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.

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

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai199Delhi55Rajkot35Indore23Kolkata22Ahmedabad21Pune17Chennai15Bangalore13Hyderabad9Jaipur7Nagpur4Jodhpur4Lucknow4Surat3Ranchi2Dehradun2Karnataka1Amritsar1Agra1Kerala1Raipur1

Key Topics

Section 80I89Section 271(1)(c)32Section 143(3)17Deduction13Section 15410Section 143(2)9Addition to Income9Penalty8Section 143(1)7Section 250

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

disallowance of deduction u/s\n80IB(10) that the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s.274. A\nperusal of the second notice issued by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s.\n274, copy of which is placed at page 116 of the paper book clearly shows that the\npenalty proceedings have been initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars

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 1324
Search & Seizure4
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

disallowance of deduction u/s 80IB (10) of Income Tax Act, 1961 of Rs.1,02,32,288/-. Ground No 2 2. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in wrongly Interpreting the provisions of section 80 IB (10) (c) and thereby rejecting the deduction. 3. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in wrongly Interpreting the provisions

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

disallowance of deduction u/s 80IB (10) of Income Tax Act, 1961 of Rs.1,02,32,288/-. Ground No 2 2. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in wrongly Interpreting the provisions of section 80 IB (10) (c) and thereby rejecting the deduction. 3. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in wrongly Interpreting the provisions

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

c).” 3. The Assessing Officer therefore, asked the assessee to explain as to why the deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act in respect of housing project in question should not be disallowed. He also provided a copy of the Report of the Registered Valuer. He, however, rejected the explanation given by the assessee observing that the housing project

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

c).” 3. The Assessing Officer therefore, asked the assessee to explain as to why the deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act in respect of housing project in question should not be disallowed. He also provided a copy of the Report of the Registered Valuer. He, however, rejected the explanation given by the assessee observing that the housing project

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

c).” 3. The Assessing Officer therefore, asked the assessee to explain as to why the deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act in respect of housing project in question should not be disallowed. He also provided a copy of the Report of the Registered Valuer. He, however, rejected the explanation given by the assessee observing that the housing project

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

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

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) (a)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 3. Whether on the basis of facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld CIT(A) did not err in concluding that the facts of the assessee's case are identical with those in the case of Hindustan Samuh Awas Ltd. Vs CIT, [284 CTR 43 (Bombay

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) (a)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 3. Whether on the basis of facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld CIT(A) did not err in concluding that the facts of the assessee's case are identical with those in the case of Hindustan Samuh Awas Ltd. Vs CIT, [284 CTR 43 (Bombay

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

c) in the form of any electronic record as provided in Chapter IV of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000); or (d) by any other means of transmission of documents as provided by rules made by the Board in this behalf. (2) The Board may make rules providing for the addresses (including the address for electronic mail

VEENA INDUSTRIES PVT LTD,PUNE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE2(1), PUNE

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 2872/PUN/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Apr 2026AY 2012-13

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

For Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

10. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in view of above discussion, we deem it appropriate to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to recalculate the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act on the basis of quantum addition of Rs.1,43,52,728/- only. Accordingly

VEENA INDUSTRIES PVT LTD,PUNE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE2(1), PUNE

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 2871/PUN/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Apr 2026AY 2010-11

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

For Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

10. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in view of above discussion, we deem it appropriate to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to recalculate the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act on the basis of quantum addition of Rs.1,43,52,728/- only. Accordingly

VEENA INDUSTRIES PVT LTD,PUNE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE2(1, PUNE

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 2873/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Apr 2026AY 2013-14

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

For Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

10. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in view of above discussion, we deem it appropriate to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to recalculate the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act on the basis of quantum addition of Rs.1,43,52,728/- only. Accordingly

VEENA INDUSTRIES PVT LTD,PUNE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE2(1), PUNE

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 2874/PUN/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Apr 2026AY 2009-10

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

For Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

10. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in view of above discussion, we deem it appropriate to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to recalculate the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act on the basis of quantum addition of Rs.1,43,52,728/- only. Accordingly

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

801B of the IT Act which is beyond the scope of sec 143(1) of the IT Act and the Hon. CIT(A) erred in confirming the same and completely ignoring the fact that the action of the LD AO is beyond the scope of sec 143(1). 3. The Ld AO erred in facts and in law in invoking