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.

102 results for “disallowance”+ Section 220(6)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,006Mumbai913Bangalore293Chennai283Kolkata213Jaipur163Ahmedabad163Hyderabad113Pune102Indore90Chandigarh89Cochin80Raipur63Lucknow41Panaji37Guwahati31Surat27Nagpur24Rajkot23Patna22Visakhapatnam21Allahabad19Cuttack16Karnataka15Agra12Amritsar11Ranchi9SC8Kerala8Jodhpur6Dehradun3Telangana3Rajasthan2Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)104Addition to Income68Deduction60Disallowance57Section 26353Section 271(1)(c)47Section 1133Section 80I31Section 14A29Section 80P(2)(a)

SPRINGER NATURE TECHNOLOGY AND PUBLISHING SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 5, PUNE, PUNE

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

ITA 2800/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Vishal KalraFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 234ASection 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

disallowance. Levy of Interest under section 234A and 2348 of the Act 9. The learned ADIT-CPC has levied an interest under section 234A of the Act of Rs. 7,17,497, without assigning any reason whatsoever. 10. The learned ADIT-CPC has erred in levying excess interest under section 2348 of INR 1,26,84,174, without assigning

Showing 1–20 of 102 · Page 1 of 6

28
Section 80P27
Exemption16

SPRINGER NATURE TECHNOLOGY AND PUBLISHING SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT AND THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 5, PUNE, PUNE

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

ITA 1141/PUN/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Vishal KalraFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 234ASection 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

disallowance. Levy of Interest under section 234A and 2348 of the Act 9. The learned ADIT-CPC has levied an interest under section 234A of the Act of Rs. 7,17,497, without assigning any reason whatsoever. 10. The learned ADIT-CPC has erred in levying excess interest under section 2348 of INR 1,26,84,174, without assigning

BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPNY LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 26/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2896/Pun/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Mutha & Shri Rajat SoniFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 28Section 44Section 92ASection 92C

220/-. In the assessment u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 92CA(4) of the Act, AO assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.132,05,73,950/- making various additions/disallowances. 3. During the year under consideration, assessee entered into international transactions with Associated Enterprises amounting to Rs.460,98,98,628/- u/s.92A and 92B of the Act. On going through the auditor’s report

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SOMNATH VAIJANATH SAKRE,, AURANGABAD

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2986/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2896/Pun/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Mutha & Shri Rajat SoniFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 28Section 44Section 92ASection 92C

220/-. In the assessment u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 92CA(4) of the Act, AO assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.132,05,73,950/- making various additions/disallowances. 3. During the year under consideration, assessee entered into international transactions with Associated Enterprises amounting to Rs.460,98,98,628/- u/s.92A and 92B of the Act. On going through the auditor’s report

SANDVIK ASIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DCIT CIR.- 10,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1459/PUN/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jun 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1459/Pun/2010 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 220(2)Section 244ASection 32

220(2) of the Act against interest received under section 244A of the Act at ₹ 23,43,436/-; d) Software deduction claimed on the basis of disallowance made in earlier years at ₹ 5,21,813/-; e) Transfer pricing adjustment under section 92CA(3) of the Act at ₹ 40,96,292/-. 4. The Assessing Officer had passed draft assessment order under

SATISH S. BANSAL,,PUNE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose in the terms aforesaid

ITA 119/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri B.C. MalakarFor Respondent: Shri Aseem Sharma
Section 14ASection 234BSection 32Section 40

6 ITA No. 119/PUN/2015, A.Y. 2010-11 assessment year 2009-10, therefore, the same cannot be allowed in the assessment year under appeal. It is not disputed by the Revenue that the assessee has not claimed expenditure in the period relevant to the assessment year 2009-10. A bare perusal of section 40 would show that disallowance under said section

SINHGAD TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Accordingly, additional ground No.3 by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2110/PUN/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 2075 To 2077 & 2110/Pun/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2009-10 Sinhgad Technical Education Society, S. No. 44/1, Vadgaon ( Budruk), Off. Sinhagad Road, Pune-411 041. Pan : Aabts9900Q. …....अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri S. N. DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar
Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 153C

