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.

187 results for “disallowance”+ Section 36(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi3,398Mumbai3,245Chennai894Bangalore692Ahmedabad638Jaipur614Kolkata575Hyderabad559Pune400Chandigarh345Indore314Raipur239Cochin188Surat187Visakhapatnam172Rajkot172Amritsar161Nagpur117Lucknow95SC87Guwahati84Jodhpur73Ranchi68Allahabad62Cuttack58Panaji55Agra38Patna38Jabalpur28Dehradun27Varanasi12A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1ANIL R. DAVE AMITAVA ROY L. NAGESWARA RAO1RANJAN GOGOI PRAFULLA C. PANT1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)84Addition to Income61Disallowance49Section 43B41Deduction40Section 36(1)(va)27Section 26326Section 254(1)24Section 36(1)(viia)23Section 148

THE SURAT DISTRICT CO-OP. BANK LTD,SURAT vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, ground No.6 raised by the assessee, is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 590/SRT/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat14 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.590/Srt/2019 Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Physical Hearing) The Surat District Co.Op. Bank Ltd., Vs. The Acit, Circle-2(2), Shri Pramodbhai Desai Sahakar Bhavan, Surat. J. P. Road, Athwa Gate, Surat – 395001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaat2985Q (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4/Srt/2020 Assessment Year: (2011-12) The Dcit, Circle-2(2), Vs. The Surat District Co.Op. Bank Ltd., Surat. Shri Pramodbhai Desai Sahakar Bhavan, J. P. Road, Athwa Gate, Surat – 395001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaat2985Q (Assessee) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40

section 36(l)(viia) of the Act therefore ld CIT(A) should not have deleted these disallowances. Therefore, ld DR stated that addition made by the assessing officer should be sustained and assessee is not eligible to claim deduction, u/s 36(1

Showing 1–20 of 187 · Page 1 of 10

...
21
Limitation/Time-bar16
Section 4015

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), SURAT vs. THE SURAT DISTRICT CO-OP. BANK LIMITED, SURAT

In the result, ground No.6 raised by the assessee, is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4/SRT/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat14 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.590/Srt/2019 Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Physical Hearing) The Surat District Co.Op. Bank Ltd., Vs. The Acit, Circle-2(2), Shri Pramodbhai Desai Sahakar Bhavan, Surat. J. P. Road, Athwa Gate, Surat – 395001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaat2985Q (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4/Srt/2020 Assessment Year: (2011-12) The Dcit, Circle-2(2), Vs. The Surat District Co.Op. Bank Ltd., Surat. Shri Pramodbhai Desai Sahakar Bhavan, J. P. Road, Athwa Gate, Surat – 395001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaat2985Q (Assessee) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40

section 36(l)(viia) of the Act therefore ld CIT(A) should not have deleted these disallowances. Therefore, ld DR stated that addition made by the assessing officer should be sustained and assessee is not eligible to claim deduction, u/s 36(1

M/S. ASCENT MEDITECH,,U T OF D & NH vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VAPI CIRCLE,, VAPI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2155/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Oct 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2155/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Ay: (2012-13) (Virtual Court Hearing) M/S. Ascent Meditech, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Survey No.678/1/3, First Floor, Sai Income Tax, Vapi Circle, Industrial Estate, 2Nd Phase, Naroli, Ut Vapi. Of D&Nh-396235 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaifa5120D (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Parimal Sinh Parmar - Ar Respondent By : Miss Anupama Singla – Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 23/09/2020 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19/10/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini:

For Appellant: Shri Parimal Sinh Parmar - ARFor Respondent: Miss Anupama Singla – Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(24)Section 2(24)(x)Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

disallowance of the respective sums being employees' contribution to PF Account / ESI Account, which were made by the AO while considering the proviso to section section 36(1

BHAVNA ENTERPRISE,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3)(3), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 487/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.487/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Virtual Hearing) Bhavna Enterprise, Vs. The Adit, 30, Ambika Nagar Society, Cpc, Bengaluru Hazira Road, Ichchhapore, Jurisdictional Assessing Officer: Surat - 394510 The Ito, Ward-2(3)(6), Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aagfb5274K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 36

disallowance of employees contribution to provident fund and ESI u/s 36 of the I.T. Act, 1961 while processing return of income u/s 143(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, Asst. Director of IT, CPC has erred in making adjustment u/s 143(1

SHRI DHARMENDRA HIRUBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGLURU, SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 139/SRT/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Jan 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.139/Srt/2021 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Court Hearing) Dharmendra Hirubhai Patel, Vs. The Dcit, Cpc, Motawada Steet, At & Po. Hazira, Bangluru. Tal: Choryasi, Surat – 394270. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Amhpp6575A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Deven Kapadia, Ar Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04/01/2023 10/01/2023 Date Of Pronouncement

Section 143(1)Section 2(24)Section 3Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 40A(2)Section 41Section 43Section 43B

36(1)(va) on the one hand and proviso to Section 43(b) on the other. If one goes by the legislative history of these provisions, what is discernible is that Parliament’s endeavour in introducing Section 43B [which opens with its non-obstante clause] was to primarily ensure that deductions otherwise permissible and hitherto claimed on mercantile basis, were

