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.

3,755 results for “disallowance”+ Section 5(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai21,933Delhi16,346Chennai6,455Kolkata6,075Bangalore5,757Ahmedabad4,503Pune3,755Hyderabad2,595Jaipur2,245Chandigarh1,491Surat1,436Cochin1,384Indore1,254Visakhapatnam891Raipur752Karnataka746Cuttack736Rajkot701Amritsar621Nagpur581Lucknow494Panaji306Jodhpur296Agra278Ranchi248Guwahati242Telangana194Patna189Dehradun159Allahabad143SC138Jabalpur138Calcutta131Kerala69Varanasi59Punjab & Haryana40Orissa14Rajasthan11Himachal Pradesh8A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN7Gauhati2Andhra Pradesh2Uttarakhand2Bombay1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1RANJAN GOGOI PRAFULLA C. PANT1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1ANIL R. DAVE AMITAVA ROY L. NAGESWARA RAO1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1Tripura1D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1J&K1

Key Topics

Section 14A72Section 80P(2)(d)65Disallowance65Section 143(3)64Addition to Income57Section 143(1)51Section 80P(2)(a)47Deduction47Section 80P44Section 11

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

5. Adverting to the facts of the case, it is seen that the assessee claimed the deduction for the employees’ share for depositing the same in the relevant funds beyond the due date as given in Explanation 1 to section 36(1)(va) on the strength of section 43B. The latter section opens with a non-obstante clause and provides

INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION PUNE BRANCH,SHUKRAWAR PETH vs. DCIT EXEMPTION CIRCLE, PUNE, SWARGATE

Showing 1–20 of 3,755 · Page 1 of 188

...
30
Section 25025
Exemption19

In the result, all the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 762/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250

5), same should be treated as due compliance with clause (ba) in sub-section (1) of section 12A and thus, the assessee was entitled for exemption under section 11 of the Act. 7. So far as denial of exemption u/s 11 on account of belated filing of audit report in Form 10B is concerned, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee

INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION PUNE BRANCH,SHUKRAWAR PETH vs. DCIT EXEMPTION CIRCLE, PUNE, SWARGATE

In the result, all the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 765/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250

5), same should be treated as due compliance with clause (ba) in sub-section (1) of section 12A and thus, the assessee was entitled for exemption under section 11 of the Act. 7. So far as denial of exemption u/s 11 on account of belated filing of audit report in Form 10B is concerned, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee

INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION PUNE BRANCH,SHUKRAWAR PETH vs. DCIT EXEMPTION CIRCLE, PUNE, SWARGATE

In the result, all the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 766/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250

5), same should be treated as due compliance with clause (ba) in sub-section (1) of section 12A and thus, the assessee was entitled for exemption under section 11 of the Act. 7. So far as denial of exemption u/s 11 on account of belated filing of audit report in Form 10B is concerned, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee

INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION PUNE BRANCH,SHUKRAWAR PETH vs. DCIT EXEMPTION CIRCLE PUNE, SWARGATE

In the result, all the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 761/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250

5), same should be treated as due compliance with clause (ba) in sub-section (1) of section 12A and thus, the assessee was entitled for exemption under section 11 of the Act. 7. So far as denial of exemption u/s 11 on account of belated filing of audit report in Form 10B is concerned, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee

INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION PUNE BRANCH,SHUKRAWAR PETH vs. DCIT EXEMPTION CIRCLE, PUNE, SWARGATE

In the result, all the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 763/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250

5), same should be treated as due compliance with clause (ba) in sub-section (1) of section 12A and thus, the assessee was entitled for exemption under section 11 of the Act. 7. So far as denial of exemption u/s 11 on account of belated filing of audit report in Form 10B is concerned, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. M/S. SECO TOOLS INDIA PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the Cross Objections of assessee are allowed and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 813/PUN/2017[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Aug 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.812 & 813/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2002-03 & 2003-04

