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.

117 results for “disallowance”+ Section 119clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,318Delhi1,296Chennai463Bangalore390Kolkata315Ahmedabad191Jaipur172Chandigarh140Hyderabad130Pune117Indore100Raipur96Cochin86Surat77Allahabad46Cuttack44Lucknow40Rajkot40Calcutta38Karnataka32Amritsar30Visakhapatnam30Guwahati27Agra22Telangana20Nagpur17SC12Jodhpur11Ranchi10Varanasi9Dehradun6Patna5Jabalpur4Panaji4Himachal Pradesh3Punjab & Haryana2Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)98Section 1170Section 143(1)67Addition to Income65Section 26364Disallowance60Deduction50Section 12A44Section 139(1)36Section 143(2)

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, INCOME TAX OFFICE, JALNA vs. THE BEED DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OP. BANK LTD., BEED

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 801/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Feb 2025AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Shubham N. RathiFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 43BSection 43D

disallowed the provision on account of overdue interest of\nRs 34,94,01,100/- as there is no provision of Income Tax Act under which any\nprovision is allowed as expensed. The Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in CIT vs.\nDeogiri Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd in 79 taxmann.com 396 (Bombay) [2017] dated\n22-01-2015 has held as under

Showing 1–20 of 117 · Page 1 of 6

36
Section 80I33
Exemption29

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, INCOME TAX OFFICE, JALNA vs. THE BEED DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OP. BANK LTD., BEED

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 802/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Feb 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: \nDepartment by
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 43BSection 43D

disallowed the provision on account of overdue interest of\nRs 34,94,01,100/- as there is no provision of Income Tax Act under which any\nprovision is allowed as expensed. The Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in CIT vs.\nDeogiri Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd in 79 taxmann.com 396 (Bombay) [2017] dated\n22-01-2015 has held as under

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, INCOME TAX OFFICE, JALNA vs. THE BEED DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OP. BANK LTD., BEED

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 800/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Feb 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: \nDepartment by
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 43BSection 43D

disallowed the provision on account of overdue interest of\nRs 34,94,01,100/- as there is no provision of Income Tax Act under which any\nprovision is allowed as expensed. The Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in CIT vs.\nDeogiri Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd in 79 taxmann.com 396 (Bombay) [2017] dated\n22-01-2015 has held as under

SHRI MARTAND DEOSANSTHAN JEJURI,PUNE vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD 1(2), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 593/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Sachin KumarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 13(9)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250

disallow the appellant's claim for exemption under Section 11 and 12 of the Act when processing the return under Section 143(1) of the Act. 8.1 Further, Section 119

DCIT, CIRCLE 8 PUNE, PUNE vs. ALFA LAVAL INDIA PVT LTD, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2270/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Oct 2025AY 2018-19
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 92C

section 37 while computing income tax on Business\nIncome. Since these expenses were disallowed in earlier years it could not be held\nliable for tax in the year under consideration when they are reversed and credited\nto Profit & Loss Account. Accordingly, the assessee took the deduction of\nRs.2,02,56,631/- in the relevant year under any other amount allowable

POONAWALLA SHARES & SECURITIES PVT.LTD,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH-TAX, CIRCLE-4, PUNE

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 380/PUN/2020[2016/17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jul 2022

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.380/Pun/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Poonawalla Shares & Securities The Assistant Pvt. Ltd., Vs Commissioner Of Income 16-B,/1, Sarosh Bhavan, Tax, Dr.Ambedkar Road, Circle-4, Pune. Pune – 411001 Pan: Aaacp 6087 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Percy Pardiwala – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 08/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2016-17 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Pune’S Order Dated 11.12.2019 Passed In Case No.Pn/Cit(A)-3/Cir 4/193/2018-19/428, In Proceedings U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