GUJARAT MITRA PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs. ASSTT. DIRECTOR INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGLORE

ITA 33/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.32 & 33/Srt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2017-18 & 2018-19) (Virtual Court Hearing) Gujarat Mitra Pvt. Ltd. Assistant Director Of Income Tax, Ward No.10, Soni Faliya, Chowk Centralized Processing Center, Vs. Bazar, Surat-395003 Bangalore-560500 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcg 2528 F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant ) (""थ" /Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Eresh S.Dalal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-.DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 36

36(1)(va) on the one hand and proviso to Section 43(b) on the other. If one goes by the legislative history of these provisions, what is discernible is that Parliament’s endeavour in introducing Section 43B [which opens with its non-obstante clause] was to primarily ensure that deductions otherwise permissible and hitherto claimed on mercantile basis, were

GUJARAT MITRA PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs. ASSTT. DIRECTOR INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGLORE

ITA 32/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.32 & 33/Srt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2017-18 & 2018-19) (Virtual Court Hearing) Gujarat Mitra Pvt. Ltd. Assistant Director Of Income Tax, Ward No.10, Soni Faliya, Chowk Centralized Processing Center, Vs. Bazar, Surat-395003 Bangalore-560500 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcg 2528 F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant ) (""थ" /Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Eresh S.Dalal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-.DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 36

36(1)(va) on the one hand and proviso to Section 43(b) on the other. If one goes by the legislative history of these provisions, what is discernible is that Parliament’s endeavour in introducing Section 43B [which opens with its non-obstante clause] was to primarily ensure that deductions otherwise permissible and hitherto claimed on mercantile basis, were

SHRI SHASHIKUMAR S MISHRA,BHARUCH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE -1 , BHARUCH

ITA 101/SRT/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.97 To101/Srt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2015-16 To 2019-20) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Shashikumar S Mishra Asstt. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-I, Bharuch Ayakar Bhawan, A/7, Ashirwad Nagar Society, Station Road, Bharuch-392001 Bholav, Bharuch-392001 Vs. Enterprises.Nihal@Yahoo.Com Deputy Commissioner Of Income- Tax, Central Circle-2, Vadodara, Aykar Bhawan, Vadodara-39007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aoqpm 4008 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant ) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Jhaveri, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 41Section 43Section 43B

36(1)(va) on the one hand and proviso to Section 43(b) on the other. If one goes by the legislative history of these provisions, what is discernible is that Parliament’s endeavour in introducing Section 43B [which opens with its non-obstante clause] was to primarily ensure that deductions otherwise permissible and hitherto claimed on mercantile basis, were

SHRI SHASHIKUMAR S MISHRA,BHARUCH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE -1 , BHARUCH

ITA 100/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.97 To101/Srt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2015-16 To 2019-20) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Shashikumar S Mishra Asstt. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-I, Bharuch Ayakar Bhawan, A/7, Ashirwad Nagar Society, Station Road, Bharuch-392001 Bholav, Bharuch-392001 Vs. Enterprises.Nihal@Yahoo.Com Deputy Commissioner Of Income- Tax, Central Circle-2, Vadodara, Aykar Bhawan, Vadodara-39007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aoqpm 4008 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant ) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Jhaveri, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 41Section 43Section 43B

36(1)(va) on the one hand and proviso to Section 43(b) on the other. If one goes by the legislative history of these provisions, what is discernible is that Parliament’s endeavour in introducing Section 43B [which opens with its non-obstante clause] was to primarily ensure that deductions otherwise permissible and hitherto claimed on mercantile basis, were

SHRI SHASHIKUMAR S MISHRA,BHARUCH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE -1 , BHARUCH

ITA 99/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.97 To101/Srt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2015-16 To 2019-20) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Shashikumar S Mishra Asstt. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-I, Bharuch Ayakar Bhawan, A/7, Ashirwad Nagar Society, Station Road, Bharuch-392001 Bholav, Bharuch-392001 Vs. Enterprises.Nihal@Yahoo.Com Deputy Commissioner Of Income- Tax, Central Circle-2, Vadodara, Aykar Bhawan, Vadodara-39007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aoqpm 4008 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant ) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Jhaveri, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 41Section 43Section 43B

36(1)(va) on the one hand and proviso to Section 43(b) on the other. If one goes by the legislative history of these provisions, what is discernible is that Parliament’s endeavour in introducing Section 43B [which opens with its non-obstante clause] was to primarily ensure that deductions otherwise permissible and hitherto claimed on mercantile basis, were

SHRI SHASHIKUMAR S MISHRA,BHARUCH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE -1 , BHARUCH

ITA 98/SRT/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.97 To101/Srt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2015-16 To 2019-20) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Shashikumar S Mishra Asstt. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-I, Bharuch Ayakar Bhawan, A/7, Ashirwad Nagar Society, Station Road, Bharuch-392001 Bholav, Bharuch-392001 Vs. Enterprises.Nihal@Yahoo.Com Deputy Commissioner Of Income- Tax, Central Circle-2, Vadodara, Aykar Bhawan, Vadodara-39007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aoqpm 4008 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant ) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Jhaveri, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 41Section 43Section 43B

