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.

1,154 results for “disallowance”+ Section 40(1)(i)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai7,594Delhi6,480Chennai2,417Bangalore2,323Kolkata2,218Ahmedabad1,672Pune1,154Hyderabad1,077Jaipur996Indore596Chandigarh541Surat502Visakhapatnam384Cochin383Raipur308Cuttack298Rajkot280Nagpur266Karnataka240Amritsar237Lucknow155Guwahati122Ranchi100Allahabad97Panaji95Agra67Patna67Telangana64Jodhpur63Calcutta59SC57Dehradun53Jabalpur46Kerala30Varanasi28Orissa5Punjab & Haryana5Rajasthan4Gauhati2Himachal Pradesh1J&K1Tripura1Uttarakhand1ANIL R. DAVE AMITAVA ROY L. NAGESWARA RAO1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)79Disallowance68Addition to Income67Deduction57Section 4054Section 26338Section 14833Section 80P28Section 80P(2)(a)28Section 12A

VIRENDRA SINGH SAINI,HARYANA vs. ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE, BENGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 1483/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Pune19 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1483/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri B.S.Rajpurohit
Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

40%. These situations warrant an adjustment. It is obvious that none of the three clauses of Explanation 8 (a), defining an incorrect claim apparent from any information in the return, gets magnetized to the facts of the present case. 10. Now we turn to clause (iv) of section 143(1)(a) which provides for `disallowance

ZAWARE CREATIVE ENTERPRISES P LTD,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

Showing 1–20 of 1,154 · Page 1 of 58

...
24
Section 14724
Exemption16

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 20/PUN/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Dec 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

40%. These situations warrant an adjustment. It is obvious that none of the three clauses of Explanation (a), defining an incorrect claim apparent from any information in the return, gets magnetized to the facts of the present case. 10. Now we turn to clause (iv) of section 143(1)(a) which provides for `disallowance

SARIKA VIKRAM WARPE,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD 7(3), , PUNE

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 54/PUN/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Dec 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

40%. These situations warrant an adjustment. It is obvious that none of the three clauses of Explanation (a), defining an incorrect claim apparent from any information in the return, gets magnetized to the facts of the present case. 10. Now we turn to clause (iv) of section 143(1)(a) which provides for `disallowance

SIXSIGMA MEDICARE AND RESEARCH LTD.,NASHIK vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX, CPC,, BENGALURU

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 322/PUN/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Dec 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

40%. These situations warrant an adjustment. It is obvious that none of the three clauses of Explanation (a), defining an incorrect claim apparent from any information in the return, gets magnetized to the facts of the present case. 10. Now we turn to clause (iv) of section 143(1)(a) which provides for `disallowance

SUBHASH SAKHARAM MORE,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE /DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CPC), BENGALURU, BENGALURU

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 386/PUN/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Dec 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

40%. These situations warrant an adjustment. It is obvious that none of the three clauses of Explanation (a), defining an incorrect claim apparent from any information in the return, gets magnetized to the facts of the present case. 10. Now we turn to clause (iv) of section 143(1)(a) which provides for `disallowance

WONDER CARS P LTD,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 55/PUN/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Dec 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

40%. These situations warrant an adjustment. It is obvious that none of the three clauses of Explanation (a), defining an incorrect claim apparent from any information in the return, gets magnetized to the facts of the present case. 10. Now we turn to clause (iv) of section 143(1)(a) which provides for `disallowance

RAJDEEP INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS P LTD,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 294/PUN/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Dec 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

40%. These situations warrant an adjustment. It is obvious that none of the three clauses of Explanation (a), defining an incorrect claim apparent from any information in the return, gets magnetized to the facts of the present case. 10. Now we turn to clause (iv) of section 143(1)(a) which provides for `disallowance

SWARAJ EXCELLENT MANPOWER FACILITIES P LTD,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE, 10, PUNE

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 89/PUN/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Dec 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

40%. These situations warrant an adjustment. It is obvious that none of the three clauses of Explanation (a), defining an incorrect claim apparent from any information in the return, gets magnetized to the facts of the present case. 10. Now we turn to clause (iv) of section 143(1)(a) which provides for `disallowance

SWARAJ EXCELLENT MANPOWER FACILITIES P LTD,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE, 10, PUNE

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 88/PUN/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Dec 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

