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.

40 results for “disallowance”+ Section 202clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi801Mumbai757Kolkata236Bangalore170Chennai155Hyderabad103Jaipur95Ahmedabad83Nagpur61Surat49Rajkot47Pune40Raipur24Chandigarh22Lucknow18Indore18Cuttack16Visakhapatnam13Amritsar12Cochin10Ranchi8Telangana8Jodhpur6Guwahati6Karnataka6SC6Dehradun5Panaji3Agra1Jabalpur1Calcutta1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1Patna1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)40Section 12A39Addition to Income36Section 1131Section 10(20)24Disallowance23Deduction22Section 14A18Section 143(1)18Section 143(2)

SHREE SHIV SAHYADRI NAGARI SAHAKARI PATHSANSTHA MARYADIT,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 7(3) PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1788/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Nov 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1788/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Shree Shiv Sahyadri Nagari V The Income Tax Officer, Sahakari Pathanstha S Ward-7(3), Pune. Maryadit, Sai Park Road, Dighi, Pune – 411015. Pan: Aaeas1417N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Deepak Sasar – Ar Revenue By Smt. Shabana Parveen – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 06/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 07/11/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 28.06.2024 For A.Y.2019-20. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Ld.Cit(A) Has Wrongly Confirmed The Disallowance Of Deduction Of Rs.15,60,115/- Claimed By The Appellant U/S.80P(2)(A)(I) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Alternatively, The Interest Income Earned By The Appellant From The Investments In A Co-Operative Bank Is Also Eligible For Deduction Under Section 80P(2)(D) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The Appellant Crave Leave To Add, Delete, Amend, Alter, Vary And/Or Withdraw All Or Any One Of The Above Grounds Of Appeal.”

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(1)(v)

Showing 1–20 of 40 · Page 1 of 2

14
Section 26314
Exemption11
Section 2
Section 250
Section 80I
Section 80P
Section 80P(2)(a)

disallow the deduction claimed by assessee u/sec.80P of the Act, on account of not filing the Return of Income within the time mentioned under section 139(1) of the Act. The ld.AR read out relevant section 143(1) of the Act. Ld.AR for the assessee relied on the following case laws :  Chirakkal Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. vs. Commissioner

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,, PUNE

ITA 1645/PUN/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Apr 2022AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla &For Respondent: Ms. Divya Bajpai, CIT
Section 14ASection 28Section 43BSection 44

202 to 222 of the paper book. However, the ld. CIT(A) upheld the disallowance in relation to the specified parties but restricted the overall disallowance to 10% of the total risk inspection charges. Thus, against the total disallowance of Rs. 6,72,09,983/- the assessee got relief of Rs. 3,36,29,983/- at the first appellate level

BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

ITA 1655/PUN/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Apr 2022AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla &For Respondent: Ms. Divya Bajpai, CIT
Section 14ASection 28Section 43BSection 44

202 to 222 of the paper book. However, the ld. CIT(A) upheld the disallowance in relation to the specified parties but restricted the overall disallowance to 10% of the total risk inspection charges. Thus, against the total disallowance of Rs. 6,72,09,983/- the assessee got relief of Rs. 3,36,29,983/- at the first appellate level

KIMBERLY CLARK LEVER P.LTD.,PUNE vs. ACIT, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2481/PUN/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2481/Pun/2012 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Kimberly Clark Lever P. Ltd., Gat No.934 To 937, Village Sanaswadi Off Nagar Road, Ta- Shirur, Pune-412208. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaack4647E बनाम / V/S. Acit, Circle-Xi(I), ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Percy Pardiwalla Revenue By : Shri Sandeep Garg सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 22.02.2021 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Final Assessment Order U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short) Of The Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-11(1), Pune (‘The Assessing Officer’ For Short) Dated 29.10.2012 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “The Appellant Objects To The Order Dated 29 October 2012 Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) By The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 11(1), Pune [‘Acit’ Or ‘Ao’] Following The Directions Issued By The Dispute Resolution Panel (‘Drp’) In Respect Of The Aforesaid Assessment Year On The Following Among Other Grounds:

