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.

4 results for “disallowance”+ Section 56(2)(viia)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai206Bangalore82Delhi78Chennai66Hyderabad24Pune19Visakhapatnam17Kolkata15Cochin14Jaipur13Indore12Nagpur9Chandigarh9Surat8Cuttack8Ahmedabad6Jodhpur6Varanasi6Rajkot4Allahabad2Amritsar2SC2Patna1Karnataka1Agra1Guwahati1Raipur1

Key Topics

Section 36(1)(viia)5Section 1474Section 10(38)3Section 363Deduction3Section 139(4)2Section 2502Section 682Section 1482Exemption

AMRELI JILLA MADHYASTH SAHAKARI BANK LTD.,AMRELI vs. THE DCIT-ACIT-2(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 548/RJT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot01 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.548/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2014-15 Amreli Jilla Madhyasth Sahakari The Dcit/Acit-2(1) बनाम Bank Ltd. Rajkot. Bhojalram Bhavan Vs. Rajmahel Road Amreli 365 601. Pan : Aaata 2737 J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri D.M.Rindani, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-Dr

For Appellant: Shri D.M.Rindani, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(viia)

disallowed deduction on ground that applicant had not made a provision for bad and doubtful debts as required by section 36(1) (viia)(c) On facts, it was clear that intention of assessee was for deduction under section 36(1)(via) only, though 'provision' was nomenclatured as 'reserve'- Whether even if entry was termed as 'reserve' which according to assessee

2
Depreciation2
Disallowance2

THE DHARANGADHRA PEOPLE'S CO. OP. BANK LTD.,,DHRANGADHRA vs. THE DY. COMMR. INCOME TAX, SURENDRANAGAR CIRCLE,, SURENDRANAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 130/RJT/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot18 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.130-131/Rjt/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14) बनाम/ The Dharangadhra People’S D.C.I.T, Co-Op. Bank Ltd., Surendranagar Circle, Vs. Kalpvarksh, Mandvi Chowk, Surendranagar. Dhrangadhara, Surendranagar Circle, Surendranagar. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaat1192R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D.M. Rindani, A.R ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. D.R सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing 20/09/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 18/12/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Ahmedabad [Ld. Cit(A) In Short] Of Even Dated 01/02/2017, Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Dated 16/02/2015 & 27/11/2015 Relevant To Assessment Years (A.Y.S) 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. D.R
Section 139(3)Section 139(4)Section 80

disallowing the claim of loss for Rs. 1,56,71,108.00 only. 3. The facts in brief are that the assessee in the present case is a co- operative society and engaged in the co-operative banking business. The ITA Nos.130-131/RJT/2017 A.Ys. 2012-13 & 2013-14 assessee for the year under consideration had filed its return of income dated

NISHANT PAREKH- LEGAL HEIR OF MINA PAREKH,JAMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 215/RJT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot14 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.215/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2015-2016) Nishant Parekh – Legal Heir Of Vs. Income Tax Officer Mina Parekh Aaykar Bhavan 322 Madhav Square, Opp 361001, Gujrat Avantika Complex, Limda Lane Road, Gujrat-361001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aanpp9471F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sagar Shah, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 147Section 250Section 68

disallowed and accordingly total sale proceeds of Rs.3,28,81,890/- from the sale of scrips of 'PS IT Infrastructure &Services Ltd (Formerly known as Parag Shilpa Investments Ltd) was assessed as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the I.T. Act and to be taxable at the rate of 30% as provided u/s 115BBE of the Act. Nishant Parekh – Legal

RAJKOT DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,,RAJKOT vs. DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2), , RAJKOT

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 310/RJT/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Us In This Regard Reads As Under: 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Rajkot-1 Has Erred In Confirming The Order Passed By Assessing Officer U/S 271(L)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Imposing A Penalty Of Rs. 18,50,900 On The Appellant Despite The Fact That The Claim For The Deduction Was Bona-Fide, The Details Furnished For The Claim For Allowance Were Not Found To Be Inaccurate & That There Was No Deliberate Attempt To Furnishing Of Inaccurate Particulars On The Part Of The Appellant Assesse. The Ao'S Action Being Erroneous On Facts & In Law, The Appellant Prays That The Penalty Of Rs. 18,50,900 Be Deleted..

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Rindani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S. S. Rathi, Sr.D.R
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36Section 36(1)(viia)

section as it relates only to bad and doubtful debts . Subsequently penalty u/s 271(1)© of the Act was levied on the said disallowance for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, which in turn was confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A) brushing aside the assesses contention that it was a debatable issue. The Ld.CIT(A) held that there was no debate