Search: disallowance | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

180 results for “disallowance”+ Section 32(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai6,719 Delhi6,179 Bangalore2,049 Chennai1,921 Kolkata1,566 Ahmedabad1,486 Pune1,052 Hyderabad1,029 Jaipur844 Indore530 Chandigarh495 Surat367 Visakhapatnam318 Raipur309 Cochin290 Rajkot261 Karnataka244 Amritsar230 Cuttack216 Nagpur180 Lucknow123 Guwahati107 Agra105 Panaji86 Ranchi81 Allahabad79 Jodhpur68 SC64 Telangana60 Calcutta54 Patna52 Dehradun43 Kerala28 Varanasi25 Jabalpur20 Orissa6 Punjab & Haryana5 Rajasthan3 A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2 Himachal Pradesh1 J&K1 ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1 Tripura1 Uttarakhand1 MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1 H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1 ANIL R. DAVE AMITAVA ROY L. NAGESWARA RAO1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)58 Section 153C51 Section 80I46 Section 153A45 Addition to Income43 Section 69A32 Section 44A29 Section 80P(2)(a)26 Disallowance24 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

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

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

Showing 1–20 of 180 · Page 1 of 9

...

20

Search & Seizure12

ITA 212/NAG/2024[2020-21]Status: Disposed

ITAT Nagpur

28 Nov 2024

AY 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)

32, 40(a)(ia), 40A(3), 43B, etc of the Act and other specific disallowances , related to the business activity against which the Chapter VI A Deductions has been claimed, result in enhancement of the profits of eligible business, and that deduction under Chapter VI A is admissible on the profits of the eligible business, and that deduction under chapter

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)

32, 40(a)(ia), 40A(3), 43B, etc of the Act and other specific disallowances , related to the business activity against which the Chapter VI A Deductions has been claimed, result in enhancement of the profits of eligible business, and that deduction under Chapter VI A is admissible on the profits of the eligible business, and that deduction under chapter

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

32 of Regional Rural Bank Act for the purpose of Income-tax Act, is entitled to benefit of deduction u/s 80P (2)(a)(i) as held by Hon'ble ITAT Allahabad in the case of Baroda Uttar Pradesh Gramin Bank (ITA 403 to 405/Alld./2014 and accordingly deduction under the said section should be allowed in computing the total income

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

32 of Regional Rural Bank Act for the purpose of Income-tax Act, is entitled to benefit of deduction u/s 80P (2)(a)(i) as held by Hon'ble ITAT Allahabad in the case of Baroda Uttar Pradesh Gramin Bank (ITA 403 to 405/Alld./2014 and accordingly deduction under the said section should be allowed in computing the total income

M/S. TRUFORM ENGINEERS,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

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

ITA 6/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

disallowed under section 36(1)(va) 2. [2022] 136 taxmann.com 154 (Delhi - Trib.)[14-02-2022], IN THE ITAT DELHI BENCH 'F', Rakesh Janghu v. CPC, Bangalore, wherein it is held that :- 5. On perusal of the records, we observe that the Assessing Officer has made the impugned addition on the ground that the assessee has deposited employee's contribution

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

disallowed under section 36(1)(va) 2. [2022] 136 taxmann.com 154 (Delhi - Trib.)[14-02-2022], IN THE ITAT DELHI BENCH 'F', Rakesh Janghu v. CPC, Bangalore, wherein it is held that :- 5. On perusal of the records, we observe that the Assessing Officer has made the impugned addition on the ground that the assessee has deposited employee's contribution

SHANTI ARMS TECH PVT LTD,NAGPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU

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

ITA 15/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

disallowed under section 36(1)(va) 2. [2022] 136 taxmann.com 154 (Delhi - Trib.)[14-02-2022], IN THE ITAT DELHI BENCH 'F', Rakesh Janghu v. CPC, Bangalore, wherein it is held that :- 5. On perusal of the records, we observe that the Assessing Officer has made the impugned addition on the ground that the assessee has deposited employee's contribution

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

disallowed under section 36(1)(va) 2. [2022] 136 taxmann.com 154 (Delhi - Trib.)[14-02-2022], IN THE ITAT DELHI BENCH 'F', Rakesh Janghu v. CPC, Bangalore, wherein it is held that :- 5. On perusal of the records, we observe that the Assessing Officer has made the impugned addition on the ground that the assessee has deposited employee's contribution

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

disallowed under section 36(1)(va) 2. [2022] 136 taxmann.com 154 (Delhi - Trib.)[14-02-2022], IN THE ITAT DELHI BENCH 'F', Rakesh Janghu v. CPC, Bangalore, wherein it is held that :- 5. On perusal of the records, we observe that the Assessing Officer has made the impugned addition on the ground that the assessee has deposited employee's contribution

