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.

5,555 results for “disallowance”+ Section 68clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai5,555Delhi4,862Kolkata1,388Bangalore1,322Chennai1,194Ahmedabad845Jaipur623Hyderabad480Pune409Chandigarh275Indore217Surat196Rajkot172Lucknow168Raipur154Cochin124Visakhapatnam115Nagpur96Guwahati80Ranchi68Calcutta59Karnataka59Amritsar58Agra57Allahabad53Jodhpur52Panaji48Cuttack40Patna38Jabalpur22SC22Telangana18Dehradun18Varanasi9Kerala8Rajasthan4Orissa3Gauhati1Tripura1Uttarakhand1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1

Key Topics

Addition to Income70Section 143(3)63Section 6861Disallowance52Section 4047Section 25042Section 26341Section 153A40Section 69C31Section 148

M/S RENUKAMATA MULTI STATE CO-OP. URBAN CREDITN SOC. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSTT. CIT, CC-4(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed, while the\nappeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1726/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2024AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Dharmendra KansaraFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair
Section 142Section 153DSection 250Section 68

section 68 of the Act.\n5. Disallowance of provision of standard asset Rs 50,00,000\n5.1. The CIT(A) erred

SHRI RENUKAMATA MULTI-STATE CO-OPERATIVE URBAN SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(4), MUMBAI

Showing 1–20 of 5,555 · Page 1 of 278

...
30
Deduction30
Survey u/s 133A18
ITA 1727/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: Disposed
ITAT Mumbai
30 Jul 2024
AY 2018-2019
For Appellant: Shri Dharmendra KansaraFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair
Section 142Section 153DSection 250Section 68

section 68 of the Act.\n5. Disallowance of provision of standard asset Rs 50,00,000\n5.1. The CIT(A) erred

JCIT (OSD), CC-4(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. SHRI RENUKAMATA MULTI-STATE COOPERATIVE URBAN CREDIT SOCIETY LTD., AHAMEDNAGAR

ITA 2078/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2024AY 2018-2019
For Appellant: Shri Dharmendra KansaraFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair
Section 142Section 153DSection 250Section 68

section 68 of the Act.\n5. Disallowance of provision of standard asset Rs 50,00,000\n5.1. The CIT(A) erred

M/S RENUKAMATA MULTI STATE CO-OP. URBAN CREDITN SOC. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSTT. CIT, CC-4(4), MUMBAI

ITA 1725/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2024AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Dharmendra KansaraFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair
Section 142Section 153DSection 250Section 68

section 68 of the Act.\n\n5. Disallowance of provision of standard asset Rs 50,00,000\n\n5.1. The CIT(A) erred

ACIT CIRCLE-22(1), MUMBAI vs. RAHEJA LEGACY TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2826/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Raichandani & Bhagrati SahuFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT/DR
Section 250Section 68

Section 68 on the ground that the appellant has not submitted the documents like ITR and bank statement of the lenders and has submitted PAN of all lenders and the application forms. However, for the year under consideration, the JAO has taken a contrary view and has made the addition in respect of all the parties in respect of which

RAHEJA LEGENCY TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIR-22(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2268/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Raichandani & Bhagrati SahuFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT/DR
Section 250Section 68

Section 68 on the ground that the appellant has not submitted the documents like ITR and bank statement of the lenders and has submitted PAN of all lenders and the application forms. However, for the year under consideration, the JAO has taken a contrary view and has made the addition in respect of all the parties in respect of which

TATA CHEMICALS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT 2 (3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 7912/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2026AY 2015-16
For Appellant: \nMr. Nitesh Joshi a/wFor Respondent: \nMr. Ajay Chandra, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 35Section 43BSection 80Section 91Section 92Section 92A(3)

disallowing the expenditure\non Scientific Research and Development u/s 35(2AB) totaling to Rs.\n4,24,13,526/- for all the three units, on the basis of the auditor's\ncertificate which stated that these expenses are beyond the\nguidelines laid down by DSIR. These guidelines are in contradiction\nwith the provisions of section

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 deduction claimed under section 80IA of the Act. 67. As regards the validity of assessment framed under section 153A of the Act, admittedly, on the date of search, the assessment proceedings for all these assessment years were in progress, hence, abated. Therefore, the Assessing Officer is not required to confine himself only to incriminating materials for making

JCIT (OSD), CC-4(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. SHRI RENUKAMATA MULTI-STATE COOPERATIVE URBAN CREDIT SOCIETY LTD., AHAMEDNAGAR

ITA 2077/MUM/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Dharmendra KansaraFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair
Section 142Section 153DSection 250Section 68

section 68 of the Act. 5. Disallowance of provision of standard asset Rs 50,00,000 5.1. The CIT(A) erred

JCIT (OSD), CC-4(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. SHRI RENUKAMATA MULTI-STATE COOPERATIVE URBAN CREDIT SOCIETY LTD., AHAMEDNAGAR

ITA 2076/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Dharmendra KansaraFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair
Section 142Section 153DSection 250Section 68

section 68 of the Act. 5. Disallowance of provision of standard asset Rs 50,00,000 5.1. The CIT(A) erred

