Search: disallowance | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

434 results for “disallowance”+ Section 115Jclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai163 Delhi114 Kolkata47 Ahmedabad33 Chennai13 Jaipur11 Surat11 Bangalore10 Pune7 Hyderabad5 Indore3 Karnataka3 Guwahati3 Nagpur3 Cochin2 Visakhapatnam2 Rajkot2 Telangana1 Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Section 115J161 Section 14A93 Section 143(3)82 Disallowance60 Addition to Income57 Section 80I48 Deduction40 Section 8029 Section 14721 Depreciation

DCIT, CIR-5(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S COAL INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

ITA 1697/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115JSection 250

section 115J.” 4.6 As the disallowance is covered under clause (c) of Explanation (1) to section 115JB of the Act, the same

DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. COAL INDIA LIMITED , KOLKATA

ITA 622/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115JSection 250

section 115J.” 4.6 As the disallowance is covered under clause (c) of Explanation (1) to section 115JB of the Act, the same

Showing 1–20 of 434 · Page 1 of 22

...

19

Section 143(2)17

GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LTD,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRECLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 318/AHD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri M. J. Shah, A.R. & Shri Jimi Patel , A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234ASection 271(1)(c)

disallowance, and with Explanation 115JB not specifically mentioning Section 14A of the Act, the addition of Rs.89,00,000 was not justified. The view taken by the ITAT cannot be faulted with. It is consistent with the decision in Apollo Tyres Ltd. V. Commissioner of Income Tax 255 ITR 273 (SC) which held that “the Assessing Officer does not have

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL I vs. SAIN PROCESSSING & WEAVING MILLS P.LTD.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA - 1128 / 2007HC Delhi17 Dec 2008

For Appellant: Mr R D JollyFor Respondent: Mr Ajay Vohra

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 260A

disallowed the deduction claimed on account of current year depreciation amounting to Rs 16,47,417/- while, calculating „book profit‟ under Section 115J

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL I vs. SAIN PROCESSSING & WEAVING MILLS P.LTD.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA/1128/2007HC Delhi17 Dec 2008

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

For Appellant: Mr R D JollyFor Respondent: Mr Ajay Vohra

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 260A

disallowed the deduction claimed on account of current year depreciation amounting to Rs 16,47,417/- while, calculating „book profit‟ under Section 115J

D.C.I.T.CC - XXVIII,KOL., KOLKATA vs. M/S BINANI INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 144/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: S/ Shri K.V. Beswal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Subhra Biswas, CIT, ld.DR

Section 115JSection 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 14A

disallowing expenditure “incurred by the assessee in relation to the tax exempt income”. This proportion or portion of the tax exempt income surely cannot swallow the entire amount as has happened in this case”. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and respectfully following the various judicial precedents relied upon hereinabove, we hold that the addition

DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. COAL INDIA LIMITED , KOLKATA

ITA 623/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Section 115JSection 250

section 115J.” 4.6 As the disallowance is covered under clause (c) of Explanation (1) to section 115JB of the Act, the same

COAL INDIA LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

ITA 467/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115JSection 250

section 115J.” 4.6 As the disallowance is covered under clause (c) of Explanation (1) to section 115JB of the Act, the same

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the Ground Nos

ITA 302/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

disallowance, and with Explanation 115JB not specifically mentioning Section 14A of the Act, the addition of Rs.89,00,000 was not justified. The view taken by the ITAT cannot be faulted with. It is consistent with the decision in Apollo Tyres Ltd. V. Commissioner of Income Tax 255 ITR 273 (SC) which held that “the Assessing Officer does not have

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the Ground Nos

ITA 303/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

disallowance, and with Explanation 115JB not specifically mentioning Section 14A of the Act, the addition of Rs.89,00,000 was not justified. The view taken by the ITAT cannot be faulted with. It is consistent with the decision in Apollo Tyres Ltd. V. Commissioner of Income Tax 255 ITR 273 (SC) which held that “the Assessing Officer does not have

SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result the Ground Nos

ITA 198/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

disallowance, and with Explanation 115JB not specifically mentioning Section 14A of the Act, the addition of Rs.89,00,000 was not justified. The view taken by the ITAT cannot be faulted with. It is consistent with the decision in Apollo Tyres Ltd. V. Commissioner of Income Tax 255 ITR 273 (SC) which held that “the Assessing Officer does not have

SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result the Ground Nos

ITA 199/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

disallowance, and with Explanation 115JB not specifically mentioning Section 14A of the Act, the addition of Rs.89,00,000 was not justified. The view taken by the ITAT cannot be faulted with. It is consistent with the decision in Apollo Tyres Ltd. V. Commissioner of Income Tax 255 ITR 273 (SC) which held that “the Assessing Officer does not have

