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.

256 results for “disallowance”+ Exemptionclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai8,653Delhi5,701Chennai3,095Kolkata2,384Bangalore2,304Ahmedabad1,844Pune1,247Hyderabad1,056Jaipur806Chandigarh619Cochin618Indore440Surat358Visakhapatnam321Raipur296Cuttack269Karnataka262Nagpur256Lucknow247Rajkot225Amritsar170Guwahati135Panaji113Calcutta77Jodhpur77SC61Agra60Ranchi60Telangana54Dehradun42Patna34Varanasi33Allahabad33Jabalpur29Kerala24Punjab & Haryana8Orissa8Rajasthan7Himachal Pradesh5A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN3Gauhati2ANIL R. DAVE AMITAVA ROY L. NAGESWARA RAO1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1

Key Topics

Addition to Income44Section 80P(2)(a)40Section 26339Section 143(3)33Section 69A32Section 14A30Section 44A30Exemption28Section 1125Disallowance

BHANDARA URBAN CO-OP. BANK LTD,BHANDARA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 19/NAG/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.19 & 20/Nag/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Bhandara Urban Co-Operative The Acit, Circle-2, Bank Ltd., V Nagpur. C/O.Mukesh Agrawal, S R.S.Bhattad & Associates, 33-A, Central Bazar Road, Ramdaspeth, Nagpur – 440010. Pan: Aaaft 7398 G Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Saket Bhatted – Ar Revenue By Dr. Kaumudi Patil- Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 21/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 09/10/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Were Heard Together As Common Issue Is Involved. Both These Appeals Are Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Nagpur Dated 29.03.2019 For A.Y. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Emanating From Two Different Assessment Orders Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The

Section 143(3)Section 14A

disallowance cannot exceed the exempt income so earned by the assessee during the year under consideration.' If the disallowance is to be restricted

BHANDARA URBAN CO-OP BANK,BHANDARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(3), NAGPUR

Showing 1–20 of 256 · Page 1 of 13

...
25
Deduction23
Section 143(1)19

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 20/NAG/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.19 & 20/Nag/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Bhandara Urban Co-Operative The Acit, Circle-2, Bank Ltd., V Nagpur. C/O.Mukesh Agrawal, S R.S.Bhattad & Associates, 33-A, Central Bazar Road, Ramdaspeth, Nagpur – 440010. Pan: Aaaft 7398 G Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Saket Bhatted – Ar Revenue By Dr. Kaumudi Patil- Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 21/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 09/10/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Were Heard Together As Common Issue Is Involved. Both These Appeals Are Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Nagpur Dated 29.03.2019 For A.Y. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Emanating From Two Different Assessment Orders Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The

Section 143(3)Section 14A

disallowance cannot exceed the exempt income so earned by the assessee during the year under consideration.' If the disallowance is to be restricted

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CENTRAL-CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. JAYMAHAKALI SHIKSHAN SANSTHA, WARDHA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 336/NAG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur03 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir AtalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 164(2)Section 69A

exemption under section 11 of IT. Act, on the ground that the AO cannot disallow exemption of section 11 of I.T. Act merely

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CENTRAL-CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. JAYMAHAKALI SHIKSHAN SANSTHA, WARDHA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 335/NAG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur03 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir AtalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 164(2)Section 69A

exemption under section 11 of IT. Act, on the ground that the AO cannot disallow exemption of section 11 of I.T. Act merely

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CENTRAL-CIRCLE-2 (1), NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. JAYMAHAKALI SHIKSHAN SANSTHA, WARDHA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 337/NAG/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur03 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir AtalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 164(2)Section 69A

exemption under section 11 of IT. Act, on the ground that the AO cannot disallow exemption of section 11 of I.T. Act merely

RAVINDRA MADHUKAR KHARCHE,NAGPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE, CHANDRAPUR, CHANDRAPUR

The appeal of the assessee stands ALLOWED

ITA 228/NAG/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur16 Apr 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali(Virtually From Itat, Pune) आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 228/Nag/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Ravindra Madhukar Kharche, 602, Nilgiri Himalaya Empire, Phulmati Layout, Badikheda, Nagpur. Pan: Ackpk1961E . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr Abay Marathe [Ld. DR’]
Section 10(10)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(8)

exemption of gratuity to ₹10 Lakhs u/c (ii) of section 10(10) of the Act as against the claim of ₹20 Lakhs made in revised ITR. (b) addition of ₹21,550/- being difference of interest income offered to tax as against the income reported in form 26AS. The assessee did not challenge the disallowances

SHRI AJITKUMAR BADRIPRASAD BHARTIYA,NAGPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 250/NAG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur24 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy(Physical Hearing) Shri Ajitkumar Badriprasad Bhartiya Dcit, Circle –1 A–704, Anandam World City, Vs Bsnl–Rttc Building, Umred Road, Ganeshopeth, Seminary Hills, Nagpur – 440018. Nagpur – 440001. [Pan: Abbpb0801G] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 54F

disallowed in respect of adjoining flat, whereby assessing officer, out of total exemption under section 54F disallowed `. 13,54,096/–. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed

