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.

15 results for “disallowance”+ Section 80Jclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai103Delhi66Raipur47Bangalore47Chennai32Surat28Ahmedabad21Pune15Indore14Kolkata13Guwahati11Jaipur10Cochin10Karnataka7Ranchi6Jodhpur5Rajkot5Hyderabad4SC3Varanasi3Telangana3Chandigarh2Cuttack1Lucknow1Amritsar1Nagpur1

Key Topics

Section 12A41Section 1129Section 10(20)24Section 80I19Section 143(1)13Section 80P12Section 143(3)12Addition to Income12Section 1488Exemption

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 543/PUN/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2003-04

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

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

disallowance of interest expenses of Rs.157.34 crores claimed on payment basis is concerned, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer on the ground that the provisions of section 14A are applicable in this case. According to him, the provisions of section 36(1)(xii) are also not applicable to the assessee as the same are applicable

7
Deduction7
Disallowance6

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 545/PUN/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2005-06

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

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

disallowance of interest expenses of Rs.157.34 crores claimed on payment basis is concerned, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer on the ground that the provisions of section 14A are applicable in this case. According to him, the provisions of section 36(1)(xii) are also not applicable to the assessee as the same are applicable

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1153/MUM/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2003-04

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

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

disallowance of interest expenses of Rs.157.34 crores claimed on payment basis is concerned, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer on the ground that the provisions of section 14A are applicable in this case. According to him, the provisions of section 36(1)(xii) are also not applicable to the assessee as the same are applicable

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1154/MUM/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2005-06

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

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

disallowance of interest expenses of Rs.157.34 crores claimed on payment basis is concerned, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer on the ground that the provisions of section 14A are applicable in this case. According to him, the provisions of section 36(1)(xii) are also not applicable to the assessee as the same are applicable

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1155/MUM/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2004-05

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

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

disallowance of interest expenses of Rs.157.34 crores claimed on payment basis is concerned, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer on the ground that the provisions of section 14A are applicable in this case. According to him, the provisions of section 36(1)(xii) are also not applicable to the assessee as the same are applicable

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 544/PUN/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2004-05

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

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

disallowance of interest expenses of Rs.157.34 crores claimed on payment basis is concerned, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer on the ground that the provisions of section 14A are applicable in this case. According to him, the provisions of section 36(1)(xii) are also not applicable to the assessee as the same are applicable

ROXILER SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD5(4), PUNE

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

ITA 2078/PUN/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Dec 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2078/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23 Roxiler Systems Pvt. Ltd., A 508, Kamal Green Leaf, Vs The Income Tax Officer, Khadakwasala, Pune – 411024. Ward-5(4), Pune. Pan: Aahcr8766J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By : Shri Sharad S. Vaze & Shri Amod S. Vaze – Ar’S Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai – Add.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 18/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/12/2024 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(Appeals)Addl./Jcit(A), Mysore For Assessment Year 2022-23Dated 20/08/2024 Passed U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Emanating From An Order U/S 143(1) Of The Act Dated 19/08/2023.The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Basis Of Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & As Per Law, Rejection Of Claim U/S 80Iac Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (Act) Is Beyond The Powers Of Cpc, Bengaluru In The Powers Of Cps, Bengaluru In Proceedings U/S 143(1) Of The Act. 2. On The Basis Of Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & As Per Law, The Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Appeals)-Nfac Delhi Is Not Justified In Rejecting The Claim Of The Assessee U/S 80Iac Of The Act. 3. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Omit Or Substitute Any Of The Grounds At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri Sharad S. Vaze and Shri Amod S. Vaze – AR’sFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai – Add.CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 44ASection 80ISection 80J

80J on the basis of such report. We, however, do not subscribe to the view taken by the Tribunal that it is the duty of the ITO to tell the assessee that as he had not submitted the report of audit required by sub-section (6A), his claim would not be allowed and to give him an opportunity to file

HINDUMAL BALMUKUND INVESTMENT CO.PVT.LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