CIT vs. GOETZE (INDIA) LTD

ITA/1179/2010HC Delhi09 Dec 2013

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

Section 10(33)Section 115JSection 14ASection 154Section 260ASection 263

disallowed though the respondent-assessee had earned dividend income of Rs.157.85 lacs, which was exempt under Section 10(33) of the Act. ITA Nos. 1179/2010, 1366/2010, 1979/2010 & 2106/2010 Page 4 of 40 4. Consequently, the Assessing Officer vide order dated 5th January, 2005 passed an order giving effect to the order passed by the Commissioner under Section

CIT vs. GOETZE (INDIA) LTD

ITA - 1179 / 2010HC Delhi09 Dec 2013

Section 10(33)Section 115JSection 14ASection 154Section 260ASection 263

disallowed though the respondent-assessee had earned dividend income of Rs.157.85 lacs, which was exempt under Section 10(33) of the Act. 2013:DHC:6339-DB ITA Nos. 1179/2010, 1366/2010, 1979/2010 & 2106/2010 Page 4 of 40 4. Consequently, the Assessing Officer vide order dated 5th January, 2005 passed an order giving effect to the order passed by the Commissioner under

ASST CIT CIR 11(5) vs. JSW STEEL LTD,

In the result assessee’s appeal is partly allowed whereas revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 930/BANG/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2004-05

For Appellant: S/Shri Kanchan Kaushal & Hirali Desai, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Alok Johri, CIT D.R

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 244A

disallowing the following expenses/deductions claimed by the assessee in the normal computation of income and also making other adjustments while computing the book profits: • Addition of Rs.109,41,00,000/-, being the amount of depreciation attributable to the capital assets purchased out of loans taken from financial institutions but subsequently waived, liable to be taxed

JSW STEEL LTD vs. ASST CIT CIR 11(5),

In the result assessee’s appeal is partly allowed whereas revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 923/BANG/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2004-05

For Appellant: S/Shri Kanchan Kaushal & Hirali Desai, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Alok Johri, CIT D.R

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 244A

disallowing the following expenses/deductions claimed by the assessee in the normal computation of income and also making other adjustments while computing the book profits: • Addition of Rs.109,41,00,000/-, being the amount of depreciation attributable to the capital assets purchased out of loans taken from financial institutions but subsequently waived, liable to be taxed

CIT vs. FEDERAL MOGUL GOETZE INDIA LTD

ITA/1979/2010HC Delhi09 Dec 2013

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

Section 10(33)Section 115JSection 14ASection 154Section 263

disallowed though the respondent-assessee had earned dividend income of. Rs.157.85 lacs, which was exempt under Section 10(33) of theAct. i ITANos. 1179/2010, 1366/2010, 1979/2010 &2106/2010 Page3oF40 4. Consequently, the Assessing Officer vide order dated S"' ,Januai7,2005 passed an order giving effect to the order passed by the Commissioner under Secion 263 of the Act. Tiie respondent-assessee

CIT vs. FEDERAL-LOGUL GOETZE (INDIA) LTD

ITA/1366/2010HC Delhi09 Dec 2013

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

Section 10(33)Section 115JSection 14ASection 154Section 263

disallowed though the respondent-assessee had earned dividend income of. Rs.157.85 lacs, which was exempt under Section 10(33) of theAct. i ITANos. 1179/2010, 1366/2010, 1979/2010 &2106/2010 Page3oF40 4. Consequently, the Assessing Officer vide order dated S"' ,Januai7,2005 passed an order giving effect to the order passed by the Commissioner under Secion 263 of the Act. Tiie respondent-assessee

CIT vs. GOETZE INDIA LTD

ITA/2106/2010HC Delhi09 Dec 2013

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

Section 10(33)Section 115JSection 14ASection 154Section 263

disallowed though the respondent-assessee had earned dividend income of. Rs.157.85 lacs, which was exempt under Section 10(33) of theAct. i ITANos. 1179/2010, 1366/2010, 1979/2010 &2106/2010 Page3oF40 4. Consequently, the Assessing Officer vide order dated S"' ,Januai7,2005 passed an order giving effect to the order passed by the Commissioner under Secion 263 of the Act. Tiie respondent-assessee

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. KANSARA POPATLAL TRIBHOVANDAS METAL PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed while the Cross

ITA 412/AHD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri M.J. Shah, AR &For Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Sr DR

section 115J, depreciation should have been calculated in terms of the Companies Act, 1956 and Schedule XIV thereof. Accordingly, he disallowed