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.

38 results for “disallowance”+ Section 801Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai237Delhi171Hyderabad113Ahmedabad107Kolkata64Chennai50Pune38Bangalore37Indore22Jaipur20Chandigarh18Visakhapatnam15Rajkot13Nagpur12Surat10Patna10Raipur8Dehradun7Cuttack7Jodhpur6Lucknow5Guwahati4Cochin4Amritsar2Calcutta1Karnataka1Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 80I88Section 10A44Deduction34Section 143(1)33Section 69B30Section 801A27Section 3526Addition to Income24Section 143(3)21Disallowance

KOTHARI AGRITECH PRIVATE LIMITED,SOLAPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1, SOLAPUR

In the result, the both appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2392/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 80Section 801ASection 80ISection 80J

Showing 1–20 of 38 · Page 1 of 2

21
Section 14A15
Survey u/s 133A8

section 143(3) order, by observing as under : “Ground 03: In this ground of appeal the appellant objected the addition made by the Assessing Officer (CPC) is Rs. 5,80,64,205/- towards disallowance of 801A

KOTHARI AGRITECH PVT. LTD,,SOLAPUR vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1, SOLAPUR

In the result, the both appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2455/PUN/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Sept 2025AY 2018-2019

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

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 80Section 801ASection 80ISection 80J

section 143(3) order, by observing as under : “Ground 03: In this ground of appeal the appellant objected the addition made by the Assessing Officer (CPC) is Rs. 5,80,64,205/- towards disallowance of 801A

CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LTD., (FORMERLY IGATE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD.,),PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed and appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 74/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.74/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Capgemini Technology Services India Ltd., (In The Matter Of Erstwhile Igate Computer Systems Ltd. Formerly Known As Patni Computer Systems Ltd. & Since Amalgamated With Igate Global Solutions Ltd. & Now Name Changed To Capgemini Technology Services India Ltd.) Plot No.14, Rajiv Gandhi Infotech Park, Hinjewadi, Phase-Iii, Midc-Sez, Village Man, Taluka Mulshi, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Hinjewadi, Pune – 411057 …. Pan:Aabcp6219N Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 11, Pune आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.299/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri C.H. Naniwadekar
Section 10ASection 10A(2)Section 143(3)Section 234C

801A(10) when in fact the assessee has earned substantial excessive profits as discussed in Assessment Order. 5. The DRP has erred in directing the Assessing Officer to delete disallowance u/s FBT paid in Australia not treating it as income tax. 6. The Hon'ble DRP erred in allowing assessee's claim u/s 40a(i) in respect of disallowance made

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. M/S. IGATE COMPUTER SYSTEM LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed and appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 299/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.74/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Capgemini Technology Services India Ltd., (In The Matter Of Erstwhile Igate Computer Systems Ltd. Formerly Known As Patni Computer Systems Ltd. & Since Amalgamated With Igate Global Solutions Ltd. & Now Name Changed To Capgemini Technology Services India Ltd.) Plot No.14, Rajiv Gandhi Infotech Park, Hinjewadi, Phase-Iii, Midc-Sez, Village Man, Taluka Mulshi, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Hinjewadi, Pune – 411057 …. Pan:Aabcp6219N Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 11, Pune आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.299/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri C.H. Naniwadekar
Section 10ASection 10A(2)Section 143(3)Section 234C

801A(10) when in fact the assessee has earned substantial excessive profits as discussed in Assessment Order. 5. The DRP has erred in directing the Assessing Officer to delete disallowance u/s FBT paid in Australia not treating it as income tax. 6. The Hon'ble DRP erred in allowing assessee's claim u/s 40a(i) in respect of disallowance made

M/S GIRIRAJ ENTERPRISES,PUNE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 427/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 10(35)Section 132Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

801A(4) on similar facts and no disallowance was made. 31. The above discussion suggests that Hon'ble Courts as well as Hon'ble Tribunal on various occasions have held that each unit should be considered as separate undertaking eligible for deduction u/s 80IA and the deduction should be computed independently for each unit and not on consolidated basis

DESAI INFRA PROJECTS (I) PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. CIT(A), PUNE-11, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands

ITA 1852/PUN/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Dec 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 143(1)Section 288Section 44ASection 801ASection 801A(7)Section 80I

disallowing the claim of deduction u/s 801A(4)(i) on account of delay in filing 10CCB in the intimation order passed u/s. 143(1) and the situation was covered by explanation (a)(ii) to section

SHAH CONSTRUCTIO,SATARA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-SATARA, SATARA

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

ITA 617/PUN/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 Apr 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.617/Pun/2024 धििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2022-23 Shah Construction, Vs Acit, Satara Parag, 286 2, Circle, Satara Budhwar Peth, Tal Karad, Dist Satara- 415110 Maharashtra Pan-Aaffs0461E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri A.D. Kulkarni
Section 119Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 156Section 250(6)Section 801Section 801ASection 80ASection 80I

section 801A be deleted. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law there is only a short delay of fifteen days in submitting the Return of Income along with Form 10CCB for good and valid reasons. There was no cause to disallow

ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE -4 , PUNE vs. M/S PERSISTENT SYSTEMS LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 497/PUN/2020[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jun 2021AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 497, 498 & 499/Pun/2020 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-4, Pune. .......अपीलाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri R.D. OnkarFor Respondent: Shri Mahadevan A M Krishnan &
Section 10ASection 14ASection 35

section 14A of the Act lays down the mechanism for determining such amount of expenditure incurred in relation to exempt income in accordance with method as prescribed under Rule 8D of I T. Rules, 1962. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in deleting the disallowance u/s.10AA(9) r.w.s. 801A

ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE -1 , PUNE vs. M/S PERSISTENT SYSTEMS LIMITED , PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 499/PUN/2020[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jun 2021AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 497, 498 & 499/Pun/2020 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-4, Pune. .......अपीलाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri R.D. OnkarFor Respondent: Shri Mahadevan A M Krishnan &
Section 10ASection 14ASection 35

section 14A of the Act lays down the mechanism for determining such amount of expenditure incurred in relation to exempt income in accordance with method as prescribed under Rule 8D of I T. Rules, 1962. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in deleting the disallowance u/s.10AA(9) r.w.s. 801A

ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE -1, PUNE vs. M/S PERSISTENT SYSTEMS LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 498/PUN/2020[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jun 2021AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 497, 498 & 499/Pun/2020 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-4, Pune. .......अपीलाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri R.D. OnkarFor Respondent: Shri Mahadevan A M Krishnan &
Section 10ASection 14ASection 35

section 14A of the Act lays down the mechanism for determining such amount of expenditure incurred in relation to exempt income in accordance with method as prescribed under Rule 8D of I T. Rules, 1962. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in deleting the disallowance u/s.10AA(9) r.w.s. 801A

DCIT CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, SWARGATE vs. ENTRATA INDIA PVT. LTD, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 66/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.133/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Entrata India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. International Tech Park, Block-1, Wing-A, 14Th Floor, Kharadi, Pune- 411014. Pan : Aaacw7089A Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.66/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vs. Entrata India Pvt. Ltd., International Tech Park, Block-1, Wing-A, 14Th Floor, Kharadi, Pune- 411014. Pan : Aaacw7089A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kishor B. Phadke Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing 14.11.2024 : Date Of Pronouncement : 24.12.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Dated 24.11.2023 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-13, Pune [‘Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.133/Pun/2024 For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 32

section 801A(10) of the Act is a “domestic transfer pricing” provision and proving tax avoidance is not one of the pre-condition for invoking transfer pricing provisions. v. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in concluding that net profit percentage of the assessee could

ENTRATA INDIA PVT. LTD. ,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 133/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.133/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Entrata India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. International Tech Park, Block-1, Wing-A, 14Th Floor, Kharadi, Pune- 411014. Pan : Aaacw7089A Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.66/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vs. Entrata India Pvt. Ltd., International Tech Park, Block-1, Wing-A, 14Th Floor, Kharadi, Pune- 411014. Pan : Aaacw7089A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kishor B. Phadke Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing 14.11.2024 : Date Of Pronouncement : 24.12.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Dated 24.11.2023 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-13, Pune [‘Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.133/Pun/2024 For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 32

section 801A(10) of the Act is a “domestic transfer pricing” provision and proving tax avoidance is not one of the pre-condition for invoking transfer pricing provisions. v. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in concluding that net profit percentage of the assessee could