Section 143(3)Section 14A

disallowing the assessee’s claim to this effect seeking to carry forward the same to subsequent assessment year(s). He has also taken pains to file a detailed written note summarizing all of the assessee’s arguments regarding the instant issue as follows: “5. Grounds 3 and 4 deal with the AO’s denial of carry forward of loss

MINILEC INDIA PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 14,, PUNE

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 1284/PUN/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.1284/Pun/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Milinec India Pvt. Ltd., The Dcit, Circle-14, Pune. 1073/1-2-3, Mulshi Pirangut, Vs Mutha Road, Mulshi, Pune – . 412111. Pan: Aabcm 2682 E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Kishor B Phadke – Ar Revenue By Shri S P Walimbe – Dr Date Of Hearing 11/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29/08/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2015-16 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-7, Pune’S Order Dated 27.04.2018 Passed In Appeal No.Pn/Cit(A)- 7/Wd-14(4)/10216/2017-18, In Proceedings U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

Section 143(3)Section 35Section 35(3)Section 43

disallow certain expenditure which is not related to research. Therefore, the appellant intends to relaxation of the procedures for obtaining corrected Form 3CL/3CM. 5.9 The powers of relaxation in procedural lapse in claiming deduction u/s.35(2AB) or in obtaining Form 3CL/Form 3CM is vested with the Parliament of India. In this regard provisions of section 119

INCOME TAX OFFICER, BODHI TOWER vs. KUMAR BUILDERS PROJECT PUNE PRIVATE LIMITED, BUND GARDEN

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 199/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 80ISection 80P

section 119, condone the delay in order to avoid undue hardship. 8. In the present case it cannot be said that the delay was, in any manner, mala fide. On the contrary, the assessee was vigilant enough to file the return at the midnight. We, therefore, condone the delay in filing the return

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SATARA vs. THE KARAD URBAN CO. OP. BANK LTD KARAD, KARAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1564/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Mr. Deepak ChintamanFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar –
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 37

section 119-Held, yes - UCO BANK-104 taxman 547 Case 3. Any action of Income Tax Department violating CBDT Instruction is untenable in law - Mrs Meena Shirish Kotwal - ITA No 1481/PUN/2018 IV. The appellant-department's contention that "the assessee, has failed to appreciate that even the latest Master Direction of the RBI dated 12/09/2023 bearing No RBI/DOR/ 2023- 24/104

GURU KRIPA SEVA ASHYRAM,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION, WARD 1(2), PUNE

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

ITA 703/PUN/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri V L JainFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 143(1)

section 139 of the Act is condoned. (ii) In all other cases of belated applications in filing Form no. 10B for years prior to AY 2018-19, the Commissioners of Income-tax are authorized to admit such applications for condonation of delay u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act. The Commissioners will while entertaining such belated applications in filing Form

ROXILER SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD5(4), PUNE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2078/PUN/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Dec 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2078/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23 Roxiler Systems Pvt. Ltd., A 508, Kamal Green Leaf, Vs The Income Tax Officer, Khadakwasala, Pune – 411024. Ward-5(4), Pune. Pan: Aahcr8766J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By : Shri Sharad S. Vaze & Shri Amod S. Vaze – Ar’S Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai – Add.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 18/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/12/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)Addl./Jcit(A), Mysore For Assessment Year 2022-23Dated 20/08/2024 Passed U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Emanating From An Order U/S 143(1) Of The Act Dated 19/08/2023.The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Basis Of Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & As Per Law, Rejection Of Claim U/S 80Iac Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (Act) Is Beyond The Powers Of Cpc, Bengaluru In The Powers Of Cps, Bengaluru In Proceedings U/S 143(1) Of The Act. 2. On The Basis Of Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & As Per Law, The Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Appeals)-Nfac Delhi Is Not Justified In Rejecting The Claim Of The Assessee U/S 80Iac Of The Act. 3. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Omit Or Substitute Any Of The Grounds At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri Sharad S. Vaze and Shri Amod S. Vaze – AR’sFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai – Add.CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 44ASection 80ISection 80J

