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.

68 results for “disallowance”+ Section 234clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi854Mumbai841Bangalore404Chennai205Ahmedabad179Kolkata177Jaipur137Chandigarh93Pune68Hyderabad61Cochin57Indore49Cuttack47Surat41Visakhapatnam33Raipur30Guwahati29Nagpur22Lucknow21Karnataka18Rajkot15Ranchi14Amritsar12Allahabad6Varanasi4Telangana4SC3Jodhpur3Patna3Jabalpur3Dehradun2Calcutta2Agra2Rajasthan1Orissa1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)46Section 139(1)43Disallowance43Addition to Income37Section 271(1)(c)23Deduction21Section 143(1)20Section 1117Section 43B17Section 153A

SHREE ASHTVINAYAK GLASS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 290/PUN/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhurysl.

For Appellant: Shri Kishore B. Phadke (Sl.No.1
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act simply deals with the ‘Time of payment of wages’. It does not stipulate any time limit for deposit of the employees share in the relevant funds. For that purpose, the relevant Acts give a window for depositing the contribution within 15 days of the last month's salary. Thus, contribution

EXPERT GLOBAL SOLUTIONS P. LTD.,,AURANGABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC,, BANGALORE

Showing 1–20 of 68 · Page 1 of 4

15
Search & Seizure15
Section 13214

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 199/PUN/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhurysl.

For Appellant: Shri Kishore B. Phadke (Sl.No.1
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act simply deals with the ‘Time of payment of wages’. It does not stipulate any time limit for deposit of the employees share in the relevant funds. For that purpose, the relevant Acts give a window for depositing the contribution within 15 days of the last month's salary. Thus, contribution

M/S ENERTECH UPS P LTD,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 134/PUN/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhurysl.

For Appellant: Shri Kishore B. Phadke (Sl.No.1
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act simply deals with the ‘Time of payment of wages’. It does not stipulate any time limit for deposit of the employees share in the relevant funds. For that purpose, the relevant Acts give a window for depositing the contribution within 15 days of the last month's salary. Thus, contribution

ASHOKA BUILDCON LIMITED,,NASHIK vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 235/PUN/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Nov 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhurysl.

For Appellant: Shri Kishore B. Phadke (Sl.No.1
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act simply deals with the ‘Time of payment of wages’. It does not stipulate any time limit for deposit of the employees share in the relevant funds. For that purpose, the relevant Acts give a window for depositing the contribution within 15 days of the last month's salary. Thus, contribution

B S ENTERPRISES,NASHIK vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 109/PUN/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhurysl.

For Appellant: Shri Kishore B. Phadke (Sl.No.1
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act simply deals with the ‘Time of payment of wages’. It does not stipulate any time limit for deposit of the employees share in the relevant funds. For that purpose, the relevant Acts give a window for depositing the contribution within 15 days of the last month's salary. Thus, contribution

NETSCOUT SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 189/PUN/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhurysl.

For Appellant: Shri Kishore B. Phadke (Sl.No.1
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act simply deals with the ‘Time of payment of wages’. It does not stipulate any time limit for deposit of the employees share in the relevant funds. For that purpose, the relevant Acts give a window for depositing the contribution within 15 days of the last month's salary. Thus, contribution

ASHOKA BUILDCON LIMITED,,NASHIK vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 234/PUN/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhurysl.

For Appellant: Shri Kishore B. Phadke (Sl.No.1
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act simply deals with the ‘Time of payment of wages’. It does not stipulate any time limit for deposit of the employees share in the relevant funds. For that purpose, the relevant Acts give a window for depositing the contribution within 15 days of the last month's salary. Thus, contribution

GURU ENTERPRISES,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 186/PUN/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Nov 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhurysl.

For Appellant: Shri Kishore B. Phadke (Sl.No.1
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act simply deals with the ‘Time of payment of wages’. It does not stipulate any time limit for deposit of the employees share in the relevant funds. For that purpose, the relevant Acts give a window for depositing the contribution within 15 days of the last month's salary. Thus, contribution

HYT ENGINEERING CO P LTD, ,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 110/PUN/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Nov 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhurysl.

For Appellant: Shri Kishore B. Phadke (Sl.No.1
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act simply deals with the ‘Time of payment of wages’. It does not stipulate any time limit for deposit of the employees share in the relevant funds. For that purpose, the relevant Acts give a window for depositing the contribution within 15 days of the last month's salary. Thus, contribution

EXPERT GLOBAL SOLUTIONS P. LTD.,,AURANGABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 200/PUN/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhurysl.

For Appellant: Shri Kishore B. Phadke (Sl.No.1
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act simply deals with the ‘Time of payment of wages’. It does not stipulate any time limit for deposit of the employees share in the relevant funds. For that purpose, the relevant Acts give a window for depositing the contribution within 15 days of the last month's salary. Thus, contribution

BALIRAJA SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 219/PUN/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhurysl.

