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.

207 results for “disallowance”+ Section 13(2)(c)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai8,875Delhi7,861Bangalore2,911Chennai2,417Kolkata2,342Ahmedabad1,809Jaipur1,326Pune1,212Hyderabad1,046Chandigarh733Indore651Surat542Cochin401Raipur399Visakhapatnam318Amritsar310Karnataka268Rajkot267Cuttack257Nagpur207Lucknow183Panaji133Agra131Jodhpur118Guwahati108SC95Allahabad81Telangana80Ranchi64Calcutta64Dehradun55Kerala37Patna32Varanasi26Jabalpur24Punjab & Haryana9Rajasthan8Orissa6Himachal Pradesh5A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN4RANJAN GOGOI PRAFULLA C. PANT1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1ANIL R. DAVE AMITAVA ROY L. NAGESWARA RAO1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Uttarakhand1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Addition to Income78Section 143(3)74Section 69A52Section 80P(2)(a)48Section 153A48Disallowance44Section 153C43Section 26339Deduction39Section 68

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

2)a of the Act and held that the income of the trust is not eligible for exemption due to contravention of section 13(1)(c). The surplus of Rs.1,70,07,523/- was hence treated as the business income of the assessee trust. Further the AO has disallowed

Showing 1–20 of 207 · Page 1 of 11

...
37
Section 1135
Search & Seizure17

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

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the exemption under section 11 of I.T. Act, on the ground that the AO cannot disallow exemption of section 11 of IT. Act merely on the addition of Rs.1,80,000/-received on rent, when the provisions of section 13(1)(c

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

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the exemption under section 11 of I.T. Act, on the ground that the AO cannot disallow exemption of section 11 of IT. Act merely on the addition of Rs.1,80,000/-received on rent, when the provisions of section 13(1)(c

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

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the exemption under section 11 of I.T. Act, on the ground that the AO cannot disallow exemption of section 11 of IT. Act merely on the addition of Rs.1,80,000/-received on rent, when the provisions of section 13(1)(c

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)

c)(i) NIL iii) Under section 80P(2)(d) ` 91,47,236 6. The Assessing Officer, on a perusal of the details filed, observed that the assessee–society has earned interest income of ` 91,47,236, from its investment with Cooperative Banks. In the computation of total income submitted during course of scrutiny, the assessee has also claimed the said

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)

c)(i) NIL iii) Under section 80P(2)(d) ` 91,47,236 6. The Assessing Officer, on a perusal of the details filed, observed that the assessee–society has earned interest income of ` 91,47,236, from its investment with Cooperative Banks. In the computation of total income submitted during course of scrutiny, the assessee has also claimed the said

THE VIDHARBHA PREMIER CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD,,NAGPUR vs. TAX RECOVERY OFFICER, RANGE-6, NAGPUR

In the result these appeals by the assessee and revenue stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 232/NAG/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Jan 2017AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri Alok Bha gatFor Respondent: Shri A.R. Ninawe
Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

disallowed deduction of profit on lumpsum basis. These incomes are entirely related to and are completely incidental and ancillary ITA No. 232/Nag/2012. to the activity of providing credit facilities to the members. The various incomes, profits of which are not considered for deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i), are as follows : Particulars Amount Rs. Amount Rs. 1) Interest income

ITO, WARD-6(1),, NAGPUR vs. THE VIDARBHA PREMIER CO-OP. HOUSING SOCIETY,, NAGPUR

In the result these appeals by the assessee and revenue stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 224/NAG/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Jan 2017AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri Alok Bha gatFor Respondent: Shri A.R. Ninawe
Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

disallowed deduction of profit on lumpsum basis. These incomes are entirely related to and are completely incidental and ancillary ITA No. 232/Nag/2012. to the activity of providing credit facilities to the members. The various incomes, profits of which are not considered for deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i), are as follows : Particulars Amount Rs. Amount Rs. 1) Interest income

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)

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 6. Consequent upon the assessment order so passed by the Assessing Officer, the assessee being

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)

2,65,00,000/- as a provision for bad and doubtful debts. The Assessing Officer disallowed the aforementioned provision by quoting that the appellant is a credit co-operative society and not a co-operative bank, hence it is not eligible to make a provision for bad debts and contingencies. The Assessing Officer also highlighted the factum that the Income

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)

C. Jhaveri (56 ITR 198 at 203) (SC); Ellerman Lines Ltd versus CIT (82 ITR 913 at 920-1) (SC); K.P. Varghese (131 ITR 597); and UCO Bank versus CIT (237 ITR 89) (SC). The aforesaid amendment carried out by the Finance Act, 2015 to section 2(24) of the Act is applicable prospectively from Assessment Year

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)

C. Jhaveri (56 ITR 198 at 203) (SC); Ellerman Lines Ltd versus CIT (82 ITR 913 at 920-1) (SC); K.P. Varghese (131 ITR 597); and UCO Bank versus CIT (237 ITR 89) (SC). The aforesaid amendment carried out by the Finance Act, 2015 to section 2(24) of the Act is applicable prospectively from Assessment Year

SHRI SAIBABA BAHUUDDESHIYA NAGRIK CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD (3)(4), NAGPUR

ITA 194/NAG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80P(2)(a)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 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

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

c) is being issued separately. 6. Sections 22 and 32 of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 provides as under:- 22. Regional Rural Bank to be deemed to be a cooperative society for purpose of the Income-tax Act, 1961.- For the purpose of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), or any other enactment for the time being

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

c) is being issued separately. 6. Sections 22 and 32 of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 provides as under:- 22. Regional Rural Bank to be deemed to be a cooperative society for purpose of the Income-tax Act, 1961.- For the purpose of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), or any other enactment for the time being

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 under section 11(2) of the Act. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter before the first appellate authority. Satpuda Foundation ITA no.143/Nag./2021 4. The learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing as follows:– “Decision on Ground No.2, 3 & 4 The sum and substance of the above grounds of appeal is directed

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)

C. Kanojiya Date of Hearing – 12/08/2024 Date of Order – 21/08/2024 O R D E R PER K.M. ROY, A.M. The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue challenging the impugned order dated 22/06/2023, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [―learned CIT(A)‖], for the assessment year 2013–14. 2

ACIT, AMRAVATI CIRCLE, AMRAVATI vs. CHANDRAPUR DIST CENTRAL CO-OP BANK LTD, CHANDRAPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 398/NAG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir AtalFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Salonkhe
Section 271(1)(c)Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)

13 Chandrapur District Central Co–operative Bank 21.40 crore. We also find that the assessee has claimed similar deduction in preceding assessment year which was disallowed by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the learned CIT(A) and resultantly the authorities below levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. When the matter in respect of levy

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRAVATI & CHANDRAPUR CIRCLE, AMRAVATI vs. CHANDRAPUR DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OP BANK LTD., CHANDRAPUR

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

ITA 89/NAG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir AtalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36(1)(viia)

2,39,000/- u/s 14A of the Act read with rule 8D of the I.T. Rules without appreciating the fact that the provisions of section 14A with regard to dividend income were upheld by the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs. CIT. 7. Any other ground that may be raise during the proceedings

ACIT, CHANDRAPUR CIRCLE , CHANDRAPUR vs. CHANDRAPUR DISTT. CENTRAL CO-OP BANK LTD , CHANDRAPUR

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

ITA 399/NAG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir AtalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36(1)(viia)

2,39,000/- u/s 14A of the Act read with rule 8D of the I.T. Rules without appreciating the fact that the provisions of section 14A with regard to dividend income were upheld by the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs. CIT. 7. Any other ground that may be raise during the proceedings