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.

259 results for “disallowance”+ Section 11(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai15,270Delhi12,765Bangalore4,494Chennai4,362Kolkata3,783Ahmedabad1,823Pune1,594Hyderabad1,410Jaipur1,220Indore719Chandigarh665Karnataka567Surat495Raipur444Cochin433Visakhapatnam348Rajkot338Lucknow319Nagpur259Amritsar243Panaji145Cuttack144Telangana144Jodhpur124Guwahati119SC117Ranchi111Agra100Patna99Calcutta89Allahabad81Dehradun72Kerala44Jabalpur35Punjab & Haryana21Varanasi21Orissa12Rajasthan11Himachal Pradesh7A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN5Gauhati2D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1Tripura1Uttarakhand1RANJAN GOGOI PRAFULLA C. PANT1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1ANIL R. DAVE AMITAVA ROY L. NAGESWARA RAO1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Addition to Income74Section 143(3)70Disallowance51Section 153A49Section 26345Section 153C44Section 1139Deduction35Section 143(1)31Section 148

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

disallowed the difference amount of ` 1,80,000, but also denied the assessee trust complete exemption claimed under the provisions of section 11 of the Act and accordingly brought to tax the entire surplus of trust of ` 5,07,32,612, as income taxable as per the provisions of section 164(2

Showing 1–20 of 259 · Page 1 of 13

...
30
Section 80P29
Exemption25

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

disallowed the difference amount of ` 1,80,000, but also denied the assessee trust complete exemption claimed under the provisions of section 11 of the Act and accordingly brought to tax the entire surplus of trust of ` 5,07,32,612, as income taxable as per the provisions of section 164(2

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

disallowed the difference amount of ` 1,80,000, but also denied the assessee trust complete exemption claimed under the provisions of section 11 of the Act and accordingly brought to tax the entire surplus of trust of ` 5,07,32,612, as income taxable as per the provisions of section 164(2

SATPUDA FOUNDATION,AMRAVATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 143/NAG/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur03 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. Moryani a/wFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234A

2) and 143 of the Act were issued and served upon the assessee. The Assessing Officer, however, did not consider the submissions / contentions of the assessee and made addition of ` 15 lakh by disallowing the claim under section 11

TAJSHREE AUTOWHEELS PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 400/NAG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur04 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Madhav VichoreFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, Rs. 32,26,000/- is disallowed and added back to the total income of the assessee under the head 'Income from Other Sources'. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 6 Tajshree Autowheels Pvt. Ltd. ITA no.400/Nag./2024

DURGAPUR RAYATWARI COLLIERY KAMGAR SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA,CHANDRAPUR vs. ITO WARD 2, CHANDRAPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 211/NAG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Ms. Alfiya RozieFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

Disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act 6.1 During the course of appeal proceedings, the appellant furnished copy of the order of the earlier CIT(A) on identical issue, dated 05.06.2023 for the AY 2017-18 in appellant's own case, allowing the claim made u/s 80P(2)(d) of the IT Act by holding that

DURGAPUR RAYATWARI COLLIERY KAMGAR SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA,CHANDRAPUR vs. ITO WARD-2, CHANDRAPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 212/NAG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Ms. Alfiya RozieFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

Disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act 6.1 During the course of appeal proceedings, the appellant furnished copy of the order of the earlier CIT(A) on identical issue, dated 05.06.2023 for the AY 2017-18 in appellant's own case, allowing the claim made u/s 80P(2)(d) of the IT Act by holding that

ECONOMIC EXPLOSIVES LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. NATIONAL E ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2018–19 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 242/NAG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Mani JainFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

section 115JB of the Act, the Tribunal after referring to the following decisions held that: “(i) the object of Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) provisions incorporated in 115JB of the Act was to bring out real profit of companies and the thrust was to find out real working results of company. Inclusion of receipts which are not in the nature

ECONOMIC EXPLOSIVES LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 (2), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2018–19 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 177/NAG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Mani JainFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

section 115JB of the Act, the Tribunal after referring to the following decisions held that: “(i) the object of Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) provisions incorporated in 115JB of the Act was to bring out real profit of companies and the thrust was to find out real working results of company. Inclusion of receipts which are not in the nature

VIDHARBHA KONKAN GRAMIN BANK ,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(5) , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

ITA 7/NAG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 22Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 80P

2) of section 11, but does not include a co-operative bank;] The provision inserted for the first time clearly shows that the intention of the legislature was to assist the scheduled banks in making adequate provisions out of the current profit to provide for risk in relation to their rural advances. Therefore what is significant is the primary condition

VIDHARBHA KONKAN GRAMIN BANK ,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(5) , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

ITA 8/NAG/2019[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Nov 2024AY 2015-2016

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

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 22Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 80P

