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.

8 results for “disallowance”+ Section 35D(2)(c)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai175Delhi169Ahmedabad67Chennai51Bangalore27Kolkata25Hyderabad24Raipur19Chandigarh12Cochin11Pune8Visakhapatnam5Cuttack5Jaipur5Karnataka5Rajkot5Guwahati3SC3Amritsar1Punjab & Haryana1Agra1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Telangana1Indore1Kerala1Lucknow1

Key Topics

Section 35D14Section 143(3)9Section 271(1)(c)8Disallowance8Depreciation6Penalty6Deduction4Addition to Income4Section 35D(2)(c)3Section 274

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. ATLAS COPCO (INDIA) LTD.,, PUNE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 425/PUN/2015[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Jul 2019AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.425/Pun/2015 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2002-03 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-8, Pune. .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. Atlas Copco (India) Ltd. Mumbai-Pune Road, Dapodi, Pune-411 012 Pan: Aaaca4047D ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R Murlidhar &For Respondent: Ms. Kesang Y Sherpa
Section 271(1)(c)Section 35DSection 35D(2)(c)

section 35D(2)(c)(iii) of the Act. There is substantial difference between registration of a company and action taken for increase in authorized share capital. In the case of the assessee because of amalgamation proceedings, there was need to increase in authorized share capital and therefore, such expenses cannot be segregated from the main amalgamation proceedings and therefore, these

2

ATLAS COPCO (INDIA) LTD.,PUNE vs. DCIT,CIR-8,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1303/PUN/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jul 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1302/Pun/2010 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2004-05 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-8, Pune. .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. M/S. Atlas Copco (India) Ltd. Sveanagar, Mumbai-Pune Road, Dapodi, Pune-411 012. Pan: Aaaca4074D ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R Murlidhar &For Respondent: Ms. Kesang Y Sherpa, CIT
Section 35DSection 35D(2)(c)

section 35D(2)(c)(iii) of the Act. There is substantial difference between registration of a company and action taken for increase in authorized share capital. In the case of the assessee because of amalgamation proceedings, there was need to increase in authorized share capital and therefore, such expenses cannot be segregated from the main amalgamation proceedings and therefore, these

DY. CIT CIRCLE-8,, PUNE vs. M/S. ATLAS COPCO (I) LTD., PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1302/PUN/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jul 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1302/Pun/2010 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2004-05 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-8, Pune. .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. M/S. Atlas Copco (India) Ltd. Sveanagar, Mumbai-Pune Road, Dapodi, Pune-411 012. Pan: Aaaca4074D ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R Murlidhar &For Respondent: Ms. Kesang Y Sherpa, CIT
Section 35DSection 35D(2)(c)

section 35D(2)(c)(iii) of the Act. There is substantial difference between registration of a company and action taken for increase in authorized share capital. In the case of the assessee because of amalgamation proceedings, there was need to increase in authorized share capital and therefore, such expenses cannot be segregated from the main amalgamation proceedings and therefore, these

DCIT,CIR.-1(1),, PUNE vs. GLOBAL INFRASTRUCTURE & TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 624/PUN/2004[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2018AY 1996-97

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Nirupama Kotru
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

35D of the income Tax Act, 1961 was denied to the assessee, as the assessee could not prove the case of expansion of business. 5. The order of the CIT(A) be vacated and that of the A.O. be restored.” 6. The case file reveals that these are old matters and they are continuously getting adjourned since 2013. The case

M/S. GLOBAL INFRASTRUCTURE & TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,,PUNE vs. ITO, WD.-3(3),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 722/PUN/2004[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2018AY 1996-97

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Nirupama Kotru
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

35D of the income Tax Act, 1961 was denied to the assessee, as the assessee could not prove the case of expansion of business. 5. The order of the CIT(A) be vacated and that of the A.O. be restored.” 6. The case file reveals that these are old matters and they are continuously getting adjourned since 2013. The case

DCIT,CIR.-1(1),, PUNE vs. MANTRI HOUSING & CONSTRUCTIONS LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 1027/PUN/2004[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2018AY 1998-99

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Nirupama Kotru
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

35D of the income Tax Act, 1961 was denied to the assessee, as the assessee could not prove the case of expansion of business. 5. The order of the CIT(A) be vacated and that of the A.O. be restored.” 6. The case file reveals that these are old matters and they are continuously getting adjourned since 2013. The case

ACIT, CIR.-1(2),, PUNE vs. GLOBAL INFRASTRUCTURE & TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 351/PUN/2007[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2018AY 1996-97

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Nirupama Kotru
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

35D of the income Tax Act, 1961 was denied to the assessee, as the assessee could not prove the case of expansion of business. 5. The order of the CIT(A) be vacated and that of the A.O. be restored.” 6. The case file reveals that these are old matters and they are continuously getting adjourned since 2013. The case

L & T JOHN DEERE PVT. LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS JOHN DEERE EQUIPMENT P LTD) (NOW MERGED WITH JOHN DEERE (I) P LTD),PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 975/PUN/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 May 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.975/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 वष"

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 35D

35D was a legal claim and simply because the claim was not accepted did not mean that the assessee had filed inaccurate particulars of income. 6. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any of the above grounds of appeal.” 2.1 Assessee also raised the following additional ground in the appeal: “1. The assessee submits that