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.

90 results for “disallowance”+ Section 48clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai4,935Delhi4,308Bangalore1,392Chennai1,193Kolkata1,095Ahmedabad1,048Hyderabad708Jaipur705Pune642Indore432Chandigarh362Cochin293Surat291Raipur226Visakhapatnam208Amritsar196Nagpur151Cuttack146Rajkot145Karnataka114Lucknow99Panaji90Allahabad84Guwahati79Ranchi72Calcutta53Agra51Jodhpur50SC41Telangana25Dehradun21Jabalpur19Varanasi19Kerala17Patna12Punjab & Haryana4Rajasthan2Orissa2Andhra Pradesh1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Uttarakhand1

Key Topics

Condonation of Delay54Section 80P(4)46Section 80P37Section 143(3)33Disallowance32Deduction30Section 80P(2)(d)27Section 250(6)23Section 43B21Addition to Income

SMT ALICIA NINETTE FIALHO GONSALVES,ILHAS vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(3), PANAJI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 82/PAN/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji05 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.82/Pan/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Smt. Alicia Ninette Fialho Gonsalves H.No.203, Villa Gonsalves, Chimbel, Ilhas, Goa – 403 006 .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Panaji Goa. ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Jitendra Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak, Sr. D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2022

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak, Sr. D.R
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 40

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 of the assessee’s claim for deduction of construction expenses of Rs. 29,00,838/- that were payable by the assessee to M/s. Buildtech Real Estate Developers [in short “M/s. BRED”] on 31.03.2012. As is discernible from the orders of the lower authorities, the assessee had credited contract

Showing 1–20 of 90 · Page 1 of 5

19
Limitation/Time-bar18
Section 80P(2)(a)15

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

48 ITA.No.105 & 116/PAN./2018 Sociedade De Fomento Industrial Pvt. Ltd., Margao, Goa. 39. In the present case, the ld.CIT(A) has granted relief to the assessee with the following observations and findings:- “7. Ground no.5 is regarding disallowance of exchange loss amounting to Rs.8,65,74,413/- pertaining to conversion of US dollar currency in EEFC account to Indian

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

48 ITA.No.105 & 116/PAN./2018 Sociedade De Fomento Industrial Pvt. Ltd., Margao, Goa. 39. In the present case, the ld.CIT(A) has granted relief to the assessee with the following observations and findings:- “7. Ground no.5 is regarding disallowance of exchange loss amounting to Rs.8,65,74,413/- pertaining to conversion of US dollar currency in EEFC account to Indian

SHRI LALJI PURSHOTTAM DABHOYYA PATEL,ALTINHO vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1), PANAJI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 339/PAN/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji17 Aug 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2006-07 Ito, Vs. Shri Lalji Purshottam Dabhoyya Ward 1(1), Patel, Panaji, Hill View, Althinho, Goa. Panaji, Goa- 403 001. Pan: Abapd1169Q Assessment Year: 2007-08 Shri Lalji Purshottam Vs. Acit, Dabhoyya Patel, Circle -1(1), Hill View, Althinho, Panaji, Panaji, Goa- 403 001. Goa. Pan: Abapd1169Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jitendra Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.08.2022 Order Per C.M. Garg, Jm: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Panaji-1, Dated 31.05.2018 For Assessment Year 2007-08. Ita Nos.361 & 339/Pan/2018 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Civil Contractor Carrying On The Business At Panaji, Goa. The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income Declaring The Total Income At Rs.9,02,333/-. The Ao Completed The Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Act By Making The Following Additions:- I) Unexplained Cash Credit - Rs.27,33,000.00 Ii) Unconfirmed Creditors - Rs. 6,30,000.00 Iii) Depreciation Disallowance - Rs. 1,03,697.00

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 45

disallowance - Rs. 1,03,697.00 3. The AO also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and a penalty of Rs.9,90,009/- was imposed. In appeal, the learned CIT(A), Panaji, sustained the additions made as well as the penalty imposed by the AO. 4. The learned counsel for the assessee, placing reliance on various decisions

