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.

99 results for “disallowance”+ Section 16clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai11,338 Delhi9,752 Bangalore3,402 Chennai3,207 Kolkata2,818 Ahmedabad1,370 Hyderabad1,090 Jaipur1,058 Pune883 Surat641 Indore602 Chandigarh523 Raipur468 Rajkot348 Karnataka345 Amritsar265 Cochin260 Visakhapatnam256 Nagpur244 Lucknow241 Cuttack168 Agra119 Telangana105 Guwahati103 SC101 Panaji99 Jodhpur89 Ranchi85 Allahabad79 Patna73 Calcutta69 Dehradun58 Kerala35 Varanasi33 Jabalpur21 Punjab & Haryana10 Rajasthan8 Orissa7 A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN6 Himachal Pradesh5 Gauhati2 RANJAN GOGOI PRAFULLA C. PANT1 MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1 D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1 A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1 Tripura1 H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1 ANIL R. DAVE AMITAVA ROY L. NAGESWARA RAO1 ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)78 Disallowance51 Section 80P(2)(a)44 Addition to Income41 Deduction40 Section 143(1)36 Section 80P33 Condonation of Delay30 Section 25022

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PANAJI vs. M/S SOCIADADE DE FOMENTO INDUSTRIAL P. LTD, MARGAO

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 116/PAN/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji12 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Sh. Nishant Thakkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Ranjan Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

Section 14A and computed the disallowance of Rs.1,16,66,040/-. While making the net addition of Rs.1,05,21,316/-, the A.O. reduced

SOCIEADADE DE FOMENTO INDL. PVT. LTD.,MARGAO vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MARGAO RANGE, MARGAO

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

Showing 1–20 of 99 · Page 1 of 5

ITA 105/PAN/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji12 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Sh. Nishant Thakkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Ranjan Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

Section 14A and computed the disallowance of Rs.1,16,66,040/-. While making the net addition of Rs.1,05,21,316/-, the A.O. reduced

PRIME MINERAL EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED (NOW AMALGAMATED WITH FOMENTO RESOURCES PRIVATE LIMITED),PANAJI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE - 1, PANAJI

The appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purpose in aforestated terms

ITA 3/PAN/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji05 Jun 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 003/Pan/2023 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Prime Mineral Exports Pvt. Ltd. (Now Amalgamated With Fomento Resources Pvt. Ltd.) 102, 1St Fl. Kamat Metropolis-1, Behind Caculo Mall, St. Inez, Panaji, Goa-403001. . . . . . . .Appellant Pan : Aadcp1647E V/S Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, . . . . . . . Respondent Range-1, Panaji, Goa

For Appellant: Mr Nishant Thakkar [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr M. Satish [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 246ASection 250Section 253(1)Section 41(1)Section 4I

16 of 42 Prime Mineral Exports Pvt. Ltd.(Now Amalgamated with Fomento Resources Pvt. Ltd.) Vs JCIT, Panaji ITA Nos.003/PAN/2023 AY: 2009-10 amount of expenditure to be disallowed under first two former clauses. The determination & disallowance in the present case was made only in residuary clause (iii) of s/r (2) of rule 8D (supra). This clause (iii) (supra) provides

GOA CARBON LTD.,PANAJI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1 (1), PANAJI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 333/PAN/2018[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji17 Aug 2022AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. DR

Section 260ASection 80Section 80H

Section 80 HHC. 16. Having regard to emerging position, what has been disallowed pursuant to Explanation (baa) to Section 80HHC

RYATAR SAHAKARI SAKKARE KARKHANE NIYAMIT.,HUBLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD, BELGAUM., BELGAUM

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 161/PAN/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 201(1)Section 40

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act referred by us supra with reference to the facts of the case by a speaking order. 12. Let the aforesaid exercise be carried out by the Tribunal within a period of four months from today. Accordingly, appeals are disposed of.” It is in this backdrop of facts that we are once again deciding

RYATAR SAHAKARI SAKKARE KARKHANE NIYAMIT.,HUBLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD, BELGAUM., BELGAUM

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 160/PAN/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 201(1)Section 40

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act referred by us supra with reference to the facts of the case by a speaking order. 12. Let the aforesaid exercise be carried out by the Tribunal within a period of four months from today. Accordingly, appeals are disposed of.” It is in this backdrop of facts that we are once again deciding

RYATAR SAHAKARI SAKKARE KARKHANE NIYAMIT.,HUBLI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1. BIJAPUR., BIJAPUR

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 154/PAN/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 Jul 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 201(1)Section 40