36(1)(va) on the one hand and proviso to Section 43(b) on the other. If one goes by the legislative history of these provisions, what is discernible is that Parliament’s endeavour in introducing Section 43B [which opens with its non-obstante clause] was to primarily ensure that deductions otherwise permissible and hitherto claimed on mercantile basis, were

SHRI SHASHIKUMAR S MISHRA,BHARUCH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE -1 , BHARUCH

ITA 97/SRT/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.97 To101/Srt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2015-16 To 2019-20) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Shashikumar S Mishra Asstt. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-I, Bharuch Ayakar Bhawan, A/7, Ashirwad Nagar Society, Station Road, Bharuch-392001 Bholav, Bharuch-392001 Vs. Enterprises.Nihal@Yahoo.Com Deputy Commissioner Of Income- Tax, Central Circle-2, Vadodara, Aykar Bhawan, Vadodara-39007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aoqpm 4008 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant ) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Jhaveri, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 41Section 43Section 43B

36(1)(va) on the one hand and proviso to Section 43(b) on the other. If one goes by the legislative history of these provisions, what is discernible is that Parliament’s endeavour in introducing Section 43B [which opens with its non-obstante clause] was to primarily ensure that deductions otherwise permissible and hitherto claimed on mercantile basis, were

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR-2(1)(1), BARODA vs. THE BHARUCH DIS CENT CO-OP BANK LTD., BHARUCH

ITA 298/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 254(1)Section 36(1)(viia)

36(1)(viia), against total claim of Rs. 6.66 Crore, thereby disallowed deduction of Rs. 4.90 Crore. 6. Aggrieved by the action of disallowance of major claim of section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR-2(1)(1), BARODA vs. THE BHARUCH DIS CENT CO-OP BANK LTD., BHARUCH

ITA 297/SRT/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 Jan 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 254(1)Section 36(1)(viia)

36(1)(viia), against total claim of Rs. 6.66 Crore, thereby disallowed deduction of Rs. 4.90 Crore. 6. Aggrieved by the action of disallowance of major claim of section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR-2(1)(1), BARODA vs. THE BHARUCH DIS CENT CO-OP BANK LTD., BHARUCH

ITA 296/SRT/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 254(1)Section 36(1)(viia)

36(1)(viia), against total claim of Rs. 6.66 Crore, thereby disallowed deduction of Rs. 4.90 Crore. 6. Aggrieved by the action of disallowance of major claim of section

INCOME TAX OFFICER, SURAT vs. THE SUTEX CO.OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 780/SRT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat05 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.780/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Hybrid Hearing) The Ito, Vs. The Sutex Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Ward – 1(1)(1), 2Nd Floor, Bank Block, Surat Textile Surat Market, Ring Road, Surat - 395002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaat2953Q (अपीलाथ" / Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Respondent By Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Ca Date Of Hearing 09/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 05/06/2025

Section 250Section 36(1)(via)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

disallowance of Rs.1,75,00,000/- u/s 36(1)(viii) of the Act, he observed that the AO has referred to facts of AY.2014- 15 wherein the appellant had not properly created and maintained special reserve funds as per the provisions of section

SHREE KHEDUT SAHAKARI KHAND UDYOG MANDLI LTD.,BARDOLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BARDOLI

In the result, all the appeals are disposed of in the manner indicated\nhereinbefore

ITA 738/SRT/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Nov 2025AY 2012-13
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

disallowance of portion of the\napproved Final Cane Price to the extent of Rs. 125,56,23,819/- under gross\nmisappreciation of facts, misconception and misconstruction of the\nprovisions of Section 36(1

SAHAKARI KHAND UDUOG MANDAL LTD.,NA vs. ARIVS.DCIT, NAVSARI CIRCLE, NAVSARI, NAVSARI

In the result, all the appeals are disposed of in the manner indicated\nhereinbefore

ITA 213/SRT/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Nov 2025AY 2013-14
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

disallowance of portion of the\napproved Final Cane Price to the extent of Rs. 125,56,23,819/- under gross\nmisappreciation of facts, misconception and misconstruction of the\nprovisions of Section 36(1

SAHAKARI KHAND UDYOG MANDAL LTD.,,GANDEVI vs. ACIT, NAVSARI CIRCLE, NAVSARI, NAVSARI

ITA 211/SRT/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Nov 2025AY 2011-12
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

disallowance of portion of the\napproved Final Cane Price to the extent of Rs. 125,56,23,819/- under gross\nmisappreciation of facts, misconception and misconstruction of the\nprovisions of Section 36(1

SAHADARI KHAND UDYOG MANDAL LTD.,,NA vs. ARIVS.ACIT, NAVSARI CIRCLE, NAVSARI, NAVSARI

ITA 212/SRT/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Nov 2025AY 2012-13
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

disallowance of portion of the\napproved Final Cane Price to the extent of Rs. 125,56,23,819/- under gross\nmisappreciation of facts, misconception and misconstruction of the\nprovisions of Section 36(1