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.

84 results for “disallowance”+ Section 46Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi871Mumbai707Kolkata244Chennai224Ahmedabad173Hyderabad138Bangalore123Jaipur85Pune84Amritsar73Chandigarh59Indore56Raipur56Visakhapatnam54Surat48Cuttack43Rajkot37Lucknow29Guwahati28Allahabad24Agra21Nagpur19Panaji10Patna9Jodhpur9Dehradun8Cochin8Varanasi5Telangana4Jabalpur3Ranchi3Karnataka3SC1Calcutta1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Addition to Income75Section 143(3)58Disallowance46Deduction43Section 80I41Section 5731Section 14825Section 143(2)25Section 4023Section 68

ADIENT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 14,, PUNE

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 512/PUN/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 May 2022AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti SatheFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 40A(2)(a)Section 40A(2)(b)

disallowance under section 40A(2)(b) afresh - Held, yes" The appellant in this case has not brought any material on record to prove that payments made to TACO is not excessive or unreasonable. Under these circumstances, invocation of section 40A(2)(b) is correct. 5.9 The appellant has also submitted that without prejudice to above grounds the learned

Showing 1–20 of 84 · Page 1 of 5

22
Section 15420
Survey u/s 133A11

ADIENT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 14,, PUNE

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 1507/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 May 2022AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti SatheFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 40A(2)(a)Section 40A(2)(b)

disallowance under section 40A(2)(b) afresh - Held, yes" The appellant in this case has not brought any material on record to prove that payments made to TACO is not excessive or unreasonable. Under these circumstances, invocation of section 40A(2)(b) is correct. 5.9 The appellant has also submitted that without prejudice to above grounds the learned

ADIENT INDIA PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -7,, PUNE

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 1506/PUN/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 May 2022AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti SatheFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 40A(2)(a)Section 40A(2)(b)

disallowance under section 40A(2)(b) afresh - Held, yes" The appellant in this case has not brought any material on record to prove that payments made to TACO is not excessive or unreasonable. Under these circumstances, invocation of section 40A(2)(b) is correct. 5.9 The appellant has also submitted that without prejudice to above grounds the learned

SHIVAJI RAMDAS SAKHARE,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(4), PUNE

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 1567/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1567/Pun/2017 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shivaji Ramdas Sakhare, Survey No.87/1/1(P), Sakhare Wasti, Hinjewadi, Mulshi, Pune- 412 106. .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan : Awnps8232K बनधम / V/S. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ito, 2(4), Pune Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri S. P. Walimbe

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe
Section 143(3)Section 54F

Section 54F deducting disallowance of Rs. 93,05,492/- as follows. “4. The only issue raised in the sole ground of appeal is against disallowance of deduction claimed by the appellant u/s. 54F of the Act. Facts in this regard are that the appellant during the year sold an immovable property co-owned by him. His share in the sale

ACIT, CIRCLE-1, NASHIK, NASHIK vs. TAPARIA TOOLS LIMITED, NASHIK

In the result, both the appeal of the Revenue as well as Cross Objection of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as per the terms indicated above

ITA 1337/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1337/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Amit BobdeFor Respondent: Shri Viral Shah
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 37(1)

section 250 and Rule 46A. In view of the above it is prayed that the above submissions may kindly be taken on record and the order of the Ld.CIT(A) be quashed and disallowance

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI MAHESH BHAGWAT CHAUDHARY,, JALGAON

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 630/PUN/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Jan 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.629 To 634/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07 To 2011-12 वष"

For Appellant: Shri T. Vijaya B. ReddyFor Respondent: Shri Devendra Kulkarni
Section 143(3)

Disallowance of interest expenditure' to the extent of Rs.1,60,560/- by admitting additional evidence under rule 46A of I.T. Rules, though the entire interest was not substantiated by the assessee during assessment proceedings, despite being given opportunity? 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.52

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI MAHESH BHAGWAT CHAUDHARY,, JALGAON

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 631/PUN/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.629 To 634/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07 To 2011-12 वष"

For Appellant: Shri T. Vijaya B. ReddyFor Respondent: Shri Devendra Kulkarni
Section 143(3)