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act referred by us supra with reference to the facts of the case by a speaking order. 12. Let the aforesaid exercise be carried out by the Tribunal within a period of four months from today. Accordingly, appeals are disposed of.” It is in this backdrop of facts that we are once again deciding

RYATAR SAHAKARI SAKKARE KARKHANE NIYAMIT.,HUBLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BAGALKOT., BAGALKOT

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 155/PAN/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 201(1)Section 40

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act referred by us supra with reference to the facts of the case by a speaking order. 12. Let the aforesaid exercise be carried out by the Tribunal within a period of four months from today. Accordingly, appeals are disposed of.” It is in this backdrop of facts that we are once again deciding

RYATAR SAHAKARI SAKKARE KARKHANE NIYAMIT.,HUBLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BAGALKOT., BAGALKOT

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 157/PAN/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 201(1)Section 40

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act referred by us supra with reference to the facts of the case by a speaking order. 12. Let the aforesaid exercise be carried out by the Tribunal within a period of four months from today. Accordingly, appeals are disposed of.” It is in this backdrop of facts that we are once again deciding

RYATAR SAHAKARI SAKKARE KARKHANE NIYAMIT.,HUBLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD, BELGAUM., BELGAUM

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 159/PAN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 201(1)Section 40

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act referred by us supra with reference to the facts of the case by a speaking order. 12. Let the aforesaid exercise be carried out by the Tribunal within a period of four months from today. Accordingly, appeals are disposed of.” It is in this backdrop of facts that we are once again deciding

RYATAR SAHAKARI SAKKARE KARKHANE NIYAMIT.,HUBLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD, BELGAUM., BELGAUM

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 158/PAN/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 201(1)Section 40

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act referred by us supra with reference to the facts of the case by a speaking order. 12. Let the aforesaid exercise be carried out by the Tribunal within a period of four months from today. Accordingly, appeals are disposed of.” It is in this backdrop of facts that we are once again deciding

RYATAR SAHAKARI SAKKARE KARKHANE NIYAMIT.,HUBLI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1. BIJAPUR., BIJAPUR

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 153/PAN/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 Jul 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 201(1)Section 40

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act referred by us supra with reference to the facts of the case by a speaking order. 12. Let the aforesaid exercise be carried out by the Tribunal within a period of four months from today. Accordingly, appeals are disposed of.” It is in this backdrop of facts that we are once again deciding

RYATAR SAHAKARI SAKKARE KARKHANE NIYAMIT.,HUBLI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1. BIJAPUR., BIJAPUR

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 152/PAN/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 Jul 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 201(1)Section 40

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act referred by us supra with reference to the facts of the case by a speaking order. 12. Let the aforesaid exercise be carried out by the Tribunal within a period of four months from today. Accordingly, appeals are disposed of.” It is in this backdrop of facts that we are once again deciding

VEERENDRA BASAVARAJ KOUJALAGI,BELAGAVI vs. PCIT HUBBALLI, HUBBALLI

ITA 103/PAN/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji28 Jul 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavankumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 103/Pan/2024 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Veerendra Basavaraj Koujalagi C/O. Shri Laxmi Complex, Sadashiv Nagar, Belgavi-590001 Pan : Agrpk3086D . . . . . . . Appellant V/S The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Hubali. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr Shivanand Halbhavi [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Capt. Pradeep Arya [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 24/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/07/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; The Assessee’S Captioned Appeal Impugns Din & Order 1063626985(1) Dt. 29/03/2024 Passed By Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Hubali [‘Ld. Pcit’] U/S 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’] Which Sought To Revise Order Of Assessment Dt. 26/04/2021 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act By National Faceless E-Asstt. Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Ao’] Anent To Assessment Year 2018-19 [‘Ay’].

For Appellant: Mr Shivanand Halbhavi [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Capt. Pradeep Arya [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

16 Veerendra Basavaraj Koujalagi Vs PCIT ITA Nos.103/PAN/2024 AY: 2018-19 23. In omnibus, in the absence of necessary inquiries into investments, earning of exempt income and corresponding disallowance of expenditure in earning such exempt income in terms of section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, UDUPI vs. M/S MANIPAL TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, MANIPAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 69/PAN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji15 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit, Circle-1, Udupi M/S. Manipal Technologies Limited, Vs. Udayavani Building, Manipal- 576104. Pan: Aabcm 9516 H (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Smt. Sheetal Borkar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.06.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: The Present Appeal Filed By The Department Is Arising Out Of The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Mangaluru In Appeal No. Ita No. 10030/Udp/Cit(A)Mng/2016-17 Dated 27.11.2017 Against The Order Of Dcit, Circle- 1, Udupi Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 29.03.2016. 2. There Are Six Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Department In The Present Appeal, All Of Which Relate To The Disallowance Made U/S 14A Of The Act R.W.R. 8D(2)(Ii) & 8D(2)(Iii) Of The Income-Tax Rules, 1962 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Rules), Amounting To Rs. 1,61,65,201/-.