6. Grounds No.1 (a) and 2(c): Under these grounds of appeal it is contended that the AO erred in holding that the appellant had contravened the provisions of section 13(1)(c) by reason of payment of excess rent to Shri M. N. Navale and that no disallowance under section 40A(2)(b) was called for on account

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SINHAGAD TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY,, PUNE

Accordingly, additional ground No.3 by the assessee is allowed

ITA 16/PUN/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 2075 To 2077 & 2110/Pun/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2009-10 Sinhgad Technical Education Society, S. No. 44/1, Vadgaon ( Budruk), Off. Sinhagad Road, Pune-411 041. Pan : Aabts9900Q. …....अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri S. N. DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar
Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 153C

6. Grounds No.1 (a) and 2(c): Under these grounds of appeal it is contended that the AO erred in holding that the appellant had contravened the provisions of section 13(1)(c) by reason of payment of excess rent to Shri M. N. Navale and that no disallowance under section 40A(2)(b) was called for on account

SINHGAD TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Accordingly, additional ground No.3 by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2076/PUN/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 2075 To 2077 & 2110/Pun/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2009-10 Sinhgad Technical Education Society, S. No. 44/1, Vadgaon ( Budruk), Off. Sinhagad Road, Pune-411 041. Pan : Aabts9900Q. …....अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri S. N. DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar
Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 153C

6. Grounds No.1 (a) and 2(c): Under these grounds of appeal it is contended that the AO erred in holding that the appellant had contravened the provisions of section 13(1)(c) by reason of payment of excess rent to Shri M. N. Navale and that no disallowance under section 40A(2)(b) was called for on account

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SINHAGAD TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY,, PUNE

Accordingly, additional ground No.3 by the assessee is allowed

ITA 17/PUN/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 2075 To 2077 & 2110/Pun/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2009-10 Sinhgad Technical Education Society, S. No. 44/1, Vadgaon ( Budruk), Off. Sinhagad Road, Pune-411 041. Pan : Aabts9900Q. …....अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri S. N. DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar
Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 153C

6. Grounds No.1 (a) and 2(c): Under these grounds of appeal it is contended that the AO erred in holding that the appellant had contravened the provisions of section 13(1)(c) by reason of payment of excess rent to Shri M. N. Navale and that no disallowance under section 40A(2)(b) was called for on account

SINHGAD TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Accordingly, additional ground No.3 by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2075/PUN/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Oct 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 2075 To 2077 & 2110/Pun/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2009-10 Sinhgad Technical Education Society, S. No. 44/1, Vadgaon ( Budruk), Off. Sinhagad Road, Pune-411 041. Pan : Aabts9900Q. …....अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri S. N. DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar
Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 153C

6. Grounds No.1 (a) and 2(c): Under these grounds of appeal it is contended that the AO erred in holding that the appellant had contravened the provisions of section 13(1)(c) by reason of payment of excess rent to Shri M. N. Navale and that no disallowance under section 40A(2)(b) was called for on account

SINHGAD TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Accordingly, additional ground No.3 by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2077/PUN/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 2075 To 2077 & 2110/Pun/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2009-10 Sinhgad Technical Education Society, S. No. 44/1, Vadgaon ( Budruk), Off. Sinhagad Road, Pune-411 041. Pan : Aabts9900Q. …....अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri S. N. DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar
Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 153C

6. Grounds No.1 (a) and 2(c): Under these grounds of appeal it is contended that the AO erred in holding that the appellant had contravened the provisions of section 13(1)(c) by reason of payment of excess rent to Shri M. N. Navale and that no disallowance under section 40A(2)(b) was called for on account

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 11,, PUNE vs. HSBC SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT (INDIA) PVT.LTD,, PUNE

In the result, CO of assessee is allowed and the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1464/PUN/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

For Respondent: Shri Percy Jal Pardiwalla
Section 10A(7)Section 10BSection 10B(7)Section 143(3)Section 80I

220 (Bombay). 17. In the Cross Objection filed by the assessee company, we held that the assessee is entitled for exemption on profits derived from unit registered with STPI under the provisions of section 10B of the Act. Therefore, the issue raised by the Revenue in these grounds of 12 appeal no.1 to 6 had become academic. Therefore, grounds

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 11,, PUNE vs. HSBC SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,, PUNE

In the result, CO of assessee is allowed and the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2348/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

