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.

430 results for “disallowance”+ Section 11(5)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai15,386Delhi12,696Bangalore4,488Chennai4,336Kolkata3,837Ahmedabad3,134Pune2,983Hyderabad2,037Jaipur1,804Chandigarh1,134Surat1,101Indore1,007Cochin786Raipur678Visakhapatnam661Cuttack562Karnataka539Rajkot518Amritsar472Nagpur430Lucknow360Agra222Panaji221Jodhpur203Guwahati175Ranchi161Telangana142Allahabad128SC114Patna113Dehradun104Calcutta84Jabalpur60Varanasi47Kerala44Punjab & Haryana21Rajasthan11Orissa10Himachal Pradesh7A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN5Gauhati2H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1RANJAN GOGOI PRAFULLA C. PANT1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1ANIL R. DAVE AMITAVA ROY L. NAGESWARA RAO1Andhra Pradesh1Tripura1Uttarakhand1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)73Addition to Income73Disallowance61Section 26352Section 153A45Deduction42Section 80I40Section 80P(2)(a)38Section 143(1)31Section 11

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

Showing 1–20 of 430 · Page 1 of 22

...
25
Section 43B24
Exemption19

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

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

LOKMANYA TILAD JANAKALYA SHIKSHAN SANSTHA,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -2, NAGPUR

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 384/NAG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Jan 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ram Lal Negi..

For Appellant: Shri K.P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri A.R. Ninawe
Section 1Section 11Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 40

section. L) Income arising from educational activities has been granted exemption u/s. 11 in past & subsequent years. Income arising during the year is solely from activities of imparting education & qualifies for being exempt u/s. 11 of the LT. Act, 1961. Benefit u/s. 11 cannot be denied to income from education which is charitable object. M) Sec 11 (4A) envisage activities

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

disallowing the claim of the assessee u/s 11(2) of the Income Tax; therefore order passed is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive. 4. On the facts and circumstances the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre erred in not considering the circular of CBDT which clearly states delay should be condoned; therefore without considering the circular order passed

HINGANGHAT NAGRI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA,HINGANGHAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, WARDHA

In the result, appeal by the assessee for A

ITA 569/NAG/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Feb 2025AY 2022-23

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

For Appellant: Shri Suyash RankaFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 56Section 80P

disallowed the exemption u/s 80P. Hence grounds 1,4,5 and 7 are decided against the assessee.” 11 Hinganghat Nagri Sahakari Pat Sanstha ITA no.569/Nag./2024 4. We are in complete disagreement with the conclusion drawn by the learned CIT(A). He has completely misunderstood the ratio of the cases. Provisions of section

HINGANGHAT NAGRI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA,HINGANGHAT vs. INCOME TAX WARD-1, WARDHA

In the result, appeal by the assessee for A

ITA 567/NAG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Suyash RankaFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 56Section 80P

disallowed the exemption u/s 80P. Hence grounds 1,4,5 and 7 are decided against the assessee.” 11 Hinganghat Nagri Sahakari Pat Sanstha ITA no.569/Nag./2024 4. We are in complete disagreement with the conclusion drawn by the learned CIT(A). He has completely misunderstood the ratio of the cases. Provisions of section

HINGANGHAT NAGRI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA,HINGANGHAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, WARDHA

In the result, appeal by the assessee for A

ITA 568/NAG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri Suyash RankaFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 56Section 80P

disallowed the exemption u/s 80P. Hence grounds 1,4,5 and 7 are decided against the assessee.” 11 Hinganghat Nagri Sahakari Pat Sanstha ITA no.569/Nag./2024 4. We are in complete disagreement with the conclusion drawn by the learned CIT(A). He has completely misunderstood the ratio of the cases. Provisions of section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, NAGPUR vs. SMT. ANJU AJAY SARAF, NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for the A

ITA 32/NAG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 May 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh BanthiaFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya
Section 139Section 139(5)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 5Section 80I

11,21,570. The Assessing Officer concluded the assessment and the order was passed under section 143(3) of the Act on 06/03/2014, determining total income of ` 1,17,70,744. Thereafter, notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 29/09/2015, which was duly served upon the assessee. The assessee filed a letter on 07/10/2015, stating that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, NAGPUR vs. SMT. ANJU AJAY SARAF, NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for the A

ITA 30/NAG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 May 2024AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh BanthiaFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya
Section 139Section 139(5)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 5Section 80I

11,21,570. The Assessing Officer concluded the assessment and the order was passed under section 143(3) of the Act on 06/03/2014, determining total income of ` 1,17,70,744. Thereafter, notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 29/09/2015, which was duly served upon the assessee. The assessee filed a letter on 07/10/2015, stating that