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. DR

Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

section 10(34) of the Act. We are therefore of the view that it would be in the interest of equity and justice if the assessee makes its claim in this regard before the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer will examine the claim of the assessee and thereafter decide the issue in accordance with law and as explained

RAJA BHAT AND KUMUDA FOUNDATION,BELAGAVI vs. PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , BELAGAVI

The appeal of the assessee is ALLOWED

ITA 270/PAN/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji19 Mar 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Year : 2022-23 Raja Bhat & Kumuda Foundation Plot No. 4, Rs No1368, Kumudini, Sadashiv Nagar, Belgavi-590001 Pan:Aajcr6351B . . . . . . . Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr S Manikandan [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 246A(1)Section 250Section 253(1)Section 8

16 Raja Bhat & Kumuda Foundation Vs ITO ITA No.0270/PAN/2024 AY:2022-23 in claim for deduction triggered by recalculation of disallowance u/s 40 or u/s 43B of the Act. We also see eye to eye to the proposition that, the ‘specified date’ as defined in explanation (ii) to section

SHRI GOPALKRISHNA CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,BHATKAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, KARWAR

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 215/PAN/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji16 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalआयकर अपील सं. /Ita No.215/Pan/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17

Section 16Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

16-11-2022 आदेश / ORDER PER R.S. SYAL, VP: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A), Mangaluru on 30-03-2019 in relation to the assessment year 2016-17. 2. The assessee is aggrieved by the confirmation of disallowance of deduction u/s.80P(2) of the Act. 3. Briefly stated, the facts

M/S VIC INDUSTRIES.,SATTARI, GOA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2 (5), PANAJI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 447/PAN/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji21 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury(Through Virtual Hearing) Vic Industries, Vs Ito, Ward-2(5), Plot No.78, Pissurlem Panaji - Goa Industrial Estate, Sattari, Goa. Pan: Aacfv 8626 M Appellant Respondent M/S. Esteem Industries P. Vs Ito, Ward-2, Ltd., Plot No.76-77, Margao - Goa Pissurlem Industrial Estate, Sattari, Goa. Pan: Aaace 9474 F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Sanghvi, CAFor Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth, DR

Section 143(3)Section 80I

disallowed deduction claimed u/sec. 80IB on Sales Tax Incentives of Rs.27,54,214/-, Bank Interest of Rs.11,02,117/-, Excise Refund received of Rs.1,47,99,719/-; and Entry Tax refund of Rs.11,08,224/-. Against the order of AO, assessee had preferred appeal before the ld.CIT(A), who allowed the claim made by the assessee. Aggrieved by the order

M/S ESTEEM INDUSTRIES (P) LTD.,SATTARI GOA vs. INCOME TAX, WARD - 2,, MARGAO

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 448/PAN/2018[2009-10 ]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji21 Aug 2023

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury(Through Virtual Hearing) Vic Industries, Vs Ito, Ward-2(5), Plot No.78, Pissurlem Panaji - Goa Industrial Estate, Sattari, Goa. Pan: Aacfv 8626 M Appellant Respondent M/S. Esteem Industries P. Vs Ito, Ward-2, Ltd., Plot No.76-77, Margao - Goa Pissurlem Industrial Estate, Sattari, Goa. Pan: Aaace 9474 F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Sanghvi, CAFor Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth, DR

Section 143(3)Section 80I

disallowed deduction claimed u/sec. 80IB on Sales Tax Incentives of Rs.27,54,214/-, Bank Interest of Rs.11,02,117/-, Excise Refund received of Rs.1,47,99,719/-; and Entry Tax refund of Rs.11,08,224/-. Against the order of AO, assessee had preferred appeal before the ld.CIT(A), who allowed the claim made by the assessee. Aggrieved by the order

THE KARNATAKA STATE GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES MULTIPURPOSE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,ATHNI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(4), BELAGAVI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 194/PAN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji16 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalआयकर अपील सं. /Ita No.194/Pan/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16

Section 16Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

16-11-2022 आदेश / ORDER PER R.S. SYAL, VP: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A), Belgaum on 22-03-2018 in relation to the assessment year 2015-16. 2. The only issue raised in this appeal is against the denial of deduction u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income