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwallaFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Garg
Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 194JSection 40Section 9(1)(vii)

disallowance of advertising and marketing expenses of Rs.2,47,13,051/-. The ld. SR. Counsel submitted that these expenses represent the amounts spent on various trade promotion schemes which are run by the appellant company to promote the sales of its products. The ld. Sr. Counsel had taken us through the contentions raised before the Hon’ble DRP, while reiterating

SHREE RAM CARGO PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(5), PUNE, PMT BUILDING, SHANKAR SHET ROAD, PUNE

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

ITA 1568/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1568/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shree Ram Cargo Private Limited, Vs. Ito, Ward-6(5), 3-A & B, Archies Court, Pune Shankar Shet Road, Pune 411 037 Maharashtra Pan : Aalcs3844A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil MuthaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40Section 40ASection 40A(3)

disallow 20% of the payments made u/s 40A(3) in the process of assessment. We, therefore, delete the addition of Rs. 17,90,571/- and ground no.1 is decided in favour of the assessee. CIT vs Crescent Export Syndicate in ITA No. 202 of 2008 dated 30.7.2008 – Calcutta High Court “It also appears that the purchases have been held

AIS SHIVAJI MEMORIAL SOCIETYS EMPLOYEES COOP CREDIT SOCIETY,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

ITA 207/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Deepak S. SasarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 10ASection 139Section 142Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

disallowance of deduction claimed under section 10AA or under any of the provisions of Chapter VI-A under the heading "C.—Deductions in respect of certain incomes", if] the return is furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139” 7. He accordingly submitted that when the return was processed

SETH RAMDAS NATHUBHAI DHARMADAYA VISHWASTA NIDHI,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,(EXEMPTIONS) -1,, PUNE

ITA 928/PUN/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury"नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Seth Ramdas Nathubhai Dharmadaya Vs. Ito Vishwasta Nidhi, (Exemptions)-1, C/O. Shah Khandelwal Jain & Pune Associates, Chartered Accountants, Level 3, Business Bay, Plot No.84, Wellesley Road, Near Rto, Pune 411 001 Pan : Aaatr6805N Appellant Respondent

Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(2)Section 13(2)(c)

202 Taxman 166 (All) In this case advance was given to the interested person (Treasurer) as prescribed u/s. 13(3) of the Act without any security. No details of interest rate were given. The Hon’ble Court held that there violation of section 13(3)/13(l)(c) and hence the society was not entitled to exemption

BIRLASOFT LTD,(EARLIER KNOWN AS KPIT TECHNOLOGIES LTD),,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 14,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1424/PUN/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Aug 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)

202-13. 2. The brief facts relating to the issue on hand are that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of on-site and off-shore software development serving numerous customers and industries. The assessee declared exempt income of Rs. 3,43,97,776/- on account of dividend and disallowed on its own expenditure

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 12(1),, PUNE vs. M/S. YASH ASSOCIATES,, PUNE

ITA 159/PUN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.159/Pun/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Income Tax Officer, M/S.Yash Associates, 401, 4Th Floor, Shreepal Ward-12(1), Pune. Vs . Chambers, 481/C, Shanivar Peth, Pune – 411030. Pan: Aaafy 6149 E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Cross Objection No.01/Pun/2022 (Arising Out Of Ita No.159/Pun/2018) िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Income Tax Officer, M/S.Yash Associates, 401, 4Th Floor, Shreepal Ward-12(1), Pune. Vs. Chambers, 481/C, Shanivar Peth, Pune – 411030. Pan: Aaafy 6149 E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Rajiv Thakkar – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 11/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 05/08/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Revenue’S Appeal Ita No.159/Pun/218 With Assessee’S Cross Objection Co No.01/Pun/2022 For The A.Y. 2014-15, Arise Against The Cit(A)-8, Pune’S Order Dated 17.10.2017 Passed In Case No.Pn/Cit(A)-8/Acit Cir-12/293/2017-18/284, In Proceedings Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Heard Both The Parties. Case Files Perused.

