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.

35 results for “disallowance”+ Section 801C(2)(b)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi65Mumbai35Chandigarh22Chennai13Kolkata10Rajkot8Dehradun5Guwahati5Hyderabad4Pune3Jaipur2Ahmedabad2Indore1Lucknow1Bangalore1

Key Topics

Section 80I81Deduction34Section 143(3)32Addition to Income30Section 14A28Section 92C22Section 801C20Section 115J20Disallowance19Section 35

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

Showing 1–20 of 35 · Page 1 of 2

17
Transfer Pricing13
Section 801B10

b) does not raise any substantial question of law". The Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Vireet Investments Pvt. Ltd.(supra) reiterated the view by holding that computation under clause (f) of Explanation 1 to Section 115JB(2), is to be made without resorting to the computation as contemplated under section 14A r.w.r. 8D. Thus

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

b) does not raise any substantial question of law". The Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Vireet Investments Pvt. Ltd.(supra) reiterated the view by holding that computation under clause (f) of Explanation 1 to Section 115JB(2), is to be made without resorting to the computation as contemplated under section 14A r.w.r. 8D. Thus

ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD (SINCE AMALGAMATED WITH GRASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (LTU) 1, MUMBAI

ITA 5848/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2024AY 2012-13
Section 10BSection 115JSection 14ASection 32(1)(iia)Section 37Section 40Section 43BSection 80I

b) does\nnot raise any substantial question of law".\nThe Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Vireet Investments\nPvt. Ltd.(supra) reiterated the view by holding that computation\nunder clause (f) of Explanation 1 to Section 115JB(2), is to be made\nwithout resorting to the computation as contemplated under section\n14A r.w.r. 8D. Thus

DCIT (LTU)-1, MUMBAI vs. ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 5935/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2024AY 2012-13
Section 10BSection 115JSection 14ASection 32(1)(iia)Section 37Section 40Section 43BSection 80I

b) does\nnot raise any substantial question of law\".\nThe Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Vireet Investments\nPvt. Ltd.(supra) reiterated the view by holding that computation\nunder clause (f) of Explanation 1 to Section 115JB(2), is to be made\nwithout resorting to the computation as contemplated under section\n14A r.w.r. 8D. Thus

MARTIN AND HARRIS LABORATORIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (PCIT), AAYKAR BHAWAN,MUMBAI-400020

In the result, the present appeal by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 627/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2023AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, &For Respondent: Ms. Sailja Rai
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 263(1)Section 801CSection 80GSection 80I

disallowance under Section 14A of the Act of INR 7,96,520/-. Deduction claimed by the Appellant under Section 80IC and Section 80G of the Act were accepted by the Assessing Officer. 4. Subsequently, on perusal of the assessment records the PCIT formed an opinion that there were certain discrepancies in respect of deduction claimed under Section 80IC

PIRAMAL HEALTHCARE LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 7(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1257/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ravish Soodpiramal Healthcare Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income (Now Known As Piramal Enterprises Ltd.) Tax- 7(1) Piramal Tower, Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Vs. M.K. Road Lower Parel, Mumbai- 400 020 Mumbai – 400 013

For Appellant: Sh. J.D, Mistry, Senior Advocate &For Respondent: S/sh. Bhupendra Kumar Singh &
Section 143(3)Section 35

section 35A of the Act. 3. The Appellant prays that the A.O be directed to allow deduction claimed u/s. 35A of the Act since the term trademark in the context of pharmaceutical medicine has similar meaning to that of a patent right. GROUND VIII: DISALLOWANCE OF ADVERTISEMENT AND BUSINESS PROMOTION EXPENSES OF Rs.27,90,84,346/- 1. On the facts

JCIT(OSD)-10(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S.JYOTHY LABORATORIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and Cross Objection filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3876/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Solgy Jose T. KottaramFor Respondent: J.D. Mistry
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 229Section 80I

801C(2) and considering the above fact on record this ground of appeal is allowed" 4.3. 6 In view of the submission made by the appellant company, discussion and analysis given by the CIT(A) for AY 2011-12 on each and every parameter which has been taken up by the AO for disallowance u/s 80IC(2)(a), the principles

DCIT-10(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S.JYOTHY LABORATORIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and Cross Objection filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3875/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Solgy Jose T. KottaramFor Respondent: J.D. Mistry
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 229Section 80I

801C(2) and considering the above fact on record this ground of appeal is allowed" 4.3. 6 In view of the submission made by the appellant company, discussion and analysis given by the CIT(A) for AY 2011-12 on each and every parameter which has been taken up by the AO for disallowance u/s 80IC(2)(a), the principles

MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT RG 2(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7287/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri H.P. MahajaniFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 92C

section 37(1) of the Act. It is trite that assessment proceedings before taxing authority are to assess correct tax liability. However, in the present case, the AO as well as learned DRP did not entertain the claim of the assessee in view of decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra), without going into the merits

