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.

5 results for “disallowance”+ Section 43Dclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai133Chennai74Delhi63Bangalore43Hyderabad38Kolkata24Pune22Ahmedabad14Chandigarh6SC6Cochin5Rajkot5Karnataka4Telangana4Surat3Jabalpur3Himachal Pradesh2Jaipur2Dehradun2Patna2Nagpur2Punjab & Haryana1Kerala1Calcutta1Amritsar1Visakhapatnam1

Key Topics

Section 36(1)(viii)9Section 36(1)5Section 2634Section 143(3)4Section 364Deduction4Addition to Income4Disallowance3Section 1482

SHRI VIPULBHAI YOGESHKUMAR TELI,CHALALA VILLAGE, DIST. AMRELI vs. THE ITO WARD 3(1) (4) AMRELI, AMRELI

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

ITA 224/RJT/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Shri Pragnesh Jagasheth, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Dhiraj Kumar Gupta, Ld. Sr.DR
Section 148Section 250Section 68

43D of the Act. Section 40 provides for certain disallowances in certain cases notwithstanding that those amounts are allowed generally

ACIT, CIR-1(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. SHRI RAJKOT DISTRICT CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD, RAJKOT

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 188/RJT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot05 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.188/Rjt/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of Income- Vs. Rajkot District Co-Operative Bank Tax, Circle-1 (1), Rajkot Limited Room No.502, Aayakar Bhawan, Jilla Bankbhavan, Kasturba Road, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot- Opp: Chaudhary High School, 360001 Rajkot 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaar0564K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri D. M. Rindani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld.Sr.Dr : 09/06 /2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 05/08 /2025

For Appellant: Shri D. M. Rindani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld.Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viii)

43D of the Act. iii. Section 36(1)(viii) of the I.T. Act specified entities engaged in the Eligible Business to claim a deduction of 20% of the profit by creating reserves in books of Account of the assessee. That the requirement of the claim of deduction under the Act are as under; i. Taxpayer must be working as specified

THE ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. CITIZENS CO. OP. BANK LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 101/RJT/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot14 Dec 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Ankit Anadkat, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K.L. Solanki, Sr. Sr. D.R
Section 36

disallowance made of deduction u/s. 36(l)(viia) of the I.T. Act of Rs. 33,07,845/-. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts and circumstances of the case in deleting the additions made on account of Interest Accrued on N PA of Rs. 31,63,599/-.” We shall first take up assessment year

THE ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. CITIZENS CO. OP. BANK LTD.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 102/RJT/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot14 Dec 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Ankit Anadkat, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K.L. Solanki, Sr. Sr. D.R
Section 36

disallowance made of deduction u/s. 36(l)(viia) of the I.T. Act of Rs. 33,07,845/-. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts and circumstances of the case in deleting the additions made on account of Interest Accrued on N PA of Rs. 31,63,599/-.” We shall first take up assessment year

SHRI RAJKOT DISTRICT CO-OP. BANK LTD. RAJKOT,RAJKOT vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 26/RJT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot27 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: us, the error noted in the assessment order passed in the case of the assessee under Section 143(3) of the Act for the impugned year i.e. AY 2017-18 was that the assessee’s claim of deduction for creation of special reserve from the profit of “eligible business” as per Section 36(1)(viii) of the Act had been allowed in excess by the Assessing Officer without properly examining the calculation of the claim submitted by the assessee.

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263Section 28Section 36(1)(viii)

section 28 to 43D of the Act to its business of long term finance, further, it has contended in para 2.3 that the apportionment of cost to the Income centers should be based on foots and reasons as also on equitable and scientific basis. Having stated that, the assessee bank Summarily allocated the Indirect cost in the ratio