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.

14 results for “disallowance”+ Section 801B(10)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai95Delhi36Rajkot34Indore20Pune14Jaipur8Ahmedabad7Chennai7Lucknow6Hyderabad5Nagpur4Surat3Amritsar3Cochin3Guwahati3Jodhpur3Dehradun2Ranchi2Jabalpur1Raipur1Chandigarh1Bangalore1

Key Topics

Section 80I96Deduction14Section 143(3)10Section 143(2)10Section 15410Section 143(1)7Section 2506Addition to Income6Section 801B(10)5Survey u/s 133A

VIJAY TUKARAM RAUNDAL,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1634/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Sept 2025AY 2013-14
Section 115JSection 131Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)Section 80I

801B(10)\nof the Act. We, therefore, overturn the impugned order and restore the order of the\nAO.\"\n6. After the order of the Tribunal the Assessing Officer initiated penalty\nproceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Rejecting the various explanations given by\nthe assessee, the Assessing Officer levied penalty of Rs.15,38,96,534/- being\npenalty

M/S. CITY CORPORATION LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

5
Section 1434
Disallowance4
ITA 528/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P Bora & Saukhya LakadeFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 133(1)(d)Section 143(2)Section 80I

801B (10) of Income Tax Act, 1961. Ground No 3 5. Without prejudice to above Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred on facts and in law in not allowing a pro-rata claim of section 80IB (10) with reference to the area constructed in housing project and eligible as per his opinion and interpretation of section. Ground

M/S. CITY CORPORATION LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 527/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P Bora & Saukhya LakadeFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 133(1)(d)Section 143(2)Section 80I

801B (10) of Income Tax Act, 1961. Ground No 3 5. Without prejudice to above Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred on facts and in law in not allowing a pro-rata claim of section 80IB (10) with reference to the area constructed in housing project and eligible as per his opinion and interpretation of section. Ground

SUYOJIT GARDEN,NASHIK vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2206/PUN/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2206/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Vs Ito, Ward - Suyojit Garden, F-1/2, Suyojit Height, 2(1), Nashik Opp. Rajiv Gandhi Bhavan, Sharanpur Road, Nashik-422002 Maharashtra Pan-Abdfs6680A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vishwajit Shinde
Section 10(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 801BSection 801B(10)Section 80I

10,00,000/- was disallowed as a deduction under Section 801B(10) and brought to tax as regular business income

VIJAY TUKARAM RAUNDAL,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1636/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Mihir NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT
Section 115JSection 131Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)Section 80I

801B(10) of the Act. We, therefore, overturn the impugned order and restore the order of the AO.” 6. After the order of the Tribunal the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Rejecting the various explanations given by the assessee, the Assessing Officer levied penalty of Rs.15,38,96,534/- being penalty

VIJAY TUKARAM RAUNDAL,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1635/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Mihir NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT
Section 115JSection 131Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)Section 80I

801B(10) of the Act. We, therefore, overturn the impugned order and restore the order of the AO.” 6. After the order of the Tribunal the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Rejecting the various explanations given by the assessee, the Assessing Officer levied penalty of Rs.15,38,96,534/- being penalty

VIJAY TUKARAM RAUNDAL,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1637/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri Mihir NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT
Section 115JSection 131Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)Section 80I

801B(10) of the Act. We, therefore, overturn the impugned order and restore the order of the AO.” 6. After the order of the Tribunal the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Rejecting the various explanations given by the assessee, the Assessing Officer levied penalty of Rs.15,38,96,534/- being penalty

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

801B, section 80IC, section 80ID or section 801E, unless the return of income by the assessee is furnished on or before the due date specified under Section 139(1). Exact wordings of the Act is reproduced here for ready reference: 25. For section 80AC of the Income-tax Act, the following section shall be substituted, namely:- 80AC. Deduction

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

801B, section 80IC, section 80ID or section 801E, unless the return of income by the assessee is furnished on or before the due date specified under Section 139(1). Exact wordings of the Act is reproduced here for ready reference: 25. For section 80AC of the Income-tax Act, the following section shall be substituted, namely:- 80AC. Deduction

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE vs. MS S S LANDMARKS, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 977/PUN/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.977 & 972/Pun/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2016-17 Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. S. S. Landmarks, Pune Unit U, Shakti Chamber, S.No.77-1/1A/1/3, Sangamwadi, Pune 411 003 Maharashtra Pan : Aadas1463K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri V.L. JainFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 801B(10)Section 80I

section 801B (10) of the Act the assessee should have completed the project by 31.03.2012 and should have got the completion certificate by 31.03.2012 for availing M/s. S.S. Landmarks the benefit u/s 80IB (10) of the Act. The AO stated that instead the assessee got the completion certificate only on 25.09.2012. The AO held that since the building

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), PUNE, PUNE vs. MS S S LANDMARKS, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 972/PUN/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.977 & 972/Pun/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2016-17 Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. S. S. Landmarks, Pune Unit U, Shakti Chamber, S.No.77-1/1A/1/3, Sangamwadi, Pune 411 003 Maharashtra Pan : Aadas1463K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri V.L. JainFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 801B(10)Section 80I

section 801B (10) of the Act the assessee should have completed the project by 31.03.2012 and should have got the completion certificate by 31.03.2012 for availing M/s. S.S. Landmarks the benefit u/s 80IB (10) of the Act. The AO stated that instead the assessee got the completion certificate only on 25.09.2012. The AO held that since the building

SKYLINE DEVELOPERS,PUNE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD4(50, PUNE

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

ITA 709/PUN/2023[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jan 2026AY 2006-07

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.709/Pun/2023 Assessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 80I

801B (10) deduction, the firm should offer its income in that year and claim the entire profit as exempt. 2. Turnover & Profit Claimed: Relying on this incorrect advice, a sum of Rs.11,33,00,800/- (value adopted for stamp duty as per the 21/03/2006 agreement) was accounted for as Turnover. A profit of 10 Skyline Developers

ABHISHEK BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS,PUNE vs. ACIT CIRCLE PANVEL, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 2726/PUN/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Amol khairnar
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80I

section 801B (10) of the IT Act 1961. Therefore the claim of the assessee is rejected and the income of the assessee is computed as under : Income from Business of Profession : 66513648 Gross Total income : 66513648 Total income : 66513648 11. Further, we note that ld.CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer observing as follows

EMPIRE DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 3(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 730/PUN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.730/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Empire Developers & V The Income Tax Officer, Builders, S Ward-3(1),Pune. Krishna Dham, 117+121/4B, Lane No.12, Prabhat Road, Pune – 411004. Maharashtra. Pan: Aabfe4291N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Ms.Vaishnavi Badwe – Ar Revenue By Shri Ratnakar Shelake – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 01/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 20/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] For A.Y.2011-12 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act On 23/01/2025 Emanating From The Order U/S.154 Dated 07/01/2019 Of The Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Ld. Ao Erred In Law & In Facts In Determining The Income Of The Appellant At Rs.35,01,876/-Instead Of Nil As Per The Return Of

Section 111a(2)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 142Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 801BSection 80I

section 250 of the Income tax Act on 23/01/2025 emanating from the Order u/s.154 dated 07/01/2019 of the Act, 1961. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : “1. The Ld. AO erred in law and in facts in determining the income of the appellant at Rs.35,01,876/-instead of NIL as per the return of ITA No.730/PUN/2025