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.

10 results for “disallowance”+ Section 272Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai48Delhi27Bangalore27Ahmedabad16Chandigarh12Cuttack12Kolkata12Pune10Chennai10Jaipur8Lucknow6Surat5Hyderabad5Panaji5Raipur3Rajkot3Agra3Amritsar3Nagpur2Patna2Indore2Visakhapatnam1Dehradun1Jabalpur1Jodhpur1SC1Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 12A37Section 1125Section 10(20)24Section 143(3)13Section 69A9Addition to Income9Exemption7Section 143(1)6Section 2636Section 142

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

disallowance of interest expenses of Rs.157.34 crores claimed on payment basis is concerned, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer on the ground that the provisions of section 14A are applicable in this case. According to him, the provisions of section 36(1)(xii) are also not applicable to the assessee as the same are applicable

6
TDS6
Unexplained Money3

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

disallowance of interest expenses of Rs.157.34 crores claimed on payment basis is concerned, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer on the ground that the provisions of section 14A are applicable in this case. According to him, the provisions of section 36(1)(xii) are also not applicable to the assessee as the same are applicable

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

disallowance of interest expenses of Rs.157.34 crores claimed on payment basis is concerned, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer on the ground that the provisions of section 14A are applicable in this case. According to him, the provisions of section 36(1)(xii) are also not applicable to the assessee as the same are applicable

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

disallowance of interest expenses of Rs.157.34 crores claimed on payment basis is concerned, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer on the ground that the provisions of section 14A are applicable in this case. According to him, the provisions of section 36(1)(xii) are also not applicable to the assessee as the same are applicable

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

disallowance of interest expenses of Rs.157.34 crores claimed on payment basis is concerned, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer on the ground that the provisions of section 14A are applicable in this case. According to him, the provisions of section 36(1)(xii) are also not applicable to the assessee as the same are applicable

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

disallowance of interest expenses of Rs.157.34 crores claimed on payment basis is concerned, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer on the ground that the provisions of section 14A are applicable in this case. According to him, the provisions of section 36(1)(xii) are also not applicable to the assessee as the same are applicable

SANTH BHAGWANBABA SHIKSHAN MANDAL,LATUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION),, NANDED

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforestated observation

ITA 554/PUN/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhary & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No. 554/Pun/2021 करिनधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year :2016-17 Sant Bhagwanbaba Shikshan Mandal Phule Nagar, Ahmadpur, Dist. Latur. . . . . . . . अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan :Aacts 5514 P बनाम / V/S. Income Tax Officer (Exemption), . . . . . . . ""यथ" / Respondent Nanded – 431 601. "ारा / Appearances Assessee By : Mrs J. R. Chandekar Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing :12/08/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement :12/08/2022 आदेश / Order Per G.D. Padmahshali, Am; The Present Appeal Of The Assessee Filed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), Nfac [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt. 24/03/2017 Passed U/S 250, Which In Turn Sprung Out Of Assessment Order Of Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Nanded [For Short “Ao”] Dt. 02/11/2018

For Appellant: Mrs J. R. ChandekarFor Respondent: Shri M. G. Jasnani
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

disallowing claim of deduction of 11(2) ignoring that the fact appellant had filed form No 10B (through late) and that appellant had filed application for condonation of delay with CIT(E), Pune. The order may be cancelled. 4. On the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law the Learned Assessing Officer

CHIDRAWAR NARENDRA HANMANNLU HUF,NANDED vs. ITO WARD-1, NANDED

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

ITA 2672/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Pune09 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Pawan MundadaFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 271ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 69A

272A(1)(d) of the Act. For the sake of convenience, all these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. First, we take up ITA No.2672/PUN/2024 as the lead case. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and has not filed his return of income

CHIDRAWAR NARENDRA HANMANLU HUF,NANDED vs. ITO WARD-1, NANDED

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

ITA 2669/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Pune09 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Pawan MundadaFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 271ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 69A

272A(1)(d) of the Act. For the sake of convenience, all these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. First, we take up ITA No.2672/PUN/2024 as the lead case. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and has not filed his return of income

CHIDRAWAR NARENDRA HANMANLU HUF,NANDED vs. ITO WARD-1, NANDED

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

ITA 2671/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Pune09 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Pawan MundadaFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 271ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 69A

272A(1)(d) of the Act. For the sake of convenience, all these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. First, we take up ITA No.2672/PUN/2024 as the lead case. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and has not filed his return of income