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.

123 results for “disallowance”+ Section 119(2)(b)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,157Mumbai1,116Chennai369Bangalore340Ahmedabad272Kolkata265Jaipur195Hyderabad155Chandigarh150Indore136Pune123Cochin99Raipur95Surat59Cuttack50Visakhapatnam49Allahabad47Amritsar40Lucknow39Calcutta37Rajkot35Guwahati27Agra25Karnataka24Nagpur19Telangana18Jodhpur14SC11Varanasi9Ranchi7Jabalpur5Patna5Himachal Pradesh3Panaji3Dehradun3Punjab & Haryana2Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)95Section 143(1)68Section 1168Addition to Income65Section 26362Section 80I53Disallowance52Section 12A46Deduction44Section 139(1)

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 empowers the Board to issue orders and guidelines regarding the condonation of delay in compliance with any provision of the Act. Section 119(2) reads as follows: Section119(2

Showing 1–20 of 123 · Page 1 of 7

37
Section 143(2)33
Exemption30

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

section 43B of the Act. He similarly noted that the assessee had also made payment of Rs.6.40 crores to LIC on account of employees’ gratuity fund from the date of its incorporation till 31.03.2003 whereas the expenses for the year was only Rs.1.10 crores. Thus the assessee has made additional claim of Rs.5.30crores. According to the Assessing Officer since

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

section 43B of the Act. He similarly noted that the assessee had also made payment of Rs.6.40 crores to LIC on account of employees’ gratuity fund from the date of its incorporation till 31.03.2003 whereas the expenses for the year was only Rs.1.10 crores. Thus the assessee has made additional claim of Rs.5.30crores. According to the Assessing Officer since

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

section 43B of the Act. He similarly noted that the assessee had also made payment of Rs.6.40 crores to LIC on account of employees’ gratuity fund from the date of its incorporation till 31.03.2003 whereas the expenses for the year was only Rs.1.10 crores. Thus the assessee has made additional claim of Rs.5.30crores. According to the Assessing Officer since

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

section 43B of the Act. He similarly noted that the assessee had also made payment of Rs.6.40 crores to LIC on account of employees’ gratuity fund from the date of its incorporation till 31.03.2003 whereas the expenses for the year was only Rs.1.10 crores. Thus the assessee has made additional claim of Rs.5.30crores. According to the Assessing Officer since

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

section 43B of the Act. He similarly noted that the assessee had also made payment of Rs.6.40 crores to LIC on account of employees’ gratuity fund from the date of its incorporation till 31.03.2003 whereas the expenses for the year was only Rs.1.10 crores. Thus the assessee has made additional claim of Rs.5.30crores. According to the Assessing Officer since

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

section 43B of the Act. He similarly noted that the assessee had also made payment of Rs.6.40 crores to LIC on account of employees’ gratuity fund from the date of its incorporation till 31.03.2003 whereas the expenses for the year was only Rs.1.10 crores. Thus the assessee has made additional claim of Rs.5.30crores. According to the Assessing Officer since

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

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 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 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 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

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

PUNE MADHYAMIK SHIKSHAK SAHKARI PATAPEDHI MARYADIT,PUNE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,PUNE 4, PUNE

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

ITA 909/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: HeardITAT Pune03 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A ShahFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

disallowance from the interest paid may be made. (ii) High Creditors/liabilities: Assessee has shown high liabilities in balance sheet as compared to low income/receipt declared in ITR, Genuineness of liabilities declared may be verified. (iii) Deduction from Total Income under Chapter VI-A: The assessee has claimed large deduction under chapter VI-A (excluding deduction claimed

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

b} to 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(2

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -3, NASHIK vs. WINDSOR MACHINES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 915/PUN/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Kesari
Section 3Section 32(2)

b by Finance Act, 2001. And once the Circular No. 14 of 2001 clarified that the restriction of 8 4 ITA No. 915/PUN/2022, A.Y. 2011-12 years for carry forward and set off of unabsorbed depreciation had been dispensed with, the unabsorbed depreciation from A.Y. 1997-98 upto the A. Y. 2001-02 got carried forward to the assessment year

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

b. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. JT.CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that when the original return of income itself has 3 been declared as defective, all the consequences of the assessee being treated as non-filer will be attracted and therefore the loss claimed by the assessee will not be carried forward

GENERAL INDUSTRIAL CONTROS LTD.,PUNE vs. DCIT CIRCLE 8, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the order of the CIT(A) is set aside, and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 38/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

119(2)(b) of the Act, hereby directs that:- The delay in filing of Form No. 10-IC as per Rule 21AE of the Rules for previous year relevant to A.Y. 2021-22 is condoned in cases where the following conditions are satisfied: 1) The return of income for relevant assessment year has been filed on or before

BHARAT FORGE LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 13/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Nov 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.13/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Halder
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35Section 35(3)

119/-. We find no merit in the plea of assessee in this regard and dismissing the same, we uphold the disallowance made by Assessing Officer. Thus, grounds of appeal No.1 to 1.5 raised by assessee are dismissed. 5 10. Now, coming to grounds of appeal No.2.1 to 2.5, wherein the assessee is in appeal against the disallowance of weighted deduction

M/S. CHANDUKAKA SARAF AND CO,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX - (CENTRAL),, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 759/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Dec 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vipin K. GujarathiFor Respondent: Mrs. Nandita Kanchan
Section 131Section 132Section 263

disallowed 2% of URD purchases. Therefore, the newly inserted Explanation 2 to clause (b) of section 263 of the Act is not applicable to the case of assessee. More, so because this Explanation 2 was inserted w.e.f. 01.06.2015 i.e. A.Y. 2016-17, whereas in the present set of appeals of the assessee it is from