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(1), PANAJI vs. SHRI LALJI PURUSHOTTAM BABHOYYA PATEL, ALTINHO

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 361/PAN/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji17 Aug 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2006-07 Ito, Vs. Shri Lalji Purshottam Dabhoyya Ward 1(1), Patel, Panaji, Hill View, Althinho, Goa. Panaji, Goa- 403 001. Pan: Abapd1169Q Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Lalji Purshottam Vs. Acit, Dabhoyya Patel, Circle -1(1), Hill View, Althinho, Panaji, Panaji, Goa- 403 001. Goa. Pan: Abapd1169Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jitendra Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.08.2022 Order Per C.M. Garg, Jm: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Panaji-1, Dated 31.05.2018 For Assessment Year 2007-08. Ita Nos.361 & 339/Pan/2018 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Civil Contractor Carrying On The Business At Panaji, Goa. The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income Declaring The Total Income At Rs.9,02,333/-. The Ao Completed The Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Act By Making The Following Additions:- I) Unexplained Cash Credit - Rs.27,33,000.00 Ii) Unconfirmed Creditors - Rs. 6,30,000.00 Iii) Depreciation Disallowance - Rs. 1,03,697.00

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 45

disallowance - Rs. 1,03,697.00 3. The AO also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and a penalty of Rs.9,90,009/- was imposed. In appeal, the learned CIT(A), Panaji, sustained the additions made as well as the penalty imposed by the AO. 4. The learned counsel for the assessee, placing reliance on various decisions

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 SHIRAGAO PRATHAMIK KRISHI PATTIN SAHAKARI BANK NIYAMIT,BELAGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(3), BELAGAVI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 8/PAN/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji25 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri S. Gadadi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri N. Shrikant
Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

disallowed the deduction for violation of Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act (in brevity the Act). In relation to restriction u/s 80P(4) of the Act. The interest was added back with the total income as income amount of Rs.857,533/- as income from other sources. The Revenue authorities had relied on the order

THE BHAGWATI URBAN CO-OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,PERNEM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), PANAJI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 46/PAN/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji24 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra BhobeFor Respondent: Shri N. Shrikant
Section 143(1)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)Section 8O

disallowed the deduction for violation of Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act (in brevity the Act). In relation to restriction u/s 80P(4) of the Act. The interest was added back with the total income as income amount of Rs.857,533/- as income from other sources. The Revenue authorities had relied on the order

PRATHAMIK KRISHI PATTIN SAHAKARI NIYAMIT,SALAPUR vs. ITO, WARD - 1(5), BELAGAVI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 17/PAN/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji23 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri S.B. GodadiFor Respondent: Shri N. Shrikant
Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)Section 8O

disallowed the deduction for violation of Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act (in brevity the Act). In relation to restriction u/s 80P(4) of the Act. The interest was added back with the total income as income amount of Rs.857,533/- as income from other sources. The Revenue authorities had relied on the order

THE YAMAKANMARDI LAXMI URBEN CREDIT SOUHARDA SAHAKARI NIYAMIT .,BELGAUM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (WARD) 1(1), BELGAVI

In the result, all the grounds of appeal of the assessee related ITA No

ITA 222/PAN/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji07 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Rijula Uniyal, Sr. DR
Section 250(6)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

disallowed the deduction for violation of Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act (in brevity the Act). In relation to restriction u/s 80P(4) of the Act. The interest was added back with the total income and treated as income from other sources. The Revenue authorities had relied on the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court

HEGDEKATTA GROUP GRAMAGALA SEVA SAHAKARI SANGHA LTD.,SIRSI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1,, SIRSI

In the result, all the grounds of appeal of the assessee related ITA No

ITA 210/PAN/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji07 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Rijula Uniyal, Sr. DR
Section 250(6)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

disallowed the deduction for violation of Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act (in brevity the Act). In relation to restriction u/s 80P(4) of the Act. The interest was added back with the total income and treated as income from other sources. The Revenue authorities had relied on the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court

