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.

14 results for “disallowance”+ Section 36(1)(viia)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai337 Chennai160 Delhi139 Bangalore131 Kolkata55 Pune33 Cochin28 Hyderabad26 Surat19 Karnataka16 Jaipur14 Nagpur14 Chandigarh11 Rajkot11 Cuttack10 Ahmedabad10 Patna9 Amritsar9 Jodhpur8 Kerala7 Indore7 Guwahati7 Visakhapatnam6 SC4 Telangana4 Lucknow3 Agra2 Ranchi1 Raipur1 Panaji1

Key Topics

Section 36(1)(viia)33 Section 271(1)(c)22 Deduction11 Disallowance9 Section 80P7 Addition to Income7 Section 143(3)6 Section 36(1)5 Penalty5 Section 36(1)(viii)

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

viia) Vidarbha Konkan Gramin Bank A.Y. 2014–15 & 2015–16 read with 36(2)(v) and provision of section 36(1)(viii). Hence the disallowance

4

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

viia) Vidarbha Konkan Gramin Bank A.Y. 2014–15 & 2015–16 read with 36(2)(v) and provision of section 36(1)(viii). Hence the disallowance

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)

section 36(1)(viia) of the Act to ` 2 crore, which resulted into addition of ` 62.92 crore and the disallowance

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CHANDRAPUR CIRCLE , CHANDRAPUR vs. M/S CHANDRAPUR DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPRATIVE BANK LIMTED , CHANDRAPUR

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

ITA 241/NAG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

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)

section 36(1)(viia) of I.T. Act 1961 at 46.57 crores is also not disputed, but the disallowance came to be made

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)

section 36(1)(viia) of I.T. Act 1961 at 46.57 crores is also not disputed, but the disallowance came to be made

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)

section 36(1)(viia) of I.T. Act 1961 at 46.57 crores is also not disputed, but the disallowance came to be made

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)

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 Tax Statute expressly provides for such provisioning under section 36(1)(viia

INOCME TAX OFFICER WARD -2, BHANDARA vs. THE BHANDRARA URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED , BHANDARA

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 158/NAG/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 May 2024AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya

Section 2Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 56

section 36(1)(viia) of the Act of ` 1,94,57,134, and also made addition of ` 1,43,97,123, on account of accrued interest on NPA on due basis. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the first appellate authority. 4. Insofar as the issue relating to disallowance

THE BULDHANA DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OP BANK LTD ,BULDHANA vs. DCIT, AKOLA CIRCLE , AKOLA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 125/NAG/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur12 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

disallowable under section 36(1)(viia) has only been written back. It is a mere accounting entry which does not generate

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AKOLA CIRCLE , AKOLA vs. AKOLA URBAN CO-OPRATIVE BANK LTD , AKOLA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 119/NAG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Dharan Gandhi a/wFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40

section 36(1)(viia)dealt with non-performing assets, that there was no justification for allowing the loss on sale of NPA.s when provision for the same had been allowed in the earlier years. He held that there was no actual loss arising on sale of assets to ARCIL. Finally, he disallowed

THE WARDHA DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OP. BANK LTD.,WARDHA vs. DCIT/ACIT CIRCLE-3, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 11/NAG/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur03 Apr 2025AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Ms. Alfiya RozieFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(viia)

36(1)(viia) of the Act. The core issue that we need to adjudicate in this appeal is, whether or not the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was justified on account of disallowances

SHRI SANT NARHARI NAGARI SHAHKAR PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT,BHANDRA vs. ITO, WARD -2, BHANDARA

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed in part for statistical purposes

ITA 431/NAG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur23 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryshri Sant Narhari Nagari Ito, Ward-2, Bhandara Shahkar Pat Sanstha Maryadit, R.No. 1/2 Nagar Vs. Palika Shivaji Chowk, Pauni, Bhandra-441910. Pan: Aakts 3987 N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Hiranji, Ld. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Ld. Sr.D.R

Section 194HSection 250Section 40Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80PSection 80P(5)

section 80A(5) of the Act was unwarranted. Even otherwise, the Assessee has claimed that certain payments were below the threshold u/sec. 194H of the Act and no tax liability existed for recipients and without prejudice, disallowance, if any, then it should be restricted and considered as an eligible business income deductible u/sec. 80P of the Act. Thus

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

INOCME TAX OFFICER WARD -2, BHANDARA vs. THE BHANDRARA URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED , BHANDARA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as not maintainable

ITA 159/NAG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.159/Nag/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Income Tax Officer, The Bhandara Urban Co- Ward-2, Bhandara. Vs Operative Bank Limited, Gandhi Chowk, Bhandara, Maharashtra – 441904. Pan : Aaaft 7398 G Appellant / Revenue Respondent /Assessee

Section 143(3)Section 36

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal : The Bhandara Urban Co-Operativbe Bank Limited [R] “1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the disallowance u/s 36(viia