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.

1,679 results for “disallowance”+ Section 11(5)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai15,414 Delhi12,684 Bangalore4,472 Chennai4,380 Kolkata3,864 Ahmedabad1,815 Pune1,679 Hyderabad1,402 Jaipur1,209 Surat800 Indore718 Chandigarh662 Raipur599 Karnataka539 Rajkot446 Cochin436 Visakhapatnam397 Nagpur363 Amritsar360 Lucknow308 Cuttack235 Panaji178 Agra162 Telangana142 Guwahati123 Jodhpur122 SC114 Patna111 Ranchi103 Dehradun90 Allahabad87 Calcutta84 Varanasi46 Kerala44 Jabalpur36 Punjab & Haryana21 Rajasthan11 Orissa10 Himachal Pradesh7 A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN5 Gauhati2 ANIL R. DAVE AMITAVA ROY L. NAGESWARA RAO1 D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1 RANJAN GOGOI PRAFULLA C. PANT1 A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1 Andhra Pradesh1 Tripura1 Uttarakhand1 MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1 ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1 H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1

Key Topics

Disallowance63 Section 143(3)60 Addition to Income58 Section 80P(2)(d)56 Section 14A50 Section 143(1)44 Deduction42 Section 1138 Section 80P(2)(a)37 Section 80P

SHETH CHIMANLAL GOVINDDAS MEMORIAL TRUST,PUNE vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1224/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Section 11Section 12ASection 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263

Section 11(5). Therefore, the\nFAO was required to disallow the entire investment of Rs 32,75,0007-\nand tax it at the Maximum

YASHWANTRAO CHAVAN MAHARASHTRA OPEN UNIVERSITY,NASHIK vs. EXEMPTION CIRCLE,A BAD, AURANGABAD

Showing 1–20 of 1,679 · Page 1 of 84

...

34

Section 139(1)30

ITA 505/PUN/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jun 2025AY 2023-24

Section 11Section 11(3)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)

disallow the\nappellant's claim when processing the return under Section 143(1) of the Act.\n7. Hence, I find no merit in the current appeal and, as a result, dismiss the\nappeal.\"\n5.\nAggrieved with such order of the Ld. Addl / JCIT(A), the assessee is in\nappeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds:\n1)\nThe

INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION PUNE BRANCH,SHUKRAWAR PETH vs. DCIT EXEMPTION CIRCLE PUNE, SWARGATE

In the result, all the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 761/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250

5), same should be treated as due compliance with clause (ba) in sub-section (1) of section 12A and thus, the assessee was entitled for exemption under section 11 of the Act. 7. So far as denial of exemption u/s 11 on account of belated filing of audit report in Form 10B is concerned, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee

INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION PUNE BRANCH,SHUKRAWAR PETH vs. DCIT EXEMPTION CIRCLE, PUNE, SWARGATE

In the result, all the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 766/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250

5), same should be treated as due compliance with clause (ba) in sub-section (1) of section 12A and thus, the assessee was entitled for exemption under section 11 of the Act. 7. So far as denial of exemption u/s 11 on account of belated filing of audit report in Form 10B is concerned, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee

INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION PUNE BRANCH,SHUKRAWAR PETH vs. DCIT EXEMPTION CIRCLE, PUNE, SWARGATE

In the result, all the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 765/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250

5), same should be treated as due compliance with clause (ba) in sub-section (1) of section 12A and thus, the assessee was entitled for exemption under section 11 of the Act. 7. So far as denial of exemption u/s 11 on account of belated filing of audit report in Form 10B is concerned, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee

INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION PUNE BRANCH,SHUKRAWAR PETH vs. DCIT EXEMPTION CIRCLE, PUNE, SWARGATE

In the result, all the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 763/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250

5), same should be treated as due compliance with clause (ba) in sub-section (1) of section 12A and thus, the assessee was entitled for exemption under section 11 of the Act. 7. So far as denial of exemption u/s 11 on account of belated filing of audit report in Form 10B is concerned, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee

INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION PUNE BRANCH,SHUKRAWAR PETH vs. DCIT EXEMPTION CIRCLE, PUNE, SWARGATE

In the result, all the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 762/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250

5), same should be treated as due compliance with clause (ba) in sub-section (1) of section 12A and thus, the assessee was entitled for exemption under section 11 of the Act. 7. So far as denial of exemption u/s 11 on account of belated filing of audit report in Form 10B is concerned, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1155/MUM/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda

Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

disallowance of interest expenses of Rs.157.34 crores claimed on payment basis is concerned, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer on the ground that the provisions of section 14A are applicable in this case. According to him, the provisions of section 36(1)(xii) are also not applicable to the assessee as the same are applicable

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1153/MUM/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda

Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

disallowance of interest expenses of Rs.157.34 crores claimed on payment basis is concerned, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer on the ground that the provisions of section 14A are applicable in this case. According to him, the provisions of section 36(1)(xii) are also not applicable to the assessee as the same are applicable

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 545/PUN/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda

Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

disallowance of interest expenses of Rs.157.34 crores claimed on payment basis is concerned, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer on the ground that the provisions of section 14A are applicable in this case. According to him, the provisions of section 36(1)(xii) are also not applicable to the assessee as the same are applicable

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1154/MUM/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda

Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

disallowance of interest expenses of Rs.157.34 crores claimed on payment basis is concerned, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer on the ground that the provisions of section 14A are applicable in this case. According to him, the provisions of section 36(1)(xii) are also not applicable to the assessee as the same are applicable

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 544/PUN/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda

Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

disallowance of interest expenses of Rs.157.34 crores claimed on payment basis is concerned, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer on the ground that the provisions of section 14A are applicable in this case. According to him, the provisions of section 36(1)(xii) are also not applicable to the assessee as the same are applicable

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 543/PUN/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda

Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

disallowance of interest expenses of Rs.157.34 crores claimed on payment basis is concerned, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer on the ground that the provisions of section 14A are applicable in this case. According to him, the provisions of section 36(1)(xii) are also not applicable to the assessee as the same are applicable

NAVALMAL FIRODIA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL TRUST,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD 1(2), PUNE

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

ITA 2460/PUN/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Feb 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: the learned CIT(A), the same has neither been taken note of or distinguished in any manner. Not following the binding Judicial precedent of the Jurisdictional ITAT Pune is gross impropriety in law. Ground No. 2: The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw all or any of the Grounds of Appeal herein and to submit such statements, documents and papers as may be considered necessary either at or before the appeal hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Shrenik GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Manish Sinha (Virtual)

Section 11Section 11(2)(a)Section 11(3)Section 11(3)(c)Section 12ASection 143(1)

Disallowance of Rs. 6,00,000/-. a) The learned ADDLN/JCIT (5), Delhi (CIT-A) erred in law and of facts in confirming the action of learned CPC of adding back Rs.6,00,000 to the total income of the Appellant by invoking the 2 provisions of sub clause (c) of Section 11

SHRI VASUPUJYA SWAMI MAHARAJ TEMPLE TRUST,PUNE vs. ITO (EXEMPTION) WARD 1(2), PUNE

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

ITA 1288/PUN/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jul 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(3)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

disallowing the claim of Rs. 26.03,230/- being unspent amount out of accumulation of FY 2016-17 by relying on omission of particular sentence from clause (c) of Subsection (2) of section (11), of IT Act, it is your appellants contention that said omission amounts to substantive amendment and therefore it cannot be applied retrospectively and such debatable issue cannot

SHRI ISHWARLAL GULABCHAND VARDHAMANTAP AYAMBIL TRUST,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 7(1), PUNE

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

ITA 1287/PUN/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jul 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(3)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

disallowing the claim of Rs. 26.03,230/- being unspent amount out of accumulation of FY 2016-17 by relying on omission of particular sentence from clause (c) of Subsection (2) of section (11), of IT Act, it is your appellants contention that said omission amounts to substantive amendment and therefore it cannot be applied retrospectively and such debatable issue cannot

M/S GIRIRAJ ENTERPRISES,PUNE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 427/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

Section 10(35)Section 132Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

11,350/- u/s 80IA(4)(iv)(a) of the Act towards profit earned from the wind power generation of its windmills and also from solar division. The Assessing Officer asked the assessee to explain as to why the said deduction u/s 80IA of the Act should not be disallowed in view of the provisions of section 80IA(5

KOTHARI AGRITECH PVT. LTD,,SOLAPUR vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1, SOLAPUR

In the result, the both appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2455/PUN/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Sept 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 80Section 801ASection 80ISection 80J

11 January 2023 but disallowed vide the impugned rectification order is debatable due to various reasons and thereby, making the impugned rectification order bad-in-law and liable to be quashed; Merits: Allowability of claim for deduction under section 80-IA of the Act - Rs. 5

KOTHARI AGRITECH PRIVATE LIMITED,SOLAPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1, SOLAPUR

In the result, the both appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2392/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 80Section 801ASection 80ISection 80J

11 January 2023 but disallowed vide the impugned rectification order is debatable due to various reasons and thereby, making the impugned rectification order bad-in-law and liable to be quashed; Merits: Allowability of claim for deduction under section 80-IA of the Act - Rs. 5

VIRENDRA SINGH SAINI,HARYANA vs. ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE, BENGALORE

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

ITA 1483/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Pune19 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1483/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri B.S.Rajpurohit

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

5. Adverting to the facts of the case, it is seen that the assessee claimed the deduction for the employees’ share for depositing the same in the relevant funds beyond the due date as given in Explanation 1 to section 36(1)(va) on the strength of section 43B. The latter section opens with a non-obstante clause and provides