Section 143(3)Section 80I

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer to the tune of Rs.2,43,29,955/- in his assessment order dated 30.12.2016, as under: “5. In Ground No.1 the appellant has contended that it be allowed deduction u/s. 80IB(10) as it has fulfilled the conditions stipulated under the relevant provisions. In its written submissions dated 12.08.2017, the appellant submitted that

R G DEVELOPERS,PUNE vs. COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE 7,PUNE, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 183/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Sharad ShahFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

disallowance of purchases and Rs.16,76,616/- u/s 40A(3) of the Act and determined the total income at Rs.1,81,00,970/-. 4. Since the assessee did not make any submission before the Ld. CIT(A) despite number of opportunities granted, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. 5. Aggrieved with such order

R G DEVELOPERS,PUNE vs. COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE 7,PUNE, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 184/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Sharad ShahFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

disallowance of purchases and Rs.16,76,616/- u/s 40A(3) of the Act and determined the total income at Rs.1,81,00,970/-. 4. Since the assessee did not make any submission before the Ld. CIT(A) despite number of opportunities granted, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. 5. Aggrieved with such order

ELECTRONICA MACHINE TOOLS LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

ITA 351/PUN/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Sept 2023AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Suhas B Bora, CAFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 35(1)Section 37Section 37(1)

disallowance of Rs. 6,58,81,508/- and Rs.2,93,22,475/- debited to the profit & loss account under the heads 3 Electronica Machine Tools Ltd. investment written off and irrecoverable loans/advances written. The ld. CIT(A) on this has held as follows:- 1. “I have considered the facts of the case and the submissions made by the appellant

MERCEDES-BENZ INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 495/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Jul 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: S/Shri Percy Pardiwalla, Darpan KirpalaniFor Respondent: Shri J.P., Chandraker
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92C(3)

disallowed the expenditure incurred on Homologation amounting to INR 2,34,85,773 by considering it to be a capital expenditure. 7. That referring to the grounds of appeal filed in the appeal memo, learned Senior Counsel submitted that ground Nos. 1 and 2 are general grounds. Ground No. 3 is with regard to rejecting the combined transaction approach. Ground

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(3), PUNE, PUNE vs. LALIT RAGHUNATHRAO SHINDE , PUNE

ITA 1421/PUN/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Oct 2025AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Dheeraj DandgavalFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

202) and not Rs.2,13,98,549 worked out by the AO in the impugned\nassessment order. It is pertinent to mention here that on perusal of the respective\nledger accounts of the above receipts during the present appeal proceedings, it is\nnoted that the receipts from 'Carriage', 'Cable Maintenance' and 'Infrastructure\nDevelopment' are all received by the appellant from

HAVELI TALUKA VEEJ KAMGAR SAHAKARI PATHSANSTHA MARYADIT,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6 (1) PUNE, PMT BUILDING, SWARGATE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1428/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Jan 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: \nDepartment by
Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

202/- from\nthe commission receipts of Rs.56,52,925/-, the Ld. AO added the amount\nof Rs.53,52,723/- to the income of the assessee as the income from other\nsources. The Ld. AO, therefore, completed the assessment on total income\nof Rs.62,37,716/- on 30.11.2019 u/s 143(3) of the Act by making an\naddition of-(i) Rs.8

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 NASSHIK, NASHIK vs. HARSH CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, NASHIK

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

ITA 302/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15 Dcit, Circle – 1, Harsh Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Nashik Sanskruti, Murkute Colony, Vs. New Pandit Colony, Sharanpur Road, Nashik – 422002 Pan: Aacch2277H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dhiraj S. Dandgaval Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 03-07-2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 10-07-2024 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp : This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.12.2023 Of The Cit(A) / Nfac, Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Revenue In The Grounds Of Appeal Has Challenged The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Restricting The Disallowance To Rs.2,24,191/- As Against Rs.1,25,51,607/- Proposed By The Assessing Officer In The Remand Report As Against Rs.4,38,96,880/- Added By Him In The Order Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’).

For Appellant: Shri Dhiraj S. DandgavalFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 133Section 133(5)Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

section 37 of the I.T. Act, 1961 and has added to the total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 4. Before the CIT(A), the assessee filed certain details, based on which the ld.CIT(A) sought remand report from the Assessing Officer, who proposed an addition

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

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

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

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