Search: disallowance | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

86 results for “disallowance”+ Section 270Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai393 Delhi302 Ahmedabad125 Pune86 Bangalore85 Hyderabad74 Chennai68 Jaipur61 Chandigarh33 Kolkata29 Indore26 Lucknow22 Rajkot21 Surat19 Nagpur19 Visakhapatnam18 Cochin17 Guwahati17 Raipur13 Cuttack12 Agra10 Patna5 Dehradun5 Varanasi4 Jodhpur3 Ranchi3 Amritsar3 Jabalpur2 Panaji2

Key Topics

Section 270A143 Addition to Income59 Section 80P52 Section 25050 Penalty50 Section 143(3)49 Deduction47 Disallowance42 Section 80P(2)(a)33 Section 263

CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LIMITED ( SUCCESSOR OF ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES HOLDINGS LIMITED),PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1260/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri Vyomesh PathakFor Respondent: Shri Vidya Ratna Kishore

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 155(18)Section 270ASection 270A(2)Section 270A(6)(a)Section 270A(7)Section 270A(8)Section 270A(9)

disallowance of employees contribution u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act treating as under reported under sub section (2) of Section 270A

Showing 1–20 of 86 · Page 1 of 5

30

SILVER OAK BUILDCON PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. ACIT-6, PUNE, PUNE

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

ITA 2589/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Miss Aarti ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 270ASection 36(1)(va)Section 43B

section 270A of the Act. 7. Before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, it was submitted that the addition made by the Assessing Officer was on account of mis-match of disallowance

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NASHIK vs. CHAKRAHAR CONTRACTORS AND ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JALGAON

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are

ITA 1940/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Dec 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Sanket M JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

Section 131Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 270ASection 270A(3)(i)Section 270A(6)(a)Section 270A(9)

disallowance has formed the basis of Imposition of penalty in the case of the person for the same or any other assessment year. (12) The penalty referred to in sub-section (1) shall be imposed, by an order in writing, by the Assessing Officer, the Commissioner (Appeals), the Commissioner or the Principal Commissioner, as the case may be." In this

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NASHIK vs. CHAKRADHAR CONTRACTORS AND ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JALGAON

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are

ITA 1939/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Sanket M JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

Section 131Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 270ASection 270A(3)(i)Section 270A(6)(a)Section 270A(9)

disallowance has formed the basis of Imposition of penalty in the case of the person for the same or any other assessment year. (12) The penalty referred to in sub-section (1) shall be imposed, by an order in writing, by the Assessing Officer, the Commissioner (Appeals), the Commissioner or the Principal Commissioner, as the case may be." In this

BAJAJ HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD-8(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

ITA 1608/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Respondent: Appellant by Shri Nikhil Mutha

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 270ASection 270A(9)

section 270A(9) of the Act under which the penalty proceedings have been initiated and for such non specification of charge against the assessee it has been consistently held that such penalty proceedings are void ab initio and deserves to be quashed. 10. I further observe that during the year under consideration, the assessee has not generated any revenue from

ASSTT. COMMISSSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE PUNE, P.M.T BUILDING SWARGATE PUNE vs. KEDARI REDEKAR SHIKSHAN SANSTHA GADHINGLAJ , GADHINGLAJ

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 559/PUN/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jul 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Pawan Bharati

Section 12ASection 270ASection 270A(8)Section 270A(9)Section 270A(9)(a)Section 80G

section 270A, where it is for the assessee to make a case of bona fide belief and not for the AO to make any case of deliberate or intentional violation. 07. Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that by failing to elucidate the circumstances that led to the misrepresentation of facts in the ITR whereby at one hand

MUSTAFA ALIHUSAIN SUNELWALA,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD-14(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1396/PUN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

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

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Madhan Thirmanpalli

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 270(9)Section 270ASection 274Section 54F

Section (9) of Sec 270A is not invoked nor the specific charge is being made out in the impugned order. 3. Ld CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming levy of penalty of Rs 1548234/- u/s 270A(9) without appreciating that the claim of exemption u/s 54F was made out of inadvertent mistake and all the facts

