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.

12 results for “disallowance”+ Section 43Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,719 Mumbai1,526 Kolkata804 Bangalore638 Chennai610 Pune293 Jaipur289 Hyderabad241 Ahmedabad188 Chandigarh179 Raipur146 Indore125 Visakhapatnam101 Nagpur97 Surat95 Lucknow85 Agra68 Cuttack67 Amritsar62 Cochin55 Guwahati31 Jabalpur29 Rajkot28 Karnataka26 Ranchi19 Telangana18 Jodhpur18 Patna14 Allahabad13 SC13 Panaji12 Calcutta11 Kerala9 Dehradun8 Varanasi8 Punjab & Haryana4 Himachal Pradesh3 Rajasthan3 A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1 J&K1 A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 43B29 Section 36(1)(va)24 Section 143(1)14 Disallowance11 Addition to Income9 Section 2506 Section 139(1)6 Section 12A4 Section 270A3 Section 143(3)

M/S VEEJAY FACILITY MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD,PANAJI vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 1/PAN/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji08 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

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

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

Section 139Section 142Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

disallowance of expenditure made by the AO. It set up a case before the authorities below, including the ld. CIT(A), taking shelter of section 43B

3

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

disallow a sum of Rs.30,086/- i.e. 1,00,288 X 30%= Rs.30,086/ i.e. 1,00,288 X 30%= Rs.30,086/- as per provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, which has not been provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, which has not been done. 3. On perusal of records, the following observations have

M/S SALITHO ORES PRIVATE LIMITED,PANAJI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - M1, MARGAO

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 72/PAN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji21 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury(Through Virtual Hearing) M/S. Salitho Ores Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, Circle-1, Salgaocar Bhavan, Altinho, Margao Panaji, Goa. Pan: Aabcs 8859 F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwalla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Anand DJ, DR

section 43B speaks of the government dues payable. Therefore, unpaid royalty cannot be allowed as an expenditure and accordingly royalty of Rs.5,85,17,298/- is disallowed

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PANAJI vs. M/S SALITHO ORES PVT. LTD, PANAJI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 99/PAN/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji21 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury(Through Virtual Hearing) M/S. Salitho Ores Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, Circle-1, Salgaocar Bhavan, Altinho, Margao Panaji, Goa. Pan: Aabcs 8859 F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwalla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Anand DJ, DR

section 43B speaks of the government dues payable. Therefore, unpaid royalty cannot be allowed as an expenditure and accordingly royalty of Rs.5,85,17,298/- is disallowed

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PANAJI vs. M/S SALITHO ORES PVT. LTD, PANAJI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 100/PAN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji21 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury(Through Virtual Hearing) M/S. Salitho Ores Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, Circle-1, Salgaocar Bhavan, Altinho, Margao Panaji, Goa. Pan: Aabcs 8859 F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwalla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Anand DJ, DR

section 43B speaks of the government dues payable. Therefore, unpaid royalty cannot be allowed as an expenditure and accordingly royalty of Rs.5,85,17,298/- is disallowed

MAGSONS SUPERCENTRE,PANAJI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU (JURISDICTIONAL AO: CIRCLE - 1(1), PANAJI

The appeal of the assessee is DISMISSED

ITA 14/PAN/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji01 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No. 14/Pan/2021 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Magsons Supercentre, 707, Dayanand Bandodkar Marg, Miramar, Panaji Goa – 403001. . . . . . . . अपीलाथी / Appellant Pan: Aacfm4886A बिाम / Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Officer . . . . . . .प्रत्यथी / Respondent Cpc, Bengaluru.

