee is dismissed. 62. In the result, appeal is partly allowed. ITA no.6485/Mum./2017 Revenue’s Appeal – A.Y. 2007–08 63

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 4,046 · Page 1 of 203

...
20
Section 153A17
Section 26316
For Appellant: Mr. Milind DattaniFor Respondent: Mr. P.D. Chogule (Addl. CIT)
Section 14A

disallowance could have been made by the Assessing Officer by invoking section 14A together with Rule Officer by invoking section 14A together with Rule Officer by invoking section 14A together with Rule 8D(2)( )(ii) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. Tribunal relied Tribunal relied upon the decision of the Delhi High Court upon the decision of the Delhi High

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

63,290/-. Subsequently the assessee filed the revised return on 28.03.2013 declaring a total income of Rs. 221,78,42,097/-. The AO complete the assessment by making the following disallowance: (i) Disallowance under section

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

63,290/-. Subsequently the assessee filed the revised return on 28.03.2013 declaring a total income of Rs. 221,78,42,097/-. The AO complete the assessment by making the following disallowance: (i) Disallowance 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 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

63,290/-. Subsequently the assessee filed the revised return on 28.03.2013 declaring a total income of Rs. 221,78,42,097/-. The AO complete the assessment by making the following disallowance: (i) Disallowance under section

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. 3. Narrating the facts of the case, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee is engaged in the business of International Supply Logistic Services. It’s activities include export of Cargo Consultation and Warehouse Management and other services in relation to import and export of Cargo. During the period relevant

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. 3. Narrating the facts of the case, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee is engaged in the business of International Supply Logistic Services. It’s activities include export of Cargo Consultation and Warehouse Management and other services in relation to import and export of Cargo. During the period relevant

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. 3. Narrating the facts of the case, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee is engaged in the business of International Supply Logistic Services. It’s activities include export of Cargo Consultation and Warehouse Management and other services in relation to import and export of Cargo. During the period relevant

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. 3. Narrating the facts of the case, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee is engaged in the business of International Supply Logistic Services. It’s activities include export of Cargo Consultation and Warehouse Management and other services in relation to import and export of Cargo. During the period relevant

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. 3. Narrating the facts of the case, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee is engaged in the business of International Supply Logistic Services. It’s activities include export of Cargo Consultation and Warehouse Management and other services in relation to import and export of Cargo. During the period relevant

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. 3. Narrating the facts of the case, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee is engaged in the business of International Supply Logistic Services. It’s activities include export of Cargo Consultation and Warehouse Management and other services in relation to import and export of Cargo. During the period relevant

BAJAJ ELECTRICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 2(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly we remit the impugned\nissue back to the AO with similar directions. The grounds raised by the assessee in\nthis regard are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 111/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2025AY 2011-12
Section 115Section 14ASection 250

63,290/-. Subsequently the assessee filed the\nrevised return on 28.03.2013 declaring a total income of Rs.221,78,42,097/-. The\nAO complete the assessment by making the following disallowance:\n(i) Disallowance under section

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

63,37,500/- under Section 43CA Section 43CA of the Act, regarding the difference between the sale consideration and the Act, regarding the difference between the sale consideration and the Act, regarding the difference between the sale consideration and the Stamp Duty Valuation (SDV). Stamp Duty Valuation (SDV). Secondly, the disallowance

BAJAJ INTERNATIONAL REALTY PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-1(2), 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 5321/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

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

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

63,37,500/- under Section 43CA Section 43CA of the Act, regarding the difference between the sale consideration and the Act, regarding the difference between the sale consideration and the Act, regarding the difference between the sale consideration and the Stamp Duty Valuation (SDV). Stamp Duty Valuation (SDV). Secondly, the disallowance

INDIABULLAS HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(4), MUMBAI

ITA 821/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Dec 2023AY 2018-2019
For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal &For Respondent: Shri Rakesh Garg
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37(1)

Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’) (b) addition of INR 226,48,84,020/- on account of disallowance of ESOP Expenses and (c) addition of INR 63

DCIT 4(1), MUMBAI vs. DEUTSCHE EQUITIES INDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 8033/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Anil SantFor Respondent: Shri P.J. Pardiwala
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 92D

Disallowance of INR.98,30,093/- under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act in respect of VSAT Expenses/Line Charges of INR.1,63

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment

ITA 3868/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal , Jm

Section 14Section 143Section 36Section 41

section 28 of the Act, Revenue ought to have taxed the broken Period interest received but at the same time ought to have allowed deduction for the broken period interest paid. 21. As already noticed above, this decision of the Bombay High Court has found favour with the Supreme Court in Citibank NA (supra) where Supreme Court agreed with

DCIT 2(2), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2006 – 07 and 2007 – 08 is partly allowed

ITA 4952/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal , Jm A.Y.2006-07 [ By Assessee] &

Section 14Section 143Section 36Section 41

section 260A of the Act, we are not inclined to disturb such a finding of fact, that too, when the legal position is very clear." 59) The honourable High Court has categorically held in paragraph number 24 -25 that the legal position is very ` clear on this issue. In view of the decision of honourable high court we also

DCIT 2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. BAJAJ ELECTRICALS LTD, MUMBAI

Accordingly we remit the impugned\nissue back to the AO with similar directions. The grounds raised by the assessee in\nthis regard are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5750/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2025AY 2011-12
Section 115Section 14ASection 250

63,290/-. Subsequently the assessee filed the\nrevised return on 28.03.2013 declaring a total income of Rs.221,78,42,097/-. The\nAO complete the assessment by making the following disallowance:\n(i) Disallowance under section

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

disallowance under section 14 A of the income tax act of ₹ 54,199,690/– . The brief of the fact shows that during the year the assessee has earned exempt income of ₹ ITA Nos. 2266 & 2239/Mum/2022 Macrotech Developers Ltd; A.Ys. 17-18 & 18-19 8,303,761/–. Assessee disallowed the same sum under section 14 A of the act. The learned