SHANKARLAL KUNDANMAL PARIK,KOLHAPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

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

ITA 400/PUN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Respondent: Shri Milind Debaje
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80Section 801ASection 80I

disallow the appellant's claim for deduction under Section 801A of the Act, when processing the return under Section 143(1) of the Act.” 5. It is this

VIJAY DEVICHAND NIBJIYA,PUNE vs. DCIT CIRCLE (5), PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is Partly Allowed

ITA 634/PUN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.634/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23 Vijay Devichand Nibjiya, V The Dcit, Office No.304/305/306, S. Circle-(5)/A.O. D Wing, 3Rd Floor, Business Centralised Processing Court, Mukundnagar, Pune – Centre. 411037. Maharashtra. Pan: Aanpn8491R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Nikhil S Pathak – Ar Revenue By Shri Akhilesh Srivastva – Dr Date Of Hearing 19/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/07/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Add./Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)-6, Delhi Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, For The A.Y.2022-23 Dated 13.02.2025. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 801ASection 801A(4)(iv)Section 801A(7)Section 80I

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the A.Y.2022-23 dated 13.02.2025. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : ITA No.634/PUN/2025 [A] “11 The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of deduction of Rs.1,55,63,901/- u/s 801A

M/S. HONEYWELL AUTOMATION INDIA LIMITED,,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-7, PUNE

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

ITA 359/PUN/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 Nov 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 359/Pun/2013 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Kamal Sawhney & Ms. Rhea AmarFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 10A(7)Section 801ASection 80I

801A were invoked and the deduction was restricted to the aggregate margins earned by the comparable entities.' 6. The above contentions of the AO were confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) during the proceedings for AY 2007-08 wherein it was held that the key factors required for the AO to invoke its powers u/s.10A r.w s. 80IA are 'close

M/S. M.B.PATIL CONSTRUCTIONS LTD,,AURANGABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1,, AURANGABAD

In the result, the cross appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2058/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Kalrav MehrotraFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari &
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 40A(3)Section 68Section 801ASection 80I

disallowance of assessee's claim of a deduction of Rs.2,73,36,424/- under section 801A of the I.T. Act, 1961, made

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1,, AURANGABAD vs. M/S. M.B. PATIL CONSTRUCTION LTD,, AURANGABAD

In the result, the cross appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2078/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Kalrav MehrotraFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari &
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 40A(3)Section 68Section 801ASection 80I

disallowance of assessee's claim of a deduction of Rs.2,73,36,424/- under section 801A of the I.T. Act, 1961, made

DCIT CIRCLE-1, NASHIK vs. JYOTI PAPER UDYOG LIMITED, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 552/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Oct 2025AY 2013-14
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40(2)(a)Section 92Section 92BSection 92B(1)

801A, 801B etc. Thus, it is observed that the payments made by the appellant to the four related parties u/s 40A(2), exceeding Rs.5 crore fell within the scope of Specified Domestic Transactions (SDT\") as defined under clause (i) of section 92BA as existing on the Statute Books during/for the relevant period. The transactions entered with the related parties

ASST. CIT, CIRCLE-6, PUNE vs. SAKAL PAPERS LIMITED,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 926/PUN/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Dec 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ashok KotharyFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das
Section 80I

disallowance of claim of Rs.44,95,264/- under section 80IA of the Act. 12. At the time of hearing, Ld. AR of the Assessee appraised the Bench that the issue is squarely covered by the assessee’s own case in ITA No.937/PUN/2008 for the assessment year 2005-06. A.Y.2006-07 13. On the other hand, Ld. D.R very fairly conceded

LATE MR JAGADISH DESHPANDE THROUGH LEGAL HEIR VRISHALI DESHPANDE,PUNE vs. DY/ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE

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

ITA 1415/PUN/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Sept 2025AY 2022-2023

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripote

Section 143(1)(a)Section 159Section 250Section 801ASection 80I

801A of Rs 46,46,516 on account of the said delay may kindly be deleted. 2) Without prejudice to Ground no 01, on facts and circumstances prevailing in the case and as per the provisions of the Act, assuming without admitting that the disallowance of deduction of Rs 46,46,516 u/s 80IA of the Act is required