Disallowance of interest expenditure' to the extent of Rs.1,60,560/- by admitting additional evidence under rule 46A of I.T. Rules, though the entire interest was not substantiated by the assessee during assessment proceedings, despite being given opportunity? 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.52

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI MAHESH BHAGWAT CHAUDHARY,, JALGAON

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 629/PUN/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Jan 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.629 To 634/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07 To 2011-12 वष"

For Appellant: Shri T. Vijaya B. ReddyFor Respondent: Shri Devendra Kulkarni
Section 143(3)

Disallowance of interest expenditure' to the extent of Rs.1,60,560/- by admitting additional evidence under rule 46A of I.T. Rules, though the entire interest was not substantiated by the assessee during assessment proceedings, despite being given opportunity? 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.52

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI MAHESH BHAGWAT CHAUDHARY,, JALGAON

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 633/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.629 To 634/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07 To 2011-12 वष"

For Appellant: Shri T. Vijaya B. ReddyFor Respondent: Shri Devendra Kulkarni
Section 143(3)

Disallowance of interest expenditure' to the extent of Rs.1,60,560/- by admitting additional evidence under rule 46A of I.T. Rules, though the entire interest was not substantiated by the assessee during assessment proceedings, despite being given opportunity? 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.52

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI MAHESH BHAGWAT CHAUDHARY,, JALGAON

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 632/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.629 To 634/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07 To 2011-12 वष"

For Appellant: Shri T. Vijaya B. ReddyFor Respondent: Shri Devendra Kulkarni
Section 143(3)

Disallowance of interest expenditure' to the extent of Rs.1,60,560/- by admitting additional evidence under rule 46A of I.T. Rules, though the entire interest was not substantiated by the assessee during assessment proceedings, despite being given opportunity? 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.52

MAHAVIR ADINATH SALVE,,SOLAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1 (1),, SOLAPUR

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 441/PUN/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.441/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Shri Mahavir Adinath Salve, The Ito, Ward-1(1), Solapur. House No.930, Nagane Plot Vs Paranda Road, Barshi, . Solapur – 413411. Pan: Arxps 5761 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri V L Jain – Ar Revenue By Shri S P Walimbe – Dr Date Of Hearing 11/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29/08/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2008-09 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-7, Pune’S Order Dated 15.11.2018 Passed In Appeal No.Pn/Cit(A)-7/Cir- 1/0804/2016-17, In Proceedings U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 40

disallowance of Rs. 44,76,025/- u/s. 40(a)(ia) on the ground that the appellant had not deducted the tax at source on payments made to sub contractors. On appeal the ClT(A)-Hl vide order 01.11.2013 confirmed the addition.- The CIT(A)-III did not uphold the contention that the section 40(a)(la) is applicable only

MULAY CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 1011/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi"नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Mulay Construction Private Limited, Vs. Acit, Ist Floor, Tapadiya Teraces, Central Circle-1, Adalat Road, Aurangabad – 431 001 Aurangabad Pan : Aadcm1853B Appellant Respondent

Section 14A

section 14A of the Act. No proposition for not making disallowance at 0.5% of the average value of investments, which is otherwise in accordance with rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules, has been laid 4 down in the case. We, therefore, uphold the impugned order on this score. 5. The only other ground raised in this appeal is against

PAWANKUMAR JYOTIPRASAD AGARWAL,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1016/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri C.H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Garg
Section 40

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. While making disallowance, the AO relied on the judgments of Hon’ble Calcutta and Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Crescent Exports Syndicate 33 taxman.com 259 (Calcutta) and CIT Vs. Sikandar Khan N. Tunwar 33 taxman.com 133 (Gujarat) 4. Before the First Appellate proceedings, the assessee furnished certificates in Form

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE vs. INDUS BIOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 863/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri S.S. Godara"नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Dcit, Vs. Indus Biotech Pvt. Ltd. Circle-1(1), 1, Rahul Residency, Pune Plot Nos.6 & 7, Off Salunke Vihar Road, Kondhwa, Kondhwa Bk B.O., Pune – 411048 Maharashtra Pan: Aaaci5708E Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 41(1)

disallow the deduction under Section 41(1) of the Act to establish that the liability of the respondent-assessee towards such creditors has ceased in law or so has been remitted by the creditors finally". 8.1 There is no evidence that the liability has ceased to exist and that too in the year under appeal. The very fact these amounts