SUNIL VISHAMBARNATH TIWARI,NAGPUR vs. I.T.O. WARD 1(4), NAGPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 240/NAG/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur20 Dec 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri O.P. Kant, Am Assessment Year: 2009-10 Sunil Vishambaharnath Tiwari, Vs. I.T.O. 87, Panchvati Builders, Hindustan Ward 1(4), Colony, Wardha Road, Nagpur- Nagpur. 440015. Pan No.: Aalpt 0719 L Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Mahavir Atal (Ca) Revenue By : Shri Vitthal Bhosale (Sr.Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 20/12/2021 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-I, Nagpur Dated 30/05/2014 For The A.Y. 2009-10 Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Raised: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Endorsing The View Taken By The A.O. Of Disallowing Claim Of The Assessee. 3. Assessee Craves Leave To Add & Alter Any Other Ground That May Be Taken At The Time Of Hearing.” 2. In This Appeal, There Is Delay Of 363 Days In Filing The Present Appeal For Which The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condoning The Delay & The Contents Of The Same Are As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir Atal (CA)For Respondent: Shri Vitthal Bhosale (Sr.DR)
Section 253(5)

disallowance of exemption under section 11, as the assessee trust belated filed return of income under section 139(4). (Section stipulates filing of return under section 139(1) for exercising an option u/s 11(1). Para 5

M/S AKAY UDYOG,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU

In the result, the aforesaid appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 27/NAG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh V. Loya, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vitthal M. Bhosale, Jt. CIT–DR

5 to the said section to clarify that the provisions of the said section do not apply and deemed to never have been applied to a sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which provisions of sub-clause (x) of clause (24) of section 2 applies. These amendments will take effect from 1st April

M/S. KABRA ENGINEERING, CHANDRAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGLORE

In the result, the aforesaid appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 22/NAG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh V. Loya, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vitthal M. Bhosale, Jt. CIT–DR

5 to the said section to clarify that the provisions of the said section do not apply and deemed to never have been applied to a sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which provisions of sub-clause (x) of clause (24) of section 2 applies. These amendments will take effect from 1st April

SUPRIYA PACKAGING PVT LTD,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the aforesaid appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 30/NAG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh V. Loya, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vitthal M. Bhosale, Jt. CIT–DR

5 to the said section to clarify that the provisions of the said section do not apply and deemed to never have been applied to a sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which provisions of sub-clause (x) of clause (24) of section 2 applies. These amendments will take effect from 1st April

SHAMLAX METACHEM PVT. LTD,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the aforesaid appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 99/NAG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh V. Loya, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vitthal M. Bhosale, Jt. CIT–DR

5 to the said section to clarify that the provisions of the said section do not apply and deemed to never have been applied to a sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which provisions of sub-clause (x) of clause (24) of section 2 applies. These amendments will take effect from 1st April

ANKUR SEEDS PVT. LTD.,NAGPUR vs. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (CPC), BANGALORE

In the result, the aforesaid appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 182/NAG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh V. Loya, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vitthal M. Bhosale, Jt. CIT–DR

5 to the said section to clarify that the provisions of the said section do not apply and deemed to never have been applied to a sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which provisions of sub-clause (x) of clause (24) of section 2 applies. These amendments will take effect from 1st April

INTEGRITY CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the aforesaid appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 32/NAG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh V. Loya, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vitthal M. Bhosale, Jt. CIT–DR

5 to the said section to clarify that the provisions of the said section do not apply and deemed to never have been applied to a sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which provisions of sub-clause (x) of clause (24) of section 2 applies. These amendments will take effect from 1st April

KAMLESH SINGH THAKUR,NAGPUR vs. ITO, NAGPUR

In the result, the aforesaid appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 41/NAG/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Apr 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh V. Loya, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vitthal M. Bhosale, Jt. CIT–DR

5 to the said section to clarify that the provisions of the said section do not apply and deemed to never have been applied to a sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which provisions of sub-clause (x) of clause (24) of section 2 applies. These amendments will take effect from 1st April

PAWANSUT TRAVELS PVT. LTD,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGLORE

In the result, the aforesaid appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 17/NAG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh V. Loya, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vitthal M. Bhosale, Jt. CIT–DR

5 to the said section to clarify that the provisions of the said section do not apply and deemed to never have been applied to a sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which provisions of sub-clause (x) of clause (24) of section 2 applies. These amendments will take effect from 1st April

NEELAM RAKESH SINGH,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANLORE

In the result, the aforesaid appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 194/NAG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh V. Loya, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vitthal M. Bhosale, Jt. CIT–DR

5 to the said section to clarify that the provisions of the said section do not apply and deemed to never have been applied to a sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which provisions of sub-clause (x) of clause (24) of section 2 applies. These amendments will take effect from 1st April