SUPRIYA PACKAGING PVT LTD,NAGPUR vs. ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, NAGPUR

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

ITA 25/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

disallowed under section 36(1)(va) 2. [2022] 136 taxmann.com 154 (Delhi - Trib.)[14-02-2022], IN THE ITAT DELHI BENCH 'F', Rakesh Janghu v. CPC, Bangalore, wherein it is held that :- 5. On perusal of the records, we observe that the Assessing Officer has made the impugned addition on the ground that the assessee has deposited employee's contribution

M/S. DHANDHANIA INFOTECH ,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

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

ITA 84/NAG/2021[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

disallowed under section 36(1)(va) 2. [2022] 136 taxmann.com 154 (Delhi - Trib.)[14-02-2022], IN THE ITAT DELHI BENCH 'F', Rakesh Janghu v. CPC, Bangalore, wherein it is held that :- 5. On perusal of the records, we observe that the Assessing Officer has made the impugned addition on the ground that the assessee has deposited employee's contribution

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

disallowed under section 36(1)(va) 2. [2022] 136 taxmann.com 154 (Delhi - Trib.)[14-02-2022], IN THE ITAT DELHI BENCH 'F', Rakesh Janghu v. CPC, Bangalore, wherein it is held that :- 5. On perusal of the records, we observe that the Assessing Officer has made the impugned addition on the ground that the assessee has deposited employee's contribution

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

disallowed under section 36(1)(va) 2. [2022] 136 taxmann.com 154 (Delhi - Trib.)[14-02-2022], IN THE ITAT DELHI BENCH 'F', Rakesh Janghu v. CPC, Bangalore, wherein it is held that :- 5. On perusal of the records, we observe that the Assessing Officer has made the impugned addition on the ground that the assessee has deposited employee's contribution

DURGESH INDUSTRIAL SECURITY PVT. LTD,CHANDRAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CPC, BANGALORE

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

ITA 13/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

disallowed under section 36(1)(va) 2. [2022] 136 taxmann.com 154 (Delhi - Trib.)[14-02-2022], IN THE ITAT DELHI BENCH 'F', Rakesh Janghu v. CPC, Bangalore, wherein it is held that :- 5. On perusal of the records, we observe that the Assessing Officer has made the impugned addition on the ground that the assessee has deposited employee's contribution

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

disallowed under section 36(1)(va) 2. [2022] 136 taxmann.com 154 (Delhi - Trib.)[14-02-2022], IN THE ITAT DELHI BENCH 'F', Rakesh Janghu v. CPC, Bangalore, wherein it is held that :- 5. On perusal of the records, we observe that the Assessing Officer has made the impugned addition on the ground that the assessee has deposited employee's contribution

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

disallowed under section 36(1)(va) 2. [2022] 136 taxmann.com 154 (Delhi - Trib.)[14-02-2022], IN THE ITAT DELHI BENCH 'F', Rakesh Janghu v. CPC, Bangalore, wherein it is held that :- 5. On perusal of the records, we observe that the Assessing Officer has made the impugned addition on the ground that the assessee has deposited employee's contribution

SADHNA SAHAKARI BANK LTD.,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, NAGPUR

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

ITA 16/NAG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Apr 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Arun Khodpia

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

disallowed under section 36(1)(va) 2. [2022] 136 taxmann.com 154 (Delhi - Trib.)[14-02-2022], IN THE ITAT DELHI BENCH 'F', Rakesh Janghu v. CPC, Bangalore, wherein it is held that :- 5. On perusal of the records, we observe that the Assessing Officer has made the impugned addition on the ground that the assessee has deposited employee's contribution

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

disallowed under section 36(1)(va) 2. [2022] 136 taxmann.com 154 (Delhi - Trib.)[14-02-2022], IN THE ITAT DELHI BENCH 'F', Rakesh Janghu v. CPC, Bangalore, wherein it is held that :- 5. On perusal of the records, we observe that the Assessing Officer has made the impugned addition on the ground that the assessee has deposited employee's contribution

M/S. FORMS,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALURU

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

ITA 20/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

disallowed under section 36(1)(va) 2. [2022] 136 taxmann.com 154 (Delhi - Trib.)[14-02-2022], IN THE ITAT DELHI BENCH 'F', Rakesh Janghu v. CPC, Bangalore, wherein it is held that :- 5. On perusal of the records, we observe that the Assessing Officer has made the impugned addition on the ground that the assessee has deposited employee's contribution