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.

97 results for “disallowance”+ Section 55clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai4,790 Delhi3,918 Bangalore1,492 Chennai1,294 Kolkata1,030 Ahmedabad686 Hyderabad549 Jaipur487 Pune345 Indore345 Chandigarh275 Raipur246 Surat243 Rajkot168 Lucknow144 Nagpur139 Cochin133 Amritsar116 Karnataka108 Visakhapatnam104 Panaji97 Agra75 Cuttack66 Ranchi64 Allahabad50 Guwahati47 Calcutta43 Jodhpur34 SC32 Telangana31 Patna30 Varanasi19 Dehradun17 Jabalpur14 Kerala13 Rajasthan5 Orissa3 Punjab & Haryana2 ANIL R. DAVE AMITAVA ROY L. NAGESWARA RAO1 H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1 Gauhati1 MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1

Key Topics

Section 80P(2)(a)70 Section 80P(2)(d)62 Section 80P(4)56 Section 80P55 Condonation of Delay54 Section 143(3)46 Deduction46 Disallowance40 Section 250(6)23

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1), PANAJI vs. THE OLD GOA URBAN CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED, OLD GOA

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 175/PAN/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji24 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Sham KamatFor Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth

Section 143(3)Section 40Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

55,277/- on account of disallowance of deduction under section 40(a)(ia) on interest paid to members. 3. Appellant

SHIRDI STEEL RE-ROLLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,CUNCOLIM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 5, MARGAO

Showing 1–20 of 97 · Page 1 of 5

Addition to Income20

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 398/PAN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji02 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14 Shirdi Steel Re-Rollers Ito, Ward-5, Margao Pvt. Ltd. Nagaraj Kale, Chartered Accountant, G-4, Vs. Kurtarkar Vihar, Opp: Costa Factory, Aquem, Margao, Goa-403601 Pan: Aakfs 3191 G (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Srinivas Nayak, Ca Respondent By : Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.09.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of Ld. Cit(A),- 2, Panaji In Appeal No. Ita No. 597/Cit(A)-2/Pnj/2017-18 Dated 27.06.2018 Against The Assessment Order Passed By Ito, Ward-5, Margao, U/S 143(3) R.W.S 92Ca Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Dated 30.12.2018 For A.Y. 2013-14. 2. In The Present Appeal, The Assessee Has Challenged The Additions Made By The Ld. Ao For Four Different Items For Which The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Assessee’S Appeal For Non-Prosecution.

For Appellant: Shri Srinivas Nayak, CAFor Respondent: Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37Section 41(1)

55, 400/- due to the supplier in the FY 2016- 17 relevant to AY 2017-18 for which relevant ledger extract and the income tax return acknowledgment for AY 2017-18 are placed in the paper book. Ld. Counsel thus submitted that once the assessee himself has written off the amount in AY 2017-18 and offered

GUALA CLOSURES (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,PANAJI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(1), PANAJI

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

ITA 344/PAN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji02 Apr 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A.No.344/Pan/2017 (A.Y.2013-14 ) Guala Closures(India) Vs. I T O Ward1(1), Private Limited, Aaykar Bhavan, D-1, Sesa Ghor, Edc, Patto, 20,Edc Complex, Panjim-403001. Patto, Goa. Panaji-403001, Goa Pan/Gir No.:Aaacg4447J Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri.Niraj Sheth. ARFor Respondent: Shri.Renga Ranjan.CIT DR

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 2(43)Section 4Section 90

55. We find ourself fortified by the observation of Delhi Tribunal in Giesecke & Devrient (India) (P.) Ltd. (supra), where with reference to the legislative history of Section 115-O, it emerges with clarity, that DDT, is a levy on the dividend distributed by payer company, being an additional tax is covered within 'Tax' as defined in Section

THE PONDA EDUCATION SOCIETY EMPLOYEE CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,PONDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(2), PANAJI

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 132/PAN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji23 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri S.J. KamatFor Respondent: Smt. Neelima Nadkarni, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

disallowing its section 80P(2)(a)(i) of Rs.93,846/- deduction, 80P(2)(d) deduction of Rs.4,68,206/-; respectively during the course of assessment hearing dated 20.12.2017 as upheld in the CIT(A)'s order. 2 ITA.No.132/PAN/2019 The Ponda Education Society Employee Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., Ponda Goa. 4. I have given my thoughtful consideration to vehement

THE KHANAPUR vs. S SANGH LTD,BELGAUMVS.PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HUBBALI

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 62/PAN/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji12 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Pramod Y VaidyaFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Anand DJ

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

disallowing the claim of the appellant U/s. 80P(2)(d). Alternatively, since the said interest income is attributable to carrying on the business of the appellant society, the same qualifies for deduction U/s. 80P (2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. (c) The ratio of Totgar Cooperative Sales Society Ltd Vs ITO cannot be applied to the appellant

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

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

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 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

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

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

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

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 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

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

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 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 Nos

ITA 170/PAN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji04 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Rijula Uniyal, Sr. DR

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