2) of section 11, but does not include a co-operative bank;] The provision inserted for the first time clearly shows that the intention of the legislature was to assist the scheduled banks in making adequate provisions out of the current profit to provide for risk in relation to their rural advances. Therefore what is significant is the primary condition

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5, NAGPUR vs. THE NIRMAL UJWAL CREDIT CO-OP SOCIETY LTD, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal for the A

ITA 391/NAG/2019[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Nagpur27 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Vikash Agrawal
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 80PSection 80P(2)

11 The Nirmal Ujwal Credit Co–operative Society Ltd. A.Y.2014–15 Considering plethora of judgments on said issue, we humbly request your kindness to kindly revoke impugned disallowances. 23. The provision of section 80P(2

ITO WARD-1(1) NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. ASHWAMI SALES AND MARKETING PVT.LTD, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 294/NAG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh P. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya
Section 143(1)Section 194(7)Section 194CSection 194C(6)Section 194C(7)Section 40Section 40A(2)(b)

11. The expressions ―Any person responsible for paying any sum‖ and ―to any resident (hereafter in this section referred to as the contractor)‖, used in this section plainly makes it clear that the receiver of the payment is the contractor, and the person making such payment is the contractee. It goes without saying that the person who in pursuance

THE GREEN CITY NAGRI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 2(2), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 124/NAG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 154Section 234ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 8O

section 80P(2)(a)(i) are not applicable to the co- operative society providing banking or credit facilities to its member and accordingly deduction U/s 80P is not allowable deduction under the Act? 6. The CIT(A) (NFAC) erred in law for disallowing the deduction claimed U/s 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without following the judicial pronouncements awarded

ACIT, CIRCLE-4, NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. THE VIDARBHA CO OPERATIVE MARKETING FEDERATION LTD , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 196/NAG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur16 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry& Shri K.M. Roy

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Moriyani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 2(19)Section 250Section 70Section 80PSection 80P(1)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

11. In the present case, there is no dispute that the assessee is a CoOperative Housing Society. Thus, if any income as referred to in sub- section (2) to section 80P of the Act is included in the gross total income of the assessee, the same shall be allowed as a deduction. It is pertinent to note that since

BHATADI OPENCAST KARMACHARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT ,BHATADI,CHANDRAPUR vs. ITO WARD-1, CHANDRAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 89/NAG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur17 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: Ms. Veena Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anand Nagrale, Sr.DR
Section 2(19)Section 250Section 70Section 80PSection 80P(1)Section 80P(2)(d)

disallowance of deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act in respect of interest income received from the Co-operative Banks. The assessee is a 3 ITA.No. 89/NAG/2025 registered Co-operative Housing Society and during the assessment year 2018-19 earned interest income of Rs. 50,39,861 from the investments made in various Co-operative Banks. 9. Before

JAI KONDESHWAR NAGARI SAHAKARI BADNERAPAT SANSTHA MARYADIT ,AMRAVATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3, AMRAVATI, AMRAVATI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed in the aforesaid terms

ITA 275/NAG/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur24 Jun 2025AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, Ld. Sr.DR
Section 2(19)Section 250Section 70Section 80PSection 80P(1)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

disallowance of deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act in respect of interest income received from the Co-operative Banks. The assessee is a registered Co-operative Housing Society and during the assessment year 2018-19 earned interest income of Rs. 50,39,861 from the investments made in various Co-operative Banks. 9. Before proceeding further

DCIT AKOLA CIRCLE, AKOLA, AKOLA vs. THE AKOLA JANATA COMMERCIAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., AKOLA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 189/NAG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri S.G. GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154

disallowed claim of deduction of interest income of Rs.42,57,3487- from Co-operative Bank u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act as Co-operative bank is not a Co-operative Society. I find force in the arguments of the appellant and draw strength from various judicial pronouncements of the jurisdiction at ITAT like The Nutan Laxmi Chs Ltd, Mumbai

LATE INDIRA GANDHI NAGRI SAHAKARI PAT PURWATHA SANSTHA MARYADIT,AKOLA vs. ITO, WARD-2, AKOLA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 367/NAG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 234BSection 234CSection 80Section 80(2)(d)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80p(2)(d)

disallowing the deduction of 4452374/- claimed u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) and also u/s 80(2)(d) of the Act under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. The appellant request you to allow the deduction of Rs. 4452374/- claimed u/s 80P(2)(a)(i). 6. Without prejudice to the above, the authorities below have also

M/S VINAYAK NAGARI SAHAKARI PAT. SANSTHA,BHANDARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, BHANDRA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 383/NAG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Shri Dilip LohiyaFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

section 80P(2)(a)(i) are not applicable to the co- operative society providing banking or credit facilities to its member and accordingly deduction U/s 80P is not allowable deduction under the Act? 8. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (NFAC) erred in law for not justified in proceedings for disallowance of the deduction U/s 80P of the Income