For Appellant: Shri Kishore B. Phadke (Sl.No.1
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act simply deals with the ‘Time of payment of wages’. It does not stipulate any time limit for deposit of the employees share in the relevant funds. For that purpose, the relevant Acts give a window for depositing the contribution within 15 days of the last month's salary. Thus, contribution

M/S. T - 3 ENERGY SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 826/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.826/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. T-3 Energy Services India Pvt. Ltd., D-Ii/65-1, Midc, Telco Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Chinchwad, Pune – 411019 …. Pan: Aacct9805F Vs. The Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Range – 10, Pune

For Appellant: S/Shri Arijit Chakravarty and Shraddha SwarupFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Aggarwal
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)Section 92C

disallowed the claim of deduction of ₹ 31,22,300/- on the ground that the provisions of section 40(a)(i) of the Act have not been complied with by the assessee. 4. Briefly, in the facts of the case, the assessee for the year under consideration declared total income of ₹ 1,63,82,191/-. The Assessing Officer referred the matter

M/S. ANGRE PORT (P) LTD.,,RATNAGIRI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1046/PUN/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2148/Pun/2013 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Angre Port (P) Ltd., Formerly Jaigad Ports Infrastructure (P) Ltd., Plot No.221, Midc, Mirjole, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Ratnagiri – 415612 …. Pan: Aabcj5401A Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward-3, Ratnagiri

For Appellant: Shri Mihir NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ghei
Section 143(3)Section 194

disallowed salary of ₹ 60,47,844/- and traveling expenses of ₹ 9,88,234/- of said persons. The CIT(A) upheld the order of Assessing Officer. 26. The assessee is in appeal against the order of CIT(A). 27. On hearing both the parties and on perusal of record, we find that the assessee had claimed expenditure on account of salary

M/S. ANGRE PORT (P) LTD.,,RATNAGIRI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2148/PUN/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2148/Pun/2013 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Angre Port (P) Ltd., Formerly Jaigad Ports Infrastructure (P) Ltd., Plot No.221, Midc, Mirjole, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Ratnagiri – 415612 …. Pan: Aabcj5401A Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward-3, Ratnagiri

For Appellant: Shri Mihir NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ghei
Section 143(3)Section 194

disallowed salary of ₹ 60,47,844/- and traveling expenses of ₹ 9,88,234/- of said persons. The CIT(A) upheld the order of Assessing Officer. 26. The assessee is in appeal against the order of CIT(A). 27. On hearing both the parties and on perusal of record, we find that the assessee had claimed expenditure on account of salary

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

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

ITA 1246/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Jun 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

For Appellant: Shri Dr. P. Daniel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri B. Kishore
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

sections 32, 40(a)(ia), 40A(3), 43B, etc. of the Act and other specific disallowances, related to the business activity against which the Chapter VI-A deduction has been claimed, result in enhancement of the profits of the eligible business, and that deduction under Chapter VI-A is admissible on the profits so enhanced by the disallowance.” 38. Similarly

LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

ITA 1179/PUN/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Jun 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

For Appellant: Shri Dr. P. Daniel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri B. Kishore
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

sections 32, 40(a)(ia), 40A(3), 43B, etc. of the Act and other specific disallowances, related to the business activity against which the Chapter VI-A deduction has been claimed, result in enhancement of the profits of the eligible business, and that deduction under Chapter VI-A is admissible on the profits so enhanced by the disallowance.” 38. Similarly

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

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

ITA 1247/PUN/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Jun 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

For Appellant: Shri Dr. P. Daniel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri B. Kishore
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

sections 32, 40(a)(ia), 40A(3), 43B, etc. of the Act and other specific disallowances, related to the business activity against which the Chapter VI-A deduction has been claimed, result in enhancement of the profits of the eligible business, and that deduction under Chapter VI-A is admissible on the profits so enhanced by the disallowance.” 38. Similarly

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

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

ITA 1245/PUN/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Jun 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

For Appellant: Shri Dr. P. Daniel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri B. Kishore
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

sections 32, 40(a)(ia), 40A(3), 43B, etc. of the Act and other specific disallowances, related to the business activity against which the Chapter VI-A deduction has been claimed, result in enhancement of the profits of the eligible business, and that deduction under Chapter VI-A is admissible on the profits so enhanced by the disallowance.” 38. Similarly

LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

ITA 1178/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Jun 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

For Appellant: Shri Dr. P. Daniel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri B. Kishore
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

sections 32, 40(a)(ia), 40A(3), 43B, etc. of the Act and other specific disallowances, related to the business activity against which the Chapter VI-A deduction has been claimed, result in enhancement of the profits of the eligible business, and that deduction under Chapter VI-A is admissible on the profits so enhanced by the disallowance.” 38. Similarly

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, KOLHAPUR vs. VIJAYKUMAR RAJARAM SHAH,, KOLHAPUR

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

ITA 608/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Jun 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

For Appellant: Shri Dr. P. Daniel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri B. Kishore
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

sections 32, 40(a)(ia), 40A(3), 43B, etc. of the Act and other specific disallowances, related to the business activity against which the Chapter VI-A deduction has been claimed, result in enhancement of the profits of the eligible business, and that deduction under Chapter VI-A is admissible on the profits so enhanced by the disallowance.” 38. Similarly