MAHESHKUMAR BADRIBISHAL BHARTIYA,NAGPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1,, NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 210/NAG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur24 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy(Physical Hearing) Shri Ajitkumar Badriprasad Bhartiya Dcit, Circle –1 A–704, Anandam World City, Vs Bsnl–Rttc Building, Umred Road, Ganeshopeth, Seminary Hills, Nagpur – 440018. Nagpur – 440001. [Pan: Abbpb0801G] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 54F

disallowed in respect of adjoining flat, whereby assessing officer, out of total exemption under section 54F disallowed `. 13,54,096/–. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed

BAJAJ EXPORTS PVT. LTD.,NAGPUR vs. THE DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, 2(3), NAGPUR

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

ITA 303/NAG/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 Mar 2019AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Loya, AdvFor Respondent: Shri U. U. Kasar, DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153C

disallowance, if any, should not exceed the exempt income. Mentioning that the disallowance is on higher side, ld. counsel submitted

ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(1), NAGPUR vs. SHRI NANDKUMAR KHATTUMAL HARCHANDANI , NAGPUR

ITA 410/NAG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 10(38)Section 68

exempt under section 10(34) of the Act and claimed expenditure at ₹ 15,75,789, in the return of income. The Assessing Officer has made disallowance

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION) - 4, NAGPUR vs. DEENDAYAL SEVA PRATISHTHAN, YAVATMAL

In the result, appeal by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 572/NAG/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Mar 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Kishore B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 11Section 12Section 138

exemption claimed under section 11(1)(d)] and Sr.no. 4i to 4viii of Part B-TI is not allowable in accordance with the provisions of section 12A(1)(b) of the Act. The CPC disallowed

HIGH RISE CONSTRUCTION,NAGPUR vs. I.T.O. WARD 1(5), NAGPUR

In the result this appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 285/NAG/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Jan 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya.

For Appellant: Shri Manoj MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri A.R. Ninawe
Section 250Section 80I

disallowance of exemption claimed. 3. Upon the assessee’s appeal learned CIT(Appeals) considered the assessee’s submission but confirmed

THE VIDARBHA REGION LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION EMPLOYEES CO OP SOCIETY LTD, ,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(2), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 419/NAG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur14 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Aniruddha GhudeFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

exemption claimed by it. He accordingly, disallowed the claim of exemption of the assessee of ` 1,97,83,227, and make

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-1(3), NAGPUR vs. SHRI KIRIT SHARAD JOSHI, NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 609/NAG/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Apr 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri S.C. Thakar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vitthal M. Bhosale, Jt. CIT–DR
Section 10

exempt U/s.10(10D). 8 Shri Kirit Sharad Joshi 8.5 The disallowance by the A.O. of the claim of the exemption

NARENDRA RAMCHANDRA DESHPANDE,WARDHA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, WARDHA, WARDHA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 507/NAG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur14 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalenarendra Ramdhandra Deshpande Manorama Complex, Sudampuri Arvi Road, Wardha -442 001, ……………. Appellant Maharashtra. Pan – Aazpd4477F V/S Income Tax Officer Ward–1, Wardha, ……………. Respondent Ito, Building, Maharashtra. Assessee By: Shri.Amolkalavikatte.A.R. Revenue By :Shri.Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri.AmolKalavikatte.A.RFor Respondent: Shri.Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr.DR
Section 10Section 10(10)Section 10(10)(i)

disallowing the appellant claim of exemption of rs.56,698/- in respect of gratuity under section 10(10)(i) of the Income

DHARAMITRA,WARDHA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 194/NAG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir AtalFor Respondent: Shri G.J. Ninawe
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)

disallowance of exemption under section 11 on delayed filing of Form 10B is justified and valid in law, when the Hon’ble CBDT

JAMNALAL SONS PVT. LTD.,,WARDHA vs. CIT-II, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 264/NAG/2008[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur15 Oct 2019AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: Shri M.A. Gohel
Section 14ASection 263Section 263(1)

disallowing the proportionate expenditure of Rs.90,28,511/- incurred in relation to exempt income i.e. dividend of Rs.9,92,43,831/- was erroneous

SANJAY GULABCHAND GUPTA,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-4, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 210/NAG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur14 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Smt. Veena AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 143(2)Section 54Section 54F

disallowance so made by the AO in respect of exemption under section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 of Rs. 1,58,64,162/-. 2. The Appellant

BHAKTVATSAL SADGURU YOGIRAJ VASANTRAO GOPALRAO GHONGE MAHARAJ TRUST,WARDHA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 598/NAG/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur04 Mar 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 11Section 12ASection 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263Section 271Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 28

exemption u/s 11 of the Act and disallowing the expenses towards the object of the trust. 2 Bhaktvatsal Sadguru Yogiraj

ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(1), NAGPUR vs. SHRI NANDKUMAR KHATTUMAL HARCHANDANI , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 411/NAG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 10(38)Section 68

disallowance should be scaled down in between 2% to 20% of exempt income-Revenue submitted that provisions of Rule 8D were