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.

15 results for “disallowance”+ Section 42clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai5,107Delhi4,620Bangalore1,511Chennai1,407Kolkata1,156Ahmedabad1,052Hyderabad643Jaipur534Indore401Pune342Surat333Chandigarh323Raipur241Cochin212Rajkot186Amritsar176Nagpur165Cuttack133Karnataka123Visakhapatnam121Agra104Lucknow91Allahabad66Guwahati61Ranchi54Calcutta45SC43Jodhpur41Patna30Telangana29Dehradun28Varanasi21Jabalpur19Panaji15Kerala14Punjab & Haryana4A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2Rajasthan2Orissa2Uttarakhand1RANJAN GOGOI PRAFULLA C. PANT1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1

Key Topics

Section 14A15Section 143(3)14Section 80P(2)(a)12Disallowance9Section 270A8Addition to Income8Section 2637Deduction7Section 143(2)6Section 250

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)
6
Section 143(1)6
Depreciation2
Section 41(1)
Section 4I

disallowed. Once the provision of s/s (1) of section 14A of the Act comes into play, it becomes obligatory on the part of assessing officer to determine the quantum of expenditure either under s/s (2) or s/s (3) of section 14A the Act. ITAT-Panaji Page 18 of 42

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

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

42 ITA.No.105 & 116/PAN./2018 Sociedade De Fomento Industrial Pvt. Ltd., Margao, Goa. made by the assessee to have cordial relation and betterment of the villagers living around the mining activities area of the assessee. The ld. Counsel further submitted that the ld.CIT(A) has also erred in confirming the disallowance made by the AO of a sum of Rs.81

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

42 ITA.No.105 & 116/PAN./2018 Sociedade De Fomento Industrial Pvt. Ltd., Margao, Goa. made by the assessee to have cordial relation and betterment of the villagers living around the mining activities area of the assessee. The ld. Counsel further submitted that the ld.CIT(A) has also erred in confirming the disallowance made by the AO of a sum of Rs.81

SHRI NITIN A SHIRGURKAR,BELGAVI vs. PR. CIT, HUBBALI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowe

ITA 77/PAN/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 194A(3)(iii)Section 194A(3)(iv)Section 263Section 40

42(1) of the Act and completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act, vide order dt. 28/12/2017 the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act, vide order dt. 28/12/2017 interalia interalia making an disallowance of Rs.2,41,079/ disallowance of Rs.2,41,079/- u/s 14A of the Act being income from business

MAHADEV MALLAPPA ATAR,BELAGAVI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, BELAGAVI

ITA 14/PAN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji03 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 014/Pan/2024 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Mahadev Mallappa Atar Pwd Contractor, Katkol, Ramdurg, Dist. Balgavi-591114 Pan:Abxpa7467P . . . . . . . Appellant

For Appellant: None for the assesseeFor Respondent: Ms Nazeera Mohammad [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 253(1)Section 68

42,82,901/- made M/s Anup Cements (2) disallowance of bogus expenditure of ₹4,26,550/- paid to M/s Bharati Cements and (3) 40A(3) disallowance of cash payment of ₹32,000/- made to M/s Nirani Cements and (4) unexplained cash deposits of ₹20,00,000/- added u/s 68 of the Act. Aggrieved by the aforestated additions the assessee filed

M/S. KINECO (P) LTD.,BARDEZ vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(4), PANAJI

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 340/PAN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji30 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Kineco (P) Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 60, Pilerne Industrial 2(4), Panaji. Vs. Estate, Pilerne, Bardez Goa- 403511. (Pan: Aabcm8681P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Jitendra Jain, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-2, Panaji Vide Ita No. 418/Cit(A)-2/Pnj/2017-18 Dated 01.06.2018 For A.Y. 2013-14 Passed Against The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) By Ito, Ward-2(4), Panaji Dated 22.03.2016. 2. Shri Jitendra Jain, Advocate Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

section 14A of the Act is not applicable since it has not earned any exempt income during the year. Ld. AO rejecting the contention of the assessee proceeded to compute the disallowance by applying rule 8D and thus made a disallowance of Rs.28,94,090/- under rule 8D(2)(ii) and of Rs.1,13,725/- under rule 3 Kineco

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -2(2), , BELGAVI vs. SHIVA CREDIT SOUHARDA SAHAKARI NIYAMIT, BELGAVI

ITA 18/PAN/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji17 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Sh Mayur Kamble, Sr. D.R
Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(i)Section 80P(4)

disallowance made by the A.O. observing that the income earned from persons other than its regular members would not be eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the I.T. Act, 1961 and such income earned from business with persons other than the regular members would be taxable as income from business. Similar issue was placed for adjudication

M/S SANKAMTAL HOTEL PRIVATE LTD.,BELAGAVI vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 2 (1), BELAGAVI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 191/PAN/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji30 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S Sankamtal Hotel Acit, Circle-1, Pvt. Ltd. Belagavi S. Parthasarathi, Advocate, 3/1, Pranava Vs. Complex, 5Th Cross, Malleswaram, Bangalore- 560 003. Pan: Aadcs 5106 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Smt. Pratibha R., Advocate Respondent By : Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), -Belagavi In Ita No.51/Bgm/2016-17 Dated 25.02.2018 Against The Assessment Order Passed By Acit, Circle-2(1), Belagavi U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Dated 14.03.2016 For A.Y. 2008-09. 2. There Is A Delay Of Five Days In Filing The Present Appeal For Which The Petition For Condonation Of Delay & Affidavit Are Placed On Record. From The Affidavit, We Note That The Assessee Was Out Of Station When The Appeal Memo Was Sent To Him By The Counsel For Its Signature & Therefore A Short Delay Of 5 Days Occurred. Considering The Petition & In The Interest Of Justice & Fair Play, We Find It Proper To Admit The Appeal & Proceed To Adjudicate Thereon.