GAJANAN AGROFEEDS P LTD,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIR-1 (2),, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 298/PUN/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.298/Pun/2021 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Gajanan Agrofeeds Pvt. Ltd., The Dcit, Cir-1(2), Pune. 3, Sushila Complex, Station Vs Road, Baramati, Pune – 413102. Pan: Aaccg 3651 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod S Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 13/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Pune Dated 17.01.2020For The Assessment Year 2014-15 Arising Out Of The Order Of The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances In The Case & In Law The Lower Authorities Erred In Rejecting The Additional Evidences Filled Under Section 46A Of The Income Tax Rules, 1961 Without Realizing The Fact That Such Additional Evidences Ought To Have Been Admitted As It Goes To The Root Cause Of Issue & Therefore, Prayer Is Made For Admission Of Additional Evidences. 2. On The Facts & The Circumstances In The Case & In Law The Lower Authorities Erred In Making Addition Of Rs.86,09,000/- Being Unsecured Loans From Sister Concern By Invoking Provisions Of Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, By Rejecting The Submissions Made In This Regard & Also Additional Evidences Submitted.

Section 143(3)Section 46ASection 68

46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1961 without realizing the fact that such additional evidences ought to have been admitted as it goes to the root cause of issue and therefore, prayer is made for admission of additional evidences. 2. On the facts and the circumstances in the case and in law the lower authorities erred in making addition

ROASHAN VISHNU PATHARE, L/H OF VISHNU TUKARAM PATHARE,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 4(4),, PUNE

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 221/PUN/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.221/Pun/2018 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri M.G.Jasnani
Section 143(3)Section 54FSection 68

section 54F deduction claim of Rs.60,18,750/- in the course of assessment dated 31.03.2015 as upheld in the CIT(A)’s order, it emerges during the course of hearing on perusal of not only assessment discussions but also from the learned CIT(A)’s findings that he has fails to prove that he has reinvested the corresponding capital gain

ADHITA REALTY PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 1587/PUN/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.1587/Pun/2015 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 वष"

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jha, JCIT-DR
Section 36(1)(iii)

disallowance of interest of Rs.1,55,65,609/- u/s.36(1)(iii) on the ground that the loan on which the interest was paid was utilized for non business purposes.” 2 Adhita Reality Pvt. Ltd., 3. Briefly stated relevant facts are that the assessee entered into an MOU with Vishwaroop Infotech Pvt. Ltd. dated 16-09-2010 for purchase of land

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD HINGOLI, WARD HINGOLI (CAMP AT PARBHANI) vs. VISHWAS AGRO PRODUCT PVT LTD, PARBHANI

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

ITA 1566/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 May 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Govind PrasadFor Respondent: Shri Milind Debaje – JCIT (Virtual)
Section 143(2)

disallowance can be made and hence this ground of appeal is accordingly allowed.” 15. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A), NFAC failed to appreciate the facts

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -7, , PUNE vs. TATA TOYO RADIATOR LIMITED,, PUNE

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 748/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

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

Section 143(3)Section 80I

disallowance of Rs.95,42,611/- wherein the very co-ordinate bench has rejected the its arguments as follows: “11. With reference to Ground No.2 of the revenue, the Ld.DR submitted a written submission. Submission of the Ld.DR is reproduced here as under : Quote “ 2.0 During the year under consideration which is the first year for the Pantnagar Plant the appellant

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (OSD),CIRCLE-7,, PUNE vs. M/S. TATA TOYO RADIATORS LTD,, PUNE

Accordingly, the Ground No.2 of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 11/PUN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

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

Section 143(3)Section 80I

disallowance of Rs.3,35,63,000/-, Rs.3,46,75,698/- and Rs.3,18,45,399/-; assessment year wise, respectively, wherein the very ld.Co-ordinate Bench has rejected the Revenue’s arguments as follows: “11. With reference to Ground No.2 of the revenue, the Ld.DR submitted a written submission. Submission of the Ld.DR is reproduced here as under : Quote “ 2.0 During