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.

11 results for “disallowance”+ Section 32Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai118Delhi83Kolkata30Bangalore28Hyderabad21Indore17Ahmedabad13Pune11SC7Chennai6Guwahati6Chandigarh5Lucknow4Jaipur3Visakhapatnam3Calcutta2Telangana2Cochin2Cuttack1Surat1Karnataka1Jodhpur1

Key Topics

Section 80P(2)(a)13Section 32(1)(iia)12Section 80P9Section 80H9Deduction7Section 2635Disallowance5Section 80A4Addition to Income4Section 271(1)(c)

MAHATMA PHULE GRAMIN BIGARSHETI SAHAKAR PAT SANSTHA LTD,KOLHAPUR vs. PCIT-1, PUNE, PUNE

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

ITA 1049/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19 Mahatma Phule Gramin Bigarsheti Pcit-1, Pune Sahakar Pat Sanstha Vs. A/P Hattiwade, Ajara, Kolhapur – 416505 Pan: Aaaam2608K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None (Written Submission Filed) Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 09-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09-01-2026 O R D E R

For Appellant: None (written submission filed)For Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)
3
Section 223
Exemption3
Section 80P(2)(c)
Section 80P(2)(d)

disallowance of deduction under section 80P, without appreciating that compliance under section 80AC is not mandatory and it is discretionary and further, by implication, AO had accepted one of the views in case of debatable issue. 3. The assessee craves leave to amend, alter or delete any of the above grounds of appeal. It is prayed that the above claims

AYOKI FABRICON PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1608/PUN/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Nov 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Vikas Awasthy

Section 32(1)(iia)Section 80H

section 32A was allowed. It goes without saying that if a person, instead of manufacturing for himself, manufactures the eligible articles for some outsider on job work basis, the benefit available for own manufacturing cannot be denied to the manufacturing on job work basis. We are confronted with a situation in which the assessee is neither involved

AYOKI FABRICON PRIVATE LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 11/PUN/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Nov 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Vikas Awasthy

Section 32(1)(iia)Section 80H

section 32A was allowed. It goes without saying that if a person, instead of manufacturing for himself, manufactures the eligible articles for some outsider on job work basis, the benefit available for own manufacturing cannot be denied to the manufacturing on job work basis. We are confronted with a situation in which the assessee is neither involved

AYOKI FABRICON PRIVATE LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1723/PUN/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Nov 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Vikas Awasthy

Section 32(1)(iia)Section 80H

section 32A was allowed. It goes without saying that if a person, instead of manufacturing for himself, manufactures the eligible articles for some outsider on job work basis, the benefit available for own manufacturing cannot be denied to the manufacturing on job work basis. We are confronted with a situation in which the assessee is neither involved

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE vs. BANK OF MAHARASHTRA,, PUNE

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

ITA 579/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan with Mrs. Lalitha RFor Respondent: Mrs. Kesang Y. Sherpa

disallowance u/s. 36(1)(viii) to the extent of provision made by the assessee in the relevant assessment year. 6.3 We have heard the submissions made by rival sides and have examined the findings of authorities below on this issue. Before proceeding further it would be relevant to refer to the provisions of section 36(1)(viii). The same

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE vs. BANK OF MAHARASHTRA,, PUNE

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

ITA 581/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2019AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan with Mrs. Lalitha RFor Respondent: Mrs. Kesang Y. Sherpa

disallowance u/s. 36(1)(viii) to the extent of provision made by the assessee in the relevant assessment year. 6.3 We have heard the submissions made by rival sides and have examined the findings of authorities below on this issue. Before proceeding further it would be relevant to refer to the provisions of section 36(1)(viii). The same

BANK OF MAHARASHTRA,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

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

ITA 634/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan with Mrs. Lalitha RFor Respondent: Mrs. Kesang Y. Sherpa

disallowance u/s. 36(1)(viii) to the extent of provision made by the assessee in the relevant assessment year. 6.3 We have heard the submissions made by rival sides and have examined the findings of authorities below on this issue. Before proceeding further it would be relevant to refer to the provisions of section 36(1)(viii). The same

BANK OF MAHARASHTRA,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

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

ITA 635/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2019AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan with Mrs. Lalitha RFor Respondent: Mrs. Kesang Y. Sherpa

disallowance u/s. 36(1)(viii) to the extent of provision made by the assessee in the relevant assessment year. 6.3 We have heard the submissions made by rival sides and have examined the findings of authorities below on this issue. Before proceeding further it would be relevant to refer to the provisions of section 36(1)(viii). The same