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(iii)

disallowed as non business expenditure. This was the reason recorded against escapement of assessment within meaning of clause (b) of section 147 of the Act by the Assessing Officer. 8. The issue which arises is whether the exercise of jurisdiction by Assessing Officer under section 147 of the Act in such facts is valid or not. The basis for recording

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

5. Adverting to the facts of the case, it is seen that the assessee claimed the deduction for the employees’ share for depositing the same in the relevant funds beyond the due date as given in Explanation 1 to section 36(1)(va) on the strength of section 43B. The latter section opens with a non-obstante clause and provides

SR FIBREGLASS AUTO PRIVATE LIMITED,NASHIK vs. ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 193/PUN/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Dec 2022AY 2019-20

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

5. Adverting to the facts of the case, it is seen that the assessee claimed the deduction for the employees’ share for depositing the same in the relevant funds beyond the due date as given in Explanation 1 to section 36(1)(va) on the strength of section 43B. The latter section opens with a non-obstante clause and provides

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

5. Adverting to the facts of the case, it is seen that the assessee claimed the deduction for the employees’ share for depositing the same in the relevant funds beyond the due date as given in Explanation 1 to section 36(1)(va) on the strength of section 43B. The latter section opens with a non-obstante clause and provides

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

5. Adverting to the facts of the case, it is seen that the assessee claimed the deduction for the employees’ share for depositing the same in the relevant funds beyond the due date as given in Explanation 1 to section 36(1)(va) on the strength of section 43B. The latter section opens with a non-obstante clause and provides

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

5. Adverting to the facts of the case, it is seen that the assessee claimed the deduction for the employees’ share for depositing the same in the relevant funds beyond the due date as given in Explanation 1 to section 36(1)(va) on the strength of section 43B. The latter section opens with a non-obstante clause and provides

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

5. Adverting to the facts of the case, it is seen that the assessee claimed the deduction for the employees’ share for depositing the same in the relevant funds beyond the due date as given in Explanation 1 to section 36(1)(va) on the strength of section 43B. The latter section opens with a non-obstante clause and provides

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

5. Adverting to the facts of the case, it is seen that the assessee claimed the deduction for the employees’ share for depositing the same in the relevant funds beyond the due date as given in Explanation 1 to section 36(1)(va) on the strength of section 43B. The latter section opens with a non-obstante clause and provides

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

5. Adverting to the facts of the case, it is seen that the assessee claimed the deduction for the employees’ share for depositing the same in the relevant funds beyond the due date as given in Explanation 1 to section 36(1)(va) on the strength of section 43B. The latter section opens with a non-obstante clause and provides

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

5. Adverting to the facts of the case, it is seen that the assessee claimed the deduction for the employees’ share for depositing the same in the relevant funds beyond the due date as given in Explanation 1 to section 36(1)(va) on the strength of section 43B. The latter section opens with a non-obstante clause and provides

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

5. Adverting to the facts of the case, it is seen that the assessee claimed the deduction for the employees’ share for depositing the same in the relevant funds beyond the due date as given in Explanation 1 to section 36(1)(va) on the strength of section 43B. The latter section opens with a non-obstante clause and provides

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

5. Adverting to the facts of the case, it is seen that the assessee claimed the deduction for the employees’ share for depositing the same in the relevant funds beyond the due date as given in Explanation 1 to section 36(1)(va) on the strength of section 43B. The latter section opens with a non-obstante clause and provides

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

5. Adverting to the facts of the case, it is seen that the assessee claimed the deduction for the employees’ share for depositing the same in the relevant funds beyond the due date as given in Explanation 1 to section 36(1)(va) on the strength of section 43B. The latter section opens with a non-obstante clause and provides

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

5. Adverting to the facts of the case, it is seen that the assessee claimed the deduction for the employees’ share for depositing the same in the relevant funds beyond the due date as given in Explanation 1 to section 36(1)(va) on the strength of section 43B. The latter section opens with a non-obstante clause and provides