40%. These situations warrant an adjustment. It is obvious that none of the three clauses of Explanation (a), defining an incorrect claim apparent from any information in the return, gets magnetized to the facts of the present case. 10. Now we turn to clause (iv) of section 143(1)(a) which provides for `disallowance

RAJDEEP INFO TECHNO P LTD,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX, CPC, , BANGALORE

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 268/PUN/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Dec 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

40%. These situations warrant an adjustment. It is obvious that none of the three clauses of Explanation (a), defining an incorrect claim apparent from any information in the return, gets magnetized to the facts of the present case. 10. Now we turn to clause (iv) of section 143(1)(a) which provides for `disallowance

M/S. THAKKER DEVELOPERS PVT.LTD,,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 179/PUN/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

40%. These situations warrant an adjustment. It is obvious that none of the three clauses of Explanation (a), defining an incorrect claim apparent from any information in the return, gets magnetized to the facts of the present case. 10. Now we turn to clause (iv) of section 143(1)(a) which provides for `disallowance

THE RESIDENCY CLUB,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2, , KOLHAPUR

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 137/PUN/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Dec 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

40%. These situations warrant an adjustment. It is obvious that none of the three clauses of Explanation (a), defining an incorrect claim apparent from any information in the return, gets magnetized to the facts of the present case. 10. Now we turn to clause (iv) of section 143(1)(a) which provides for `disallowance

V D M-POWER P LTD,AURANGABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1,, AURANGABAD

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 105/PUN/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Dec 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

40%. These situations warrant an adjustment. It is obvious that none of the three clauses of Explanation (a), defining an incorrect claim apparent from any information in the return, gets magnetized to the facts of the present case. 10. Now we turn to clause (iv) of section 143(1)(a) which provides for `disallowance

VARAD CROP SCIENCE PRIVATE LIMITED,JALNA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC,, BENGALURU

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 155/PUN/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Dec 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

40%. These situations warrant an adjustment. It is obvious that none of the three clauses of Explanation (a), defining an incorrect claim apparent from any information in the return, gets magnetized to the facts of the present case. 10. Now we turn to clause (iv) of section 143(1)(a) which provides for `disallowance

SAPRE AUTO ANCILLARIES,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE -1, KOLHAPUR

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 281/PUN/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Dec 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

40%. These situations warrant an adjustment. It is obvious that none of the three clauses of Explanation (a), defining an incorrect claim apparent from any information in the return, gets magnetized to the facts of the present case. 10. Now we turn to clause (iv) of section 143(1)(a) which provides for `disallowance

YASHWANT FORGINGS P LTD,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 104/PUN/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Dec 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

40%. These situations warrant an adjustment. It is obvious that none of the three clauses of Explanation (a), defining an incorrect claim apparent from any information in the return, gets magnetized to the facts of the present case. 10. Now we turn to clause (iv) of section 143(1)(a) which provides for `disallowance

SEEMA SANTOSH GHONE,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC,, BENGALURU

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 115/PUN/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Dec 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

40%. These situations warrant an adjustment. It is obvious that none of the three clauses of Explanation (a), defining an incorrect claim apparent from any information in the return, gets magnetized to the facts of the present case. 10. Now we turn to clause (iv) of section 143(1)(a) which provides for `disallowance

SEEMA SANTOSH GHONE,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC,, BENGALURU

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 116/PUN/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Dec 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

40%. These situations warrant an adjustment. It is obvious that none of the three clauses of Explanation (a), defining an incorrect claim apparent from any information in the return, gets magnetized to the facts of the present case. 10. Now we turn to clause (iv) of section 143(1)(a) which provides for `disallowance

VARAD CROP SCIENCE PRIVATE LIMITED,JALNA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC,, BENGALURU

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 154/PUN/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Dec 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

40%. These situations warrant an adjustment. It is obvious that none of the three clauses of Explanation (a), defining an incorrect claim apparent from any information in the return, gets magnetized to the facts of the present case. 10. Now we turn to clause (iv) of section 143(1)(a) which provides for `disallowance

SATISH MADHAORAO YEOLE,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(4), , PUNE

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 107/PUN/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Dec 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

40%. These situations warrant an adjustment. It is obvious that none of the three clauses of Explanation (a), defining an incorrect claim apparent from any information in the return, gets magnetized to the facts of the present case. 10. Now we turn to clause (iv) of section 143(1)(a) which provides for `disallowance