INCOME TAX OFFICER,, PUNE vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETIES DEPOSITE GURANTEE CORP.LTD,, PUNE

In the result, quantum assessment appeals for the A

ITA 709/PUN/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Aug 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.709/Pun/2017 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Ito, Ward 5(1), Vs. Maharashtra State Co-Operative Pune Credit Societies Deposit Guarantee Corp. Ltd., Suraksha Bhawan, Plot No.9, Gultekdi, Pune – 411037 Pan: Aabtm4090M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1492 & 1493/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2008-09 Ito, Ward 5(1), Vs. Maharashtra State Co-Operative Pune Credit Societies Deposit Guarantee Corp. Ltd., Suraksha Bhawan, Plot No.9, Gultekdi, Pune – 411037 Pan: Aabtm4090M Corrigendum Per R.S.Syal, Vp : This Corrigendum Is Being Issued To Correct The Typographical Mistake In The Date Of Pronouncement Mentioned In First Page Of Order. The Same May Be Read As “13.08.2021” Instead Of “13.05.2021”. (S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) (R.S.Syal)पुणे Pune; दििधंक Dated : 18Th August, 2021 Gcvsr

Section 22Section 271(1)(c)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

32A of the paper book in which both the limbs are present, namely, “have concealed the particulars of your income or U/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Act, 1961 furnished inaccurate particulars of such income”. None of them was struck off by the AO. As against that, the penalty has actually been imposed on account of disallowing wrong claim

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 5(1),, PUNE vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETIES DEPOSIT GURANTEE CORP. LTD,, PUNE

In the result, quantum assessment appeals for the A

ITA 1493/PUN/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Aug 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.709/Pun/2017 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Ito, Ward 5(1), Vs. Maharashtra State Co-Operative Pune Credit Societies Deposit Guarantee Corp. Ltd., Suraksha Bhawan, Plot No.9, Gultekdi, Pune – 411037 Pan: Aabtm4090M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1492 & 1493/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2008-09 Ito, Ward 5(1), Vs. Maharashtra State Co-Operative Pune Credit Societies Deposit Guarantee Corp. Ltd., Suraksha Bhawan, Plot No.9, Gultekdi, Pune – 411037 Pan: Aabtm4090M Corrigendum Per R.S.Syal, Vp : This Corrigendum Is Being Issued To Correct The Typographical Mistake In The Date Of Pronouncement Mentioned In First Page Of Order. The Same May Be Read As “13.08.2021” Instead Of “13.05.2021”. (S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) (R.S.Syal)पुणे Pune; दििधंक Dated : 18Th August, 2021 Gcvsr

Section 22Section 271(1)(c)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

32A of the paper book in which both the limbs are present, namely, “have concealed the particulars of your income or U/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Act, 1961 furnished inaccurate particulars of such income”. None of them was struck off by the AO. As against that, the penalty has actually been imposed on account of disallowing wrong claim

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 5(1),, PUNE vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETIES DEPOSIT GURANTEE CORP. LTD,, PUNE

In the result, quantum assessment appeals for the A

ITA 1492/PUN/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Aug 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.709/Pun/2017 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Ito, Ward 5(1), Vs. Maharashtra State Co-Operative Pune Credit Societies Deposit Guarantee Corp. Ltd., Suraksha Bhawan, Plot No.9, Gultekdi, Pune – 411037 Pan: Aabtm4090M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1492 & 1493/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2008-09 Ito, Ward 5(1), Vs. Maharashtra State Co-Operative Pune Credit Societies Deposit Guarantee Corp. Ltd., Suraksha Bhawan, Plot No.9, Gultekdi, Pune – 411037 Pan: Aabtm4090M Corrigendum Per R.S.Syal, Vp : This Corrigendum Is Being Issued To Correct The Typographical Mistake In The Date Of Pronouncement Mentioned In First Page Of Order. The Same May Be Read As “13.08.2021” Instead Of “13.05.2021”. (S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) (R.S.Syal)पुणे Pune; दििधंक Dated : 18Th August, 2021 Gcvsr

Section 22Section 271(1)(c)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

32A of the paper book in which both the limbs are present, namely, “have concealed the particulars of your income or U/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Act, 1961 furnished inaccurate particulars of such income”. None of them was struck off by the AO. As against that, the penalty has actually been imposed on account of disallowing wrong claim