For Appellant: Adv. Ms Eesha DukleFor Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

43B of the Act, and hence not calling for any disallowance. Per contra, the Department has set up a case that the disallowance is warranted and inevitable because delayed deposit of the employees share beyond the prescribed due date under the respective Act is unsheltered by section

MUKTAR AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED,VERNA vs. DCIT, CPC, BENGALURU

ITA 47/PAN/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji12 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No. 41/Pan/2021 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Goa Electronics Ltd., Ground Floor, Sharma Shakti Bhavan, Edc Complex, Patto, Panaji, Goa – 403 001 . . . . . . . अपीलाथी / Appellant Pan:Aaacg7029G

For Appellant: Adv. Ms Eesha Dukle forFor Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

43B of the Act, and hence not calling for any disallowance. Per contra, the Department has set up a case that the disallowance is warranted and inevitable because delayed deposit of the employees share beyond the prescribed due date under the respective Act is unsheltered by section

GOA ELECTRONICS LIMITED,PANAJI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

ITA 41/PAN/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji12 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No. 41/Pan/2021 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Goa Electronics Ltd., Ground Floor, Sharma Shakti Bhavan, Edc Complex, Patto, Panaji, Goa – 403 001 . . . . . . . अपीलाथी / Appellant Pan:Aaacg7029G

For Appellant: Adv. Ms Eesha Dukle forFor Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

43B of the Act, and hence not calling for any disallowance. Per contra, the Department has set up a case that the disallowance is warranted and inevitable because delayed deposit of the employees share beyond the prescribed due date under the respective Act is unsheltered by section

HERALD PUBLICATIONS PVT. LTD,PANAJI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, ASSESSMENT UNIT, DELHI

ITA 160/PAN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji19 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 160/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Herald Publication Pvt. Ltd. Ag-6, Campal Trade Centre, Opp. Taj Vivanta, H/H Mili, Panaji, Goa-403001 Pan : Aaach4580K . . . . . . . Appellant V/S National Faceless E-Asstt. Centre, Delhi. . . . . . . . Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr Sanket Deshmukh [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 147Section 250Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)Section 270ASection 371(1)Section 43B

43B and (ii) disallowance of u/s 371(1) of the Act. Consequent to such disallowance & determination of income u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, a penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Act were initiated. The assessee choose to remain silent. In the absence of rebuttal, the penalty proceeding ceased by imposing penalty equal to 50% of tax sought

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

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

BANDEKAR BROTHERS PRIVATE LIMITED,VASCO-DA-GAMA, GOA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANAJI, GOA

The appeal of the assessee is PARTLY ALLOWED in aforestated terms

ITA 38/PAN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji11 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Years: 2013-14 Bandekar Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Post Box No. 11, Suvarna Bandekar Bldg., Swatantra Path, Vasco-Da-Gama Goa-403802 Pan: Aaacb5502B . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Panaji, Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Represented Assessee By: Mr Pramod & Mr Shriniwas Deshpande [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By: Mr M Satish & Mr Renga Rajan [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 12/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 11/02/2026 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; This Assessee’S Appeal Filed U/S 253(1) Of The Income-

For Appellant: Mr Pramod & Mr Shriniwas Deshpande [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr M Satish & Mr Renga Rajan [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(14)Section 246ASection 250Section 253(1)Section 37(1)

43B of the Act. While disallowing so the Ld. AO treated the stamp duty payment as consideration for acquiring mining rights being a capital asset within the meaning of section

M/S R. S. SHETYE & BROS,PANAJI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1), PANAJI

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

ITA 37/PAN/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji27 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. No.37/Pan/2023 (A.Y.2016-17) R.S.Shetye & Bros, Vs Acit 1(1), Flat.No.14, 1 St Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, . Trionara Apartments, Edc, Patto, New Muncipal Market, Panjim Panaji- Goa-403001. Goa-403001. Pan .No.Aabfr9785N (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

section 37 of the Act which is applicable to the CSR in the case of the companies. Further the assessing officer has not doubted the genuineness of the expenditure but treated the same as not incidental to the business and made disallowance. The Ld.AR highlighted the ledger account copies of expenditure and TDS was deducted on the contractor payments