119 of the Act, extends the due date of furnishing of report of audit under any provision of the Act for the Previous Year 2021- 22, which was 30th September 2022 in the case of assessees referred in clause (a) of Explanation 2 to sub-section (1) of section 139 of the Act, to 07th October, 2022.” Unquote. On perusal

LOKMANGAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,SOLAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -2, SOLAPUR

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 522/PUN/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.522/Pun/2020 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Lokmangal Co-Operative Bank Ltd., 128, Murarji Peth, Near Seva Sadan High School, Solapur – 413 001 .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan : Aaaal0119J

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 143(3)Section 194(1)Section 194A(3)(v)Section 2(19)Section 40

disallowance. Mr.Desai 5 A.Y. : 2010-11 Lokmangal Co-Operative Bank Ltd., strongly supported the learned lower authorities’ conclusion that the assessee had failed to deduct TDS on its interest payments. We find no merit in the Revenue’s instant arguments as we are in assessment year 2010-11 whereas “a cooperative bank” has been excluded from the purview of section

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (OSD), CIRCLE -1,, SOLAPUR vs. M/S. LOKMANGAL AGRO INDUSTRIAL LTD,, SOLAPUR

ITA 984/PUN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Krishna V. GujarathiFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 43(1)

119 days in filing the cross objections is condoned in the larger interest of justice. 12. This leaves us with the Revenue’s third substantive grievance in ITA No.986/PUN/2018 seeking to revive section 36(1)(va) disallowance

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (OSD), CIRCLE -1,, SOLAPUR vs. M/S. LOKMANGAL AGRO INDUSTRIES LTD,, SOLAPUR

ITA 986/PUN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Krishna V. GujarathiFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 43(1)

119 days in filing the cross objections is condoned in the larger interest of justice. 12. This leaves us with the Revenue’s third substantive grievance in ITA No.986/PUN/2018 seeking to revive section 36(1)(va) disallowance

MAHESH URBAN CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD,SOLAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -2, SOLAPUR

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 583/PUN/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.583/Pun/2020 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Mahesh Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd., 128, Near Old Faujdar, Shukruwar Peth, Solapur – 413 002. .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan : Aaaam0511H

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 119Section 143(3)Section 194Section 194ASection 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 40Section 80P

disallowance of Rs.2,25,308/- on account of non-deduction of TDS regarding payments made to members /non-members. Suffice to say, hon’ble apex court’s recent landmark decision in the Mavilavi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. V/s. CIT (2021) 431 ITR page 1 (SC) has settled the law regarding the alleged distinction between members and nominal-members

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

119(2)(b) of the Act, which, if granted, would pave way for reconsideration of the appellant's claim of exemption under sections 11 and 12.” 4. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. Addl. / JCIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: Grounds in ITA No.761/PUN/2025 (A.Y. 2014-15) 1] The learned

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

119(2)(b) of the Act, which, if granted, would pave way for reconsideration of the appellant's claim of exemption under sections 11 and 12.” 4. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. Addl. / JCIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: Grounds in ITA No.761/PUN/2025 (A.Y. 2014-15) 1] The learned

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

119(2)(b) of the Act, which, if granted, would pave way for reconsideration of the appellant's claim of exemption under sections 11 and 12.” 4. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. Addl. / JCIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: Grounds in ITA No.761/PUN/2025 (A.Y. 2014-15) 1] The learned

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

119(2)(b) of the Act, which, if granted, would pave way for reconsideration of the appellant's claim of exemption under sections 11 and 12.” 4. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. Addl. / JCIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: Grounds in ITA No.761/PUN/2025 (A.Y. 2014-15) 1] The learned

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

119(2)(b) of the Act, which, if granted, would pave way for reconsideration of the appellant's claim of exemption under sections 11 and 12.” 4. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. Addl. / JCIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: Grounds in ITA No.761/PUN/2025 (A.Y. 2014-15) 1] The learned