KOTHARI AGRITECH PVT. LTD,,SOLAPUR vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1, SOLAPUR

In the result, the both appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2455/PUN/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Sept 2025AY 2018-2019

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

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 80Section 801ASection 80ISection 80J

disallowed the claim of the assessee for the reasons reproduced in the preceding paragraphs. The facts on record reveal that the assessee had made detailed submissions before the Ld. CIT(A) to substantiate its claim of deduction under section 80IA of the Act along with various judicial precedents in favour of the assessee involving the impugned issue (pages

KOTHARI AGRITECH PRIVATE LIMITED,SOLAPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1, SOLAPUR

In the result, the both appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2392/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 80Section 801ASection 80ISection 80J

disallowed the claim of the assessee for the reasons reproduced in the preceding paragraphs. The facts on record reveal that the assessee had made detailed submissions before the Ld. CIT(A) to substantiate its claim of deduction under section 80IA of the Act along with various judicial precedents in favour of the assessee involving the impugned issue (pages

SHRI POPAT KARBHARI BHALERAO,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD.2(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1323/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1323 & 1324/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Shri Popat Karbhari Bhalerao, The Income Tax Officer, Yeshdei Niwas, Maratha V Ward-2(1), Nashik. Nagar, Near Rajrajeshwari S Mangal Karyalay, Jailroad, Nashik Road, Nashik-422101. Pan: Aaqpb3523N Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanket Joshi – Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 19/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26/03/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Cit(A)[Nfac] For A.Y.2017-18 Dated 02.09.2022 Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Emanating From Penalty Order Under Section 270A Of The Act, Dated 30.12.2021. The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 147Section 24Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(9)Section 270A(9)(e)Section 274Section 9

disallowance of certain deductions claimed under Chapter-VIA and Section 24 of the Act. Therefore, AO has levied penalty under incorrect section. Therefore, the penalty is not-maintainable. Hence, we direct the AO to delete the penalty of Rs.2,60,874/- levied under section 270A

SHRI POPAT KARBHARI BHALERAO,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), NASHIK, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1324/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1323 & 1324/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Shri Popat Karbhari Bhalerao, The Income Tax Officer, Yeshdei Niwas, Maratha V Ward-2(1), Nashik. Nagar, Near Rajrajeshwari S Mangal Karyalay, Jailroad, Nashik Road, Nashik-422101. Pan: Aaqpb3523N Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanket Joshi – Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 19/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26/03/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Cit(A)[Nfac] For A.Y.2017-18 Dated 02.09.2022 Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Emanating From Penalty Order Under Section 270A Of The Act, Dated 30.12.2021. The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 147Section 24Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(9)Section 270A(9)(e)Section 274Section 9

disallowance of certain deductions claimed under Chapter-VIA and Section 24 of the Act. Therefore, AO has levied penalty under incorrect section. Therefore, the penalty is not-maintainable. Hence, we direct the AO to delete the penalty of Rs.2,60,874/- levied under section 270A

SAGAR SUBHASH WEDHANE,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NASHIK

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

ITA 191/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.191/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Sagar Subhash Wedhane, Vs. Ito, Nashik. 75, Midc, Bosch Limited, Satpur, Nashik- 422007. Pan : Aavpw1338A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Abhilasha Sanjay Pawar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak : Date Of Hearing : 12.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.07.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.01.2024 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Learned Cit Is Not Justified In Levying Penalty U/S 270A Of Rs.1,61,548/- On The Ground That The Assesses Has Under-Reporting In Consequence Of Mis-Reporting Without Appreciating That The Said Levy Of Penalty Was Not Justified In Law.