ITA 570/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Sept 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.570/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Hindumal Balmukund Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd., 2Nd Floor, Lohia Jain House, Bhandarkar Road, Shivajinagar, Pune-411045. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaach4226Q बनाम / V/S. Dcit, Circle-11, ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Vardhaman Jain Revenue By : Shri S. P. Walimbe सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11.09.2020 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 14.09.2020 आदेश / Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Vp : This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-1, Pune Dated 16.01.2017 On The Following Grounds As Originally Raised :- “1. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs.6,13,115, Being Depreciation On Car. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Further Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Disallowance Of The Claim Of Rs.1,88,07,686 U/S 80Ia(4) Of The I T Act, 1961.” 2. At The Time Of Hearing Before Us, Ld. Representatives Of Both The Sides Have Agreed That The Issue Involved In Ground No.1 Of This Appeal Relating To The Disallowance Made By The Assessing Officer & Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A) Out Of The Depreciation On Car For Personal Use Of Directors Is Squarely Covered In Favour Of The Assessee By The Decision Of This Tribunal Rendered In Assessee’S Own Case For The Immediately Preceding Assessment Year I.E. A.Y. 2012-13 Vide

For Appellant: Shri Vardhaman JainFor Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe
Section 38(2)Section 80HSection 80ISection 80J

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) on account of assessee’s claim for deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, it is observed that the same is also squarely covered by the common order of this Tribunal dated 24.08.2018 passed in assessee’s own case

HINDUMAL BALMUKUND INVESTMENT CO.PVT.LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2938/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nitin RanderFor Respondent: Ms. Sabana Parveen
Section 271(1)(c)Section 80HSection 80ISection 80J

disallowed by levying penalty. In the First Appellate Proceedings, the CIT(A) confirmed the penalty for both the assessment years. Aggrieved with the same, the assessee filed the present appeals before the Tribunal. 4. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee brought our attention to the order of Tribunal in the assessee’s own case

HINDUMAL BALMUKUND INVESTMENT CO.PVT.LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2939/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nitin RanderFor Respondent: Ms. Sabana Parveen
Section 271(1)(c)Section 80HSection 80ISection 80J

disallowed by levying penalty. In the First Appellate Proceedings, the CIT(A) confirmed the penalty for both the assessment years. Aggrieved with the same, the assessee filed the present appeals before the Tribunal. 4. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee brought our attention to the order of Tribunal in the assessee’s own case

HINDUMAL BLMUKUND INVESTMENT CO. PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 266/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 266 & 267/Pun/2015 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

For Appellant: Shri V.L. JainFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ghei
Section 80I

disallowed. The date of completion of the eligible undertaking and approval from the competent authority were the reasons for the denial. Contents of Para No. 8 of the assessment order are relevant. It is the claim of the AO that only 7 units out of the 14 units were completed, as per the completion certificate issued by the PMC dated

THE SIRUR SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL,PUNE vs. ACIT, EXEMTION CIRCLE, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 609/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Sept 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

disallowed by the CPC due to the reason that the assessee has not e-filed the audit report in Form 10B one month prior to the due date for furnishing of return u/s 139(1) of the IT Act. In this regard, it was further submitted by the ld. AR that it is true that Form 10B could

GENERAL INDUSTRIAL CONTROS LTD.,PUNE vs. DCIT CIRCLE 8, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the order of the CIT(A) is set aside, and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 38/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

section 80J(6A) of the Act to extent it requires furnishing of auditor's report in ITA No.38/PUN/2025 [A] prescribed form along with return, is directory in nature and not mandatory. Further, it was held that the assessee can be permitted to produce such a report at later stage when question of disallowance

SANCHAR GRAMIN BIGARSHETI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,JUNNAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD 8, PUNE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2432/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Sharad Shah &For Respondent: Shri Vinod Pawar
Section 139(1)Section 148Section 250Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

disallowance of claim of Rs.16,72,077/- u/s 80P(2)(a) (i)/ 80(2)(d) of the IT Act. 2. The L.d. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that claim u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) was claimed by filing return of income in response to notice u/s 148 which was the first return of income filed

SANCHAR GRAMIN BIGARSHETI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,JUNNAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD 8, PUNE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2433/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Sharad Shah &For Respondent: Shri Vinod Pawar
Section 139(1)Section 148Section 250Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

disallowance of claim of Rs.16,72,077/- u/s 80P(2)(a) (i)/ 80(2)(d) of the IT Act. 2. The L.d. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that claim u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) was claimed by filing return of income in response to notice u/s 148 which was the first return of income filed