For Appellant: Smt. Pratibha R., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 31

Sections 234A, 234B 85 234C of the Act. 7. Without prejudice the disallowances as made by the learned CIT(A) are arbitrary excessive and ought to be reduced substantially. 3. Before us, Smt. Pratibha R. Advocate appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. DR represented the Department. 4. Brief facts as culled out from the records

M/S SOVA,PANAJI vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANAJI

The appeal of the assessee is PARTLY ALLOWED in aforestated terms

ITA 24/PAN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji10 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Years: 2018-19 M/S Sova Salgaocar Bhavan, Altinho, Panaji, Goa-403001. Pan: Aacfs8862Q . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Panaji, Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent

For Appellant: Mr Sukhsagar Syal [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr M Satish [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 253(1)Section 263Section 56

42,48,443/-, (b) credit balances written off ₹14,03,127/-, (c) interest on bank deposits ₹16,39,202/- & (d) interest on tax-refund ₹52,586/- etc., were brought to tax as income from other sources u/s 56 of the Act [‘IOS’] and assessed accordingly further allowing to c/f current year business losses to the tune

SHRI HANUMAN CREDIT SOUHARDA SAHAKARI SANGH LTD,BELAGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, NIPPANI

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

ITA 235/PAN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji16 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE (Judicial Member)

Section 80P(2)(a)

section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act and has not made separate disallowance of interest income on deposits with the cooperative banks and scheduled banks. Finally the A.O. was not satisfied with the explanations on the registration of the assessee society under the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act 1997 and dealt on the provisions and judicial decisions 3 ITA. No.235/PAN/2025

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

42,033/- being the sum of voluntary contribution and income derived from the property held under Trust. 2.2 Aggrieved assessee assailed denial of exemptions in an appeal u/s 246A(1) of the Act. Reiterating assessee’s failure to furnish the audit report within the due date prescribed u/s 12A(b)(ii) r.w.s. 44AB of the Act, the said appeal

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PANAJI vs. M/S MILROC GOOD EARTH PROPERTY AND DEVELOPERS LLP, PANAJI

In the result, cross-objection filed by the assessee in CO No

ITA 26/PAN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji06 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 26/Pan/2018 ""या"ेपसं./Co.No.06/Pan/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.26/Pan/2018) "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle-1(1), Panaji, Goa .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Milroc Good Earth Property & Developers Llp, 501, 5Th Floor Milroc Lar Menezes, S.V. Road, Panaji-Goa - 403001 Pan : Aaacg7222M ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Smt. Preethi Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

42,694/-. 3 M/s. Milroc Good Earth Property & Developers, LLP CO No. 06/PAN/2018 The return of income filed by the assessee was processed as such u/s. 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment u/s.143(2) of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was observed by the Assessing Officer

BEIERSDORF INDIA (P) LTD.,PANAJI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(4),, PANAJI

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 337/PAN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji17 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Sh D.E. Robinson, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh Ranjan Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 28Section 36Section 43Section 43(5)

section 36(1)(vii) of the I.T. Act, 1961. At this juncture, we also take cognizance of submissions of the Learned Authorised Representative of the assessee that the issue of allowing bad debt is covered in favour of the assessee by the order of ITAT, Chennai Bench, Chennai in the case of M/s. Megh Sakariya International P. Ltd., Chennai

THE KARNATAKA KARAVALI URBAN CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,ATHANI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1 (4), BELGAUM, BELAGAVI

ITA 457/PAN/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji17 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri S.M. Kedarshetti, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. DR
Section 80Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

disallowed the deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i). 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal to the ld.CIT(A), but, remained empty handed as the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by the first 2 ITAs No.457 & 458/PAN/2018 appellate authority by observing that the assessee has admitted to have nominal/associate members more than 15% of its regular membership

SHRI BEERESHWAR CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD MADABHAVI,BELAGAVI vs. ITO WARD-2, BELAGAVI, BELAGAVI

ITA 487/PAN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji10 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 487/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Mr Shivanand Halbhavi [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Ms Rijula Uniyal [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 80P(2)

disallowed and total income was assessee accordingly by an order dt. 05/09/2022 framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act. ITAT-Panaji Page 2 of 7 Shri Beereshwar Co-op. Credit Society Ltd. Vs ITO ITA Nos.487/PAN/2025 AY: 2020-21 3.2 Consequent to aforestated assessment, the Ld. NFeAC initiated penal proceedings u/s 270A by service of notice dt. 30/12/2022