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

68,874/- 34 ITA 4172/M/13-5749-5750/M/15-110- 111/M/16 Bajaj Electricals Limited (ii) Disallowance of Prior period expenditure - Rs. 29,31,276/- (iii) Disallowance on account of commission payment - Rs. 1,07,54,506/- 46. On further appeal, the CIT(A) deleted the 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 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

68,874/- 34 ITA 4172/M/13-5749-5750/M/15-110- 111/M/16 Bajaj Electricals Limited (ii) Disallowance of Prior period expenditure - Rs. 29,31,276/- (iii) Disallowance on account of commission payment - Rs. 1,07,54,506/- 46. On further appeal, the CIT(A) deleted the 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

68,874/- 34 ITA 4172/M/13-5749-5750/M/15-110- 111/M/16 Bajaj Electricals Limited (ii) Disallowance of Prior period expenditure - Rs. 29,31,276/- (iii) Disallowance on account of commission payment - Rs. 1,07,54,506/- 46. On further appeal, the CIT(A) deleted the disallowance under section

LUMINANT INVESTMENTS LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -40, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4356/MUM/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2006-07 Luminant Investments Ltd., Dy. Cit Central Circle 40, (Formerly Known As Luminant Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Investment Pvt. Ltd.) Mumbai-400020. 121, Radha Bhuvan, 1St Floor, Nagindas Master Road, Fort, Mumbai-400023. Pan No. Aaacl 0834 A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT-DRFor Respondent: None
Section 68

Section 68 of the Act, treating the said amount as Act, treating the said amount as unexplained cash credit. unexplained cash credit. The Assessing Officer also disallowed

RAKESH JAIN,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC), DELHI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 546/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2025AY 2017-18
Section 115Section 144Section 145Section 156Section 250Section 274Section 68

section 44AB\nSection 144, read with sections 44AB and\n68, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Best\njudgment assessment (Scope of)\n Assessment year 2009-10 During\nassessment proceedings, assessee could\nnot produce confirmation letter from large\nnumber of creditors in respect of amount\nborrowed Assessee claimed that it had\nnot maintained books of account and,\ntherefore, amount in question

IDHASOFT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 15(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 5139/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Idhasoft Ltd. Dcit-15(2)(1), 3, Narayan Building, Room No.357, 3Rd Floor बनाम/ 23 L. N. Road, Dadar East, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400014 M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aabci6090G Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit-15(2)(1), M/S Idhasoft Ltd. Room No.357, 3Rd Floor 3, Narayan Building, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, 23 L. N. Road, Dadar East, Vs. M. K. Road, Mumbai-400014 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aabci6090G

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

section 68 of the Act, because, the assessee not only furnished the trail of banking transaction rather also produced the copies of form FCGPR submitted to the RBI evidencing receipt of funds from the foreign entity. As observed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), the assessee also filed confirmation of the said entity before the Ld. Assessing Officer

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(2), MUMBAI, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI vs. AGV CONSULTANTS , BORIVALI (E), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 4872/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 131Section 133ASection 250Section 68

Section 68 of the I.T. Act which assessee has failed to do so. Without fulfillment of the onus cast u/s. 68 of the I.T. Act, the CIT(A) has allowed relief to the assessee which is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. In view of the discussion in the pre paragraphs it is humbly requested that the order

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 5(2), MUMBAI, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI vs. AGV CONSULTANTS , BORIVALI (E), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 4865/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 131Section 133ASection 250Section 68

Section 68 of the I.T. Act which assessee has failed to do so. Without fulfillment of the onus cast u/s. 68 of the I.T. Act, the CIT(A) has allowed relief to the assessee which is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. In view of the discussion in the pre paragraphs it is humbly requested that the order

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S SUCHIR CHEMICALS PVT LTD, MUMBAI.

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 677/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit –Central Circle – 2(2) V. M/S. Suchir Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Old Cgo Building (Amalgamated Company – Manan Pharma Pvt Ltd. W.E.F 01.04.2013) Room No. 806, 8Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Shiv Ashish M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Andheri Prade, Mumbai - 400005 Pan: Aaccm7533K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Pooja Rander & Shri Rushabh Mehta Department By : Shri Manoj Sinha

For Appellant: Ms. Pooja Rander &For Respondent: Shri Manoj Sinha
Section 115JSection 131Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 68

disallowance u/s section 68 will not apply to receipts prior to 01.04.2009. 7.6 With respect to the share application money

DCIT(CENTRAL CIRCLE)-3(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. JUICY INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. (NOW KNOWN AS AVAADA VENTURES PVT. LTD.), MUMBAI

ITA 4388/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2025AY 2013-14
Section 131Section 250

disallowed u/s.14A and added\nback to the total income as well as to the book profit of the\nassessee and also adjusted to book profit u/s 115JB. In view\nof the provisions of clause (f) of Explanation 1 to Section\n11538 of the Act. However, since the entire business loss of\nRs.14,68