For Appellant: Smt. Abhilasha Sanjay Pawar

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 270A(9)(a)

section 270A of the IT Act in the notice, the assessee was not in a position to reply for the same, because until and unless the assessee knows as to under which limb the penalty is going to be imposed, he is unable to file his specific reply regarding that particular limb which is attracted in his case

CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LIMITED (SUCCESSOR TO LIQUIDHUB INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2753/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2753/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Capgemini Technology V Assessment Unit, Services India S Income Tax Limited(Successor To Liquid Department. Hub India Private Limited), Plot No.14, Rajiv Gandhi Infotech Park, Hinjewadi, Phase Iii, Midc Sez, Village Man, Taluka Mulshi, District Pune – 411057. Pan: Aaacl8943J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Sudin Sabnis & Shri Siddhesh Khandalkar Revenue By Shri Madhukar Anand-Jcit(Through Virtual) Date Of Hearing 05/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19/01/2026 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(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2020-21 Dated 02.09.2025 Emanating From The Penalty Order Passed Under Section

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 155Section 155(18)Section 18Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(6)(a)Section 40

270A to be a nullity in the eyes of the law and liable to be quashed. Levy of Penalty with respect to disallowance of "Health and Educational Cess": 3. The CIT(A) has erred in confirming the penalty levied under section

KUMAR PROPERTIES AND REAL ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 14, PUNE

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

ITA 2798/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra AgiwalFor Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremath, Addl.CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 270A

disallowance is computed by allocating common admin expenses between exempt income and taxable income. Initiation of penalty under section 270A

ADVIK HI TECH PVT LTD,PUNE vs. DY.COMM..OF INCOMETAX, CIRCLE 8, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1344/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 270ASection 270A(10)Section 270A(7)

270A (a) to (f). 8 ITA.No.1344/PUN./2024 5. The appellant craves its right to add to or alter the Ground of objections at any time before or during the Course of the hearing of the case. 5. Learned Counsel for the Assessee, at the outset, submitted that penalty in the instant case has been levied on account

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. Incorrect computation of Book Profit under section 115JB 10. The learned AO erred in computing the book profit of the Appellant as INR 44,18,82,070 as against INR 34,13,91,024 computed in the return of Income and processed in the intimation order under section 143(1) of the Act, without assigning any reason whatsoever. Incorrect

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. Incorrect computation of Book Profit under section 115JB 10. The learned AO erred in computing the book profit of the Appellant as INR 44,18,82,070 as against INR 34,13,91,024 computed in the return of Income and processed in the intimation order under section 143(1) of the Act, without assigning any reason whatsoever. Incorrect

ADIVASI UNNATI SEVA MANDAL,RAJUR DISTRICT AHMEDNAGAR vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION CIRCLE, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

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

ITA 948/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 270A(9)(d)

disallow. d. As per the section 270A (9) of the Income tax Act it's a clear case of under

UDAY UTTAMRAO NEVASE,PUNE vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER / ASSESSMENT UNIT, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2606/PUN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2606/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2022-23 Uday Uttamrao Nevase, V The Assessing Officer / Saugandh Niwas, Hind Colony S Assessment Unit, Pune. Lane No.1 A, Bhekrai Nagar, Phursungi, Pune – 412308. Pan: Akqpn1150Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Ca Rohan Gupta Revenue By Shri Harshit Bari – Addl.Cit(Virtual) Date Of Hearing 16/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10/02/2026 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(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2022-23 Dated 04.09.2025 Emanating From The Penalty Order Passed Under Section 270A, Dated 17.09.2024. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “Ground 1 Section 270Aa Immunity Cit A Erred In Law By Confirming The Penalty Of Rs 629382 Under Section 270A Without Considering And

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270A

270A without considering and ITA No.2606/PUN/2025 [A] applying section 270AA of the Income Tax Act 1961 The appellant has satisfied all mandatory conditions under section 270AA The entire tax demand was paid within 30 days of the assessment order dated 20 March 2024 and no appeal was filed against that assessment order Section 270AA provides an absolute right to penalty

LIQUIDHUB ANALYTICS PVT. LTD. (NOW MERGED WITH CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LTD),PUNE vs. NFAC, PUNE

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

ITA 1952/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Smt Nilu Jaggi, CIT

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)

disallowance under section 36(1)(va) of the Act 13 The Ld. AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 270A