SHRI. GOMATESH CO-OPP. CREDIT SOC. LTD.,BELGAUM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 1, NIPANI

In the result, all the grounds of appeal of the assessee related ITA No

ITA 248/PAN/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji07 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Rijula Uniyal, Sr. DR
Section 250(6)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

disallowed the deduction for violation of Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act (in brevity the Act). In relation to restriction u/s 80P(4) of the Act. The interest was added back with the total income and treated as income from other sources. The Revenue authorities had relied on the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court

PRATHAMIK KRISHI PATTIN SAHAKARI BANK,BELGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(4), BELGAVI

In the result, all the grounds of appeal of the assessee related ITA No

ITA 443/PAN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji07 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Rijula Uniyal, Sr. DR
Section 250(6)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

disallowed the deduction for violation of Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act (in brevity the Act). In relation to restriction u/s 80P(4) of the Act. The interest was added back with the total income and treated as income from other sources. The Revenue authorities had relied on the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court

SHRI. GOMATESH CO-OPP. CREDIT SOC. LTD.,BELGAUM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 1, NIPANI

In the result, all the grounds of appeal of the assessee related ITA No

ITA 249/PAN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji07 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Rijula Uniyal, Sr. DR
Section 250(6)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

disallowed the deduction for violation of Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act (in brevity the Act). In relation to restriction u/s 80P(4) of the Act. The interest was added back with the total income and treated as income from other sources. The Revenue authorities had relied on the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court

SHRI SHIVAYOGI URBAN CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,BELGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(3), BELGAVI

In the result, all the grounds of appeal of the assessee related ITA No

ITA 244/PAN/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji07 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Rijula Uniyal, Sr. DR
Section 250(6)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

disallowed the deduction for violation of Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act (in brevity the Act). In relation to restriction u/s 80P(4) of the Act. The interest was added back with the total income and treated as income from other sources. The Revenue authorities had relied on the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court

THE BELGAUM MANUFACTURERS CO-OPERATIVE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE LTD,BELGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(1), BELGAVI

In the result, all the grounds of appeal of the assessee related ITA No

ITA 431/PAN/2018[2015-16 ]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji07 Apr 2022

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Rijula Uniyal, Sr. DR
Section 250(6)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

disallowed the deduction for violation of Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act (in brevity the Act). In relation to restriction u/s 80P(4) of the Act. The interest was added back with the total income and treated as income from other sources. The Revenue authorities had relied on the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court

M/S VEERASHAIVA CREDIT SOUHARD SAHAKARI LIMITED,ATHANI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -2(2), BELGAVI

In the result, all the grounds of appeal of the assessee related ITA No

ITA 445/PAN/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji07 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Rijula Uniyal, Sr. DR
Section 250(6)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

disallowed the deduction for violation of Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act (in brevity the Act). In relation to restriction u/s 80P(4) of the Act. The interest was added back with the total income and treated as income from other sources. The Revenue authorities had relied on the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court

M/S NERALI URBAN CO-OPRATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,NERALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(2), BELAGAVI

In the result, all the grounds of appeal of the assessee related ITA No

ITA 446/PAN/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji07 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Rijula Uniyal, Sr. DR
Section 250(6)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

disallowed the deduction for violation of Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act (in brevity the Act). In relation to restriction u/s 80P(4) of the Act. The interest was added back with the total income and treated as income from other sources. The Revenue authorities had relied on the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court

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

In the result, all the grounds of appeal of the assessee related ITA Nos

ITA 115/PAN/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji04 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Rijula Uniyal, Sr. DR
Section 250(6)

disallowed the deduction for violation of Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act (in brevity the Act). In relation to restriction u/s 80P(4) of the Act. The interest was added back with the total income as income amount of Rs.857,533/- as income from other sources. The Revenue authorities had relied on the order

M/S PRATHMIK KRUSHI SAHAKARI BANK NIYAMIT,BELGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(3), BELGAUM

In the result, all the grounds of appeal of the assessee related ITA Nos

ITA 141/PAN/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji04 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Rijula Uniyal, Sr. DR
Section 250(6)

disallowed the deduction for violation of Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act (in brevity the Act). In relation to restriction u/s 80P(4) of the Act. The interest was added back with the total income as income amount of Rs.857,533/- as income from other sources. The Revenue authorities had relied on the order