DCIT CIR 7(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. PIRAMAL ENTERPRISES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1832/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathapiramal Enterprise Limited Vs. Addl.Cit, Range-7(3) (Formerly Known As Piramal Aaykar Bhawan Healthcare Limited) M.K.Road Piramal Tower Mumbai-400 020 Ganpatrao Kadam Marg Lower Parel Mumbai-400 013

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 35

801C by allocating Research and development expenditure of Rs.11,23,00,000/- and interest expenditure of Rs. 1 1,02,00,000/- to fee Baddi unit eligible for deduction u/s. 80IC on the alleged ground that such expenditure are attributable to the said Baddi Unit. 2. The AO failed to appreciate and ought to have held that the • Research

MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1956/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ram Lal Negi

For Appellant: Shri. H.P. Mahajan and Shri Prasad BaptiFor Respondent: Shri Jayant Kumar
Section 1Section 143(3)Section 144C

b) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned Addl C.I.T. erred in proposing and the DRP erred in confirming disallowance u/s 40A(9) of Rs. 12,00,000 representing amount paid to Mahindra Academy. The Appellant contends that the school run by MahindraAeademy was for the benefit appellant's employees and also

DCIT CENT. CIR. 5(2), MUMBAI vs. IPCA LABORATORIES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 5227/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri F.V. Irani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar, DR
Section 801BSection 801CSection 80ISection 92C

801C. The appellant submits that the sale of empty containers are directly related to the profits derived from the business of industrial undertaking of the appellant and therefore the same is eligible for deduction. 4. Disallowance us 40A(3) of the Act Rs.1,56,365/ The CIT (A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.1,56,365/- made

DCIT (LTU) 1, MUMBAI vs. IPCA LABORATORIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 2815/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri F.V. Irani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar, DR
Section 801BSection 801CSection 80ISection 92C

801C. The appellant submits that the sale of empty containers are directly related to the profits derived from the business of industrial undertaking of the appellant and therefore the same is eligible for deduction. 4. Disallowance us 40A(3) of the Act Rs.1,56,365/ The CIT (A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.1,56,365/- made

ASST CIT (LTU) 1, MUMBAI vs. IPCA LABORATORIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 3691/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri F.V. Irani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar, DR
Section 801BSection 801CSection 80ISection 92C

801C. The appellant submits that the sale of empty containers are directly related to the profits derived from the business of industrial undertaking of the appellant and therefore the same is eligible for deduction. 4. Disallowance us 40A(3) of the Act Rs.1,56,365/ The CIT (A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.1,56,365/- made

IPCA LABORATORIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT LTU, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 3811/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri F.V. Irani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar, DR
Section 801BSection 801CSection 80ISection 92C

801C. The appellant submits that the sale of empty containers are directly related to the profits derived from the business of industrial undertaking of the appellant and therefore the same is eligible for deduction. 4. Disallowance us 40A(3) of the Act Rs.1,56,365/ The CIT (A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.1,56,365/- made

IPCA LABORATORIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (LTU), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 3267/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2022AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Shri F.V. Irani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar, DR
Section 801BSection 801CSection 80ISection 92C

801C. The appellant submits that the sale of empty containers are directly related to the profits derived from the business of industrial undertaking of the appellant and therefore the same is eligible for deduction. 4. Disallowance us 40A(3) of the Act Rs.1,56,365/ The CIT (A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.1,56,365/- made

IPCA LABORATORIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (LTU), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 2493/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Shri F.V. Irani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar, DR
Section 801BSection 801CSection 80ISection 92C

801C. The appellant submits that the sale of empty containers are directly related to the profits derived from the business of industrial undertaking of the appellant and therefore the same is eligible for deduction. 4. Disallowance us 40A(3) of the Act Rs.1,56,365/ The CIT (A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.1,56,365/- made

IPCA LABORATORIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (LTU), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 3597/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri F.V. Irani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar, DR
Section 801BSection 801CSection 80ISection 92C

801C. The appellant submits that the sale of empty containers are directly related to the profits derived from the business of industrial undertaking of the appellant and therefore the same is eligible for deduction. 4. Disallowance us 40A(3) of the Act Rs.1,56,365/ The CIT (A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.1,56,365/- made

ACIT CEN CIR 13, MUMBAI vs. IPCA LABORATORIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 7511/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2022AY 2005-06

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

For Appellant: Shri F.V. Irani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar, DR
Section 801BSection 801CSection 80ISection 92C

801C. The appellant submits that the sale of empty containers are directly related to the profits derived from the business of industrial undertaking of the appellant and therefore the same is eligible for deduction. 4. Disallowance us 40A(3) of the Act Rs.1,56,365/ The CIT (A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.1,56,365/- made

IPCA LABORATORIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (LTU), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 8084/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2022AY 2006-07

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

For Appellant: Shri F.V. Irani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar, DR
Section 801BSection 801CSection 80ISection 92C

801C. The appellant submits that the sale of empty containers are directly related to the profits derived from the business of industrial undertaking of the appellant and therefore the same is eligible for deduction. 4. Disallowance us 40A(3) of the Act Rs.1,56,365/ The CIT (A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.1,56,365/- made