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.

10 results for “disallowance”+ Section 194A(3)(v)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai170Bangalore121Delhi81Chennai65Cochin43Pune41Kolkata40Ahmedabad40Chandigarh39Hyderabad33Visakhapatnam32Jaipur26Cuttack21Rajkot20Surat13Guwahati11Raipur11Nagpur10Jodhpur7Allahabad4Indore3Lucknow3Ranchi3Panaji3SC2Karnataka2Jabalpur1Amritsar1

Key Topics

Section 4015Section 80P(2)(d)12Section 194A12Deduction10Section 80P8Disallowance8Addition to Income5Section 80P(2)(a)4Section 80P(2)(c)4Section 36(1)(iii)

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)

194A(3)(v), co-operative banks have been excluded from the definition of 'co-operative society by the Finance Act, 2015. The High Court of Karnataka has held that the effect of the aforesaid amendment explicitly makes clear intention of legislation that co-operative banks are not specie of genus co-operative society, which would be entitled to exemption

4
Section 2513
Comparables/TP3

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)

194A(3)(v), co-operative banks have been excluded from the definition of 'co-operative society by the Finance Act, 2015. The High Court of Karnataka has held that the effect of the aforesaid amendment explicitly makes clear intention of legislation that co-operative banks are not specie of genus co-operative society, which would be entitled to exemption

M/S TAWARI TRADERS ,BULDHANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -2, KHAMGAON

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 193/NAG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur04 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Rachit ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40

194A vis- à-vis section 40(a)(ia), the appellant submitted as under: "Alternatively and without prejudice to the above, if it is presumed that the charges, paid to Shri. Shivnathrai S. Agrawal, is nothing but interest, still the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) are not applicable to the facts of the case. For the said amount of interest

VIVEKANAND NAGRI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT,PULGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, WARDHA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

ITA 115/NAG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur15 May 2024AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri J.M. RanadeFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 194ASection 40

3. In the present appeal, the only issue that we need to adjudicate is, whether or not the learned CIT(A) was justified in confirming the addition of ` 5,84,367, made by the Assessing Officer for non–deduction of TDS under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"). 4. Facts in Brief:– The assessee

VIVEKANAND NAGRI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT,PULGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, WARDHA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

ITA 113/NAG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur15 May 2024AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri J.M. RanadeFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 194ASection 40

3. In the present appeal, the only issue that we need to adjudicate is, whether or not the learned CIT(A) was justified in confirming the addition of ` 5,84,367, made by the Assessing Officer for non–deduction of TDS under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"). 4. Facts in Brief:– The assessee

VIVEKANAND NAGRI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT,PULGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, WARDHA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

ITA 114/NAG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur15 May 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri J.M. RanadeFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 194ASection 40

3. In the present appeal, the only issue that we need to adjudicate is, whether or not the learned CIT(A) was justified in confirming the addition of ` 5,84,367, made by the Assessing Officer for non–deduction of TDS under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"). 4. Facts in Brief:– The assessee

ASSTT. CIT, CIR- 7, NAGPUR vs. M/S. NEWQUEST CORPORATION LTD., CHANDRAPUR

ITA 328/NAG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2008-2009 The Acit Vs. M/S.Newquest Corporation Ltd. Circle-7, (Now Known As M/S. Avantha Nagpur Holding Ltd. Ballalrpur Paper Mills P.O. Ballarpur, Distt. Chandrapur Pan No.:Aabcb 6134 E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Dewani (Adv.)For Respondent: ShriPiyushKolhe (CIT-DR)
Section 40

v. CIT[2016] 236 Taxman 447[2015] 63 taxmann.com 308/379 ITR 0347 wherein it was held that once it was established that there was nexus between expenditure and purpose of business, Revenue could not justifiably claim to put itself in the arm-chair of a businessman or in the position of Board of Directors and decide how much was reasonable

AVANTHA HOLDINGS LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. A.C.I.T. CIR-5,, NAGPUR

ITA 45/NAG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur04 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member Avantha Holdings Ltd. Ballarpur Paper Mills S.O. Ballarpur 442 901 Pan – Aabcb6134E Appellant Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle-4, Nagpur Respondent V/S

For Appellant: Shri Kishore P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 251

disallowances made by the AO of premium on zero percent fully redeemable non-convertible marketable debentures of Rs. 66.73 crore without appreciating the fact that the same does not amount to the expenditure. Since it is not at all payable by the assessee on ZCNCD. Secondly, since this premium amount was not claimed in return of income as per decision

DY. C.I.T. CIR-.5, NAGPUR vs. M/S AVANTHA HOLDINGS LTD.,, CHANDRAPUR

ITA 248/NAG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur04 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member Avantha Holdings Ltd. Ballarpur Paper Mills S.O. Ballarpur 442 901 Pan – Aabcb6134E Appellant

For Appellant: Shri Kishore P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 251

disallowances made by the AO of premium on zero percent fully redeemable non-convertible marketable debentures of Rs. 66.73 crore without appreciating the fact that the same does not amount to the expenditure. Since it is not at all payable by the assessee on ZCNCD. Secondly, since this premium amount was not claimed in return of income as per decision

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NAGPUR vs. AVANTHA HOLDINGS LIMITED, CHANDRAPUR

ITA 354/NAG/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur04 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member Avantha Holdings Ltd. Ballarpur Paper Mills S.O. Ballarpur 442 901 Pan – Aabcb6134E

For Appellant: Shri Kishore P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 251

disallowances made by the AO of premium on zero percent fully redeemable non-convertible marketable debentures of Rs. 66.73 crore without appreciating the fact that the same does not amount to the expenditure. Since it is not at all payable by the assessee on ZCNCD. Secondly, since this premium amount was not claimed in return of income as per decision