For Respondent: Shri Percy Jal Pardiwalla
Section 10A(7)Section 10BSection 10B(7)Section 143(3)Section 80I

220 (Bombay). 17. In the Cross Objection filed by the assessee company, we held that the assessee is entitled for exemption on profits derived from unit registered with STPI under the provisions of section 10B of the Act. Therefore, the issue raised by the Revenue in these grounds of 12 appeal no.1 to 6 had become academic. Therefore, grounds

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. FORCE MOTORS LTD.,, PUNE

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

ITA 1192/PUN/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Mar 2021AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 1192/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2004-05

For Appellant: Shri Kishore PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Mahadevan A.M Krishnan
Section 43B

220/-. 4 A.Y.2004-05 6. At the time of hearing, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee placed strong reliance on the findings of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) and submitted that it is settle position of law, this issue has been consistently held in favour of the assessee not only by the decision of Pune Bench of the Tribunal (supra.) relying

EXPERT GLOBAL SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,AURANGABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2556/PUN/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Apr 2026AY 2021-2022

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajat SoniFor Respondent: Shri Mukul Kulkarni (virtually)
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 44ASection 80J

disallowed the deduction of Rs.25,06,220/- under section 80JJAA of the Act merely on account of late filing of Form 10DA, without appreciating that filing of Form 10DA is a procedural requirement and non-compliance thereof should not result in denial of an otherwise allowable deduction under section 80JJAA of the Act. Any consequential relief to which the Appellant

EXPERT GLOBAL SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,AURANGABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1 AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2557/PUN/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Apr 2026AY 2022-2023

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajat SoniFor Respondent: Shri Mukul Kulkarni (virtually)
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 44ASection 80J

disallowed the deduction of Rs.25,06,220/- under section 80JJAA of the Act merely on account of late filing of Form 10DA, without appreciating that filing of Form 10DA is a procedural requirement and non-compliance thereof should not result in denial of an otherwise allowable deduction under section 80JJAA of the Act. Any consequential relief to which the Appellant

BAJAJ HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 564/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.564/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Bajaj Housing Finance Limited, The Principal 3Rd Floor, Panchsil Tech Park, V Commissioner Of Income Viman Nagar, Pune – 411014. S Tax-3, Pune. Pan: Aadcb6018P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Percy Pardiwala & Ms.Vasanti B.Patel – Ar’S Revenue By Shri Keyur Patel – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 12/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26/02/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Passed By Ld.Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Pune-3 On 14.03.2023. In This Case, Assessment Order Was Passed On 26.02.2021. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : 1. Ground I: Challenging The Validity Of Revision Proceedings Under Section 263 Of The Act 1.1. The Learned Pcit Failed To Appreciate That The Assessment Order Passed By The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 8, Pune (Hereinafter Referred To As Learned Ao) Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Bajaj Housing Finance Limited [A]

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263Section 36Section 36(1)(viia)

220 of the paper book which was copy of notice and assessee’s reply. Ld.AR hence submitted that AO had arrived at the conclusion after studying the details. The ld.AR also submitted that there are two views on this issue. ITAT Indore Bench in the case of Vikramaditya NagrikSahkari Bank Maryadit Vs. ACIT in ITA No.36/IND/2017 for A.Y.2013-14 has held

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE vs. SHARADA ERECTORS PRIVATE LIMITED., PUNE`

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

ITA 2040/PUN/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2040 & 2041/Pun/2017 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 & 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

section 36(1)(iii) interest disallowance is no more res integra since the tribunal’s order(s) in A.Y. 2005-06 in ITA 472/PN/10 dated 25.06.2013 in A.Y. 2004-05 and 2005-06 has already rejected its claim in light of interest free funds turning out to be more than the alleged interest bearing funds diverted to sister concern

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE vs. SHARADA ERECTORS PRIVATE LIMITED., PUNE`

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

ITA 2041/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2040 & 2041/Pun/2017 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 & 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

section 36(1)(iii) interest disallowance is no more res integra since the tribunal’s order(s) in A.Y. 2005-06 in ITA 472/PN/10 dated 25.06.2013 in A.Y. 2004-05 and 2005-06 has already rejected its claim in light of interest free funds turning out to be more than the alleged interest bearing funds diverted to sister concern