Search: disallowance | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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 801A(4)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai238 Delhi171 Hyderabad113 Ahmedabad107 Kolkata64 Chennai50 Pune38 Bangalore37 Indore22 Jaipur20 Chandigarh18 Visakhapatnam15 Rajkot13 Nagpur12 Surat10 Patna10 Raipur8 Dehradun7 Cuttack7 Jodhpur6 Lucknow5 Guwahati4 Cochin4 Amritsar2 Calcutta1 Karnataka1 Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 80I88 Section 10A44 Deduction34 Section 143(1)33 Section 69B30 Section 801A27 Section 3526 Addition to Income24 Section 143(3)21 Disallowance

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

Survey u/s 133A8

4 ITA Nos.2392 & 2455/PUN/2024, AY 2018-19 The deduction under sub-section (1) from profits and gains derived from an undertaking shall not be admissible unless the accounts of the undertaking for the previous year relevant to the assessment year for which the deduction is claimed have been audited by an accountant, as defined in the Explanation below sub-section

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

4 ITA Nos.2392 & 2455/PUN/2024, AY 2018-19 The deduction under sub-section (1) from profits and gains derived from an undertaking shall not be admissible unless the accounts of the undertaking for the previous year relevant to the assessment year for which the deduction is claimed have been audited by an accountant, as defined in the Explanation below sub-section

T AND T INFRA LIMITED,PUNE vs. ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-7, PUNE

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

ITA 291/PUN/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17 T & T Infra Limited Acit, Circle – 7, Pune A-1, Vishnu Vihar, Bibwewadi Vs. Kondhwa Road, Market Yard, Pune – 411037 Pan: Aaect3902H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tarun Ghia Department By : S/Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari & Sourabh Nayak Date Of Hearing : 10-07-2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 01-10-2024 O R D E R Per Astha Chandra, Jm :

For Appellant: Shri Tarun GhiaFor Respondent: S/Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari and Sourabh Nayak

Section 143(2)Section 80I

801A(4)(b)(i) of the Act. 4. The learned CIT(A) while confirming the disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA(4) made by the AO has erred in holding that appellant company failed to prove that it had fulfilled the conditions as laid down in section

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

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. PARWANI BUILDERS,, PUNE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 924/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.924/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 वष"

For Appellant: Shri V.S. RawatFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma

Section 194CSection 80I

disallowed the claim u/s. 80IA(4). While doing so he also relied on the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. B.T. Patil & Sons Belgaum Co. Pvt. Ltd. (supra). We find that the CIT(A) relying on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of ABG Heavy Industries

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

4. The DRP has erred in directing the Assessing Officer to delete disallowance u/s 10A(7) rws 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

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

4. The DRP has erred in directing the Assessing Officer to delete disallowance u/s 10A(7) rws 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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. GAUTAM B.LADKAT,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 177/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Jun 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.177/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-7, Pune. .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. Shri Gautam B. Ladkat, 36, Somwar Peth, Pune-411 011. Pan :Aafpl4838C ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sharad ShahFor Respondent: Shri Vishwas Mundhe

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80I

disallowance of deduction u/s. 8oIA(4) of the Act of Rs.1,24,68,454/- is hereby deleted. Ground no. 1 raised by the appellant is accordingly allowed.” 6. The Ld. AR of the asssessee at the time of hearing vehemently argued that the issue is squarely covered by the CBDT Circular No.1/2016 dated 15.02.2016 and specially by the ratio laid

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SAMEER B.LADKAT,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 178/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Jun 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.177/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-7, Pune. .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. Shri Gautam B. Ladkat, 36, Somwar Peth, Pune-411 011. Pan :Aafpl4838C ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sharad ShahFor Respondent: Shri Vishwas Mundhe

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80I

disallowance of deduction u/s. 8oIA(4) of the Act of Rs.1,24,68,454/- is hereby deleted. Ground no. 1 raised by the appellant is accordingly allowed.” 6. The Ld. AR of the asssessee at the time of hearing vehemently argued that the issue is squarely covered by the CBDT Circular No.1/2016 dated 15.02.2016 and specially by the ratio laid

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE vs. SHRI GAUTAM B. LADKAT,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1360/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1358/Pun/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Sharad ShahFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Garg

Section 143(3)Section 80ISection 80l

disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the Act of Rs. 1,24,68,454/- is hereby deleted. Ground No.1 raised by the Appellant is accordingly allowed. " As the facts are pari materia with the earlier year, following judicial discipline, the AO is directed to allow the deduction claimed by the Appellant u/s 80IA(4). The Appellant succeeds in this

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE vs. SHRI SAMEER B. LADKAR,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1358/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1358/Pun/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Sharad ShahFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Garg

Section 143(3)Section 80ISection 80l

disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the Act of Rs. 1,24,68,454/- is hereby deleted. Ground No.1 raised by the Appellant is accordingly allowed. " As the facts are pari materia with the earlier year, following judicial discipline, the AO is directed to allow the deduction claimed by the Appellant u/s 80IA(4). The Appellant succeeds in this

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

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

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

KUMAR URBAN DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD (SUCCESSOR KUMAR HOUSING CORPORATION PVT LTD),PUNE vs. DCIT CIRCLE 14, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the

ITA 2874/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 143(2)Section 32Section 36(1)(iii)

disallowance was made in assessment year 2007-08 as industrial park was not complete as on 31.03.2007 as the completion certificate was obtained by the assessee from local authority on 09.05.2007 and also the industrial park did not fulfill the criteria of locating minimum number of 30 industrial units. The Tribunal while deciding the appeal of assessee vide para

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(4

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

4. In coming to this conclusion the AO has primarily relied on the reasoning adopted by its predecessors for AY 2006-07 & 2007-08. This is evident from a bare reading of the final assessment order from pg. 6 onwards - (page 12 of the Appeal set). 5. In the previous assessment years, the AO had come to the conclusion that

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

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