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.

225 results for “disallowance”+ Section 35Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi85 Mumbai60 Bangalore27 Chennai14 Hyderabad9 Kolkata6 SC4 Pune3 Ahmedabad3 Chandigarh2 Guwahati2 Panaji2 Dehradun2 Telangana1 Cochin1 Jaipur1 Karnataka1 MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1 Surat1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)69 Addition to Income51 Section 14A49 Disallowance38 Deduction37 Transfer Pricing36 Section 8027 Section 144C25 Section 92C25 Section 143(2)

PIRAMAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7(1), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 5471/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Jahangir Mistry, Sr. Counsel a/wFor Respondent: Shri Jayant Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(3)Section 80I

section 35A of the Act. Accordingly, he disallowed assessee’s claim. Being aggrieved of such disallowance, assessee filed appeal before

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S VRV BREWERIES & BOTTELING

Showing 1–20 of 225 · Page 1 of 12

...

19

Section 144C(13)16

Section 143(1)16

ITA/594/2005HC Delhi19 Aug 2011

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

For Appellant: Ms Rashmi Chopra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr Ajay Vohra, Ms Kavita Jha & Mr Somnath Shukla

disallowance by invoking both the provisions, that is, sections 40A(2)(a) and Section 35A. The result was that the disallowances

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S V.R.V. BREWERIES & BOTTELI

ITA/559/2006HC Delhi19 Aug 2011

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

For Appellant: Ms Rashmi Chopra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr Ajay Vohra, Ms Kavita Jha & Mr Somnath Shukla

disallowance by invoking both the provisions, that is, sections 40A(2)(a) and Section 35A. The result was that the disallowances

HERO MOTOCORP LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1545/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishihero Motocorp Limited, Jcit, 34, Basant Lok, Vasant Range-1, New Delhi Vs. Vihar, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0812J (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community Vs. New Delhi Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057 (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. NC Sawain, CIT DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

disallowed on the ground of the same being contingent in nature. He further submitted that similar provision for increase in prices as at the end of the year was accepted and allowed in Hero MotoCorp Limited Vs. JCIT & DCIT Vs. Hero MotoCorp Ltd. ITA Nos. 1545/Del/2015 and 2424/Del/2015 (AY 2010-11) ITA No. 1609/Del/2016 and 914/Del/2016 (AY 2011-12) Page

M/S. TATA INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ITO 2(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed

ITA 4894/MUM/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2016AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Accoutant Member & Shri Sanjay Gargtata Industries Ltd., Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- Bombay House,24,Homi 2 (3) (3), Room No.555, Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi 400 001 Karve Road, Mumbai 400 020 Pan: Aaact 4058 L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By Shri Dinesh Vyas, Ar Respondent By Shri Alok Johri, Dr Date Of Hearing 22-06-2016 Date Of Pronouncement 20-07-2016

Section 10ASection 115JSection 14ASection 36

disallowances. The following ratio as per para 12 of Hon’ble Supreme Court order in the case of ACG Associated Capsules Pvt. Ltd. is to be applied. “12. If we now apply Explanation (baa) as interpreted by us in this judgment to the facts of the case before us, if the rent or interest is a receipt chargeable as profits

DCIT 7(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. PIRAMAL ENTERRISES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 1799/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Sri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 1799/Mum/2016 (यनर्ाािण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2011-12) The Dy. Commissioner Of Piramal Enterprises Limited Income-Tax, Range-7(3)(2), (Formerly Known As Piramal Room No. 669A, 6 Th Floor, Healthcare Limited) बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 013 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaacn4538P आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 850/Mum/2015 (यनर्ाािण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2011-12) Piramal Enterprises Limited The Dy. Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As Piramal Income-Tax, Range-7(3)(2), Healthcare Limited) Room No. 669A, 6 Th Floor, बनाम/ Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओि से / Appellant By : Shri A Mohan, Cit Dr प्रत्यर्थी की ओि से / Respondent By : Shri Jehangir D. Mistri, Madhur Agrawal, Ronak Doshi, Ars’ सुनवाई की िािीख / Date Of Hearing: 16.03.2020 घोर्णा की िािीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 27.05.2020

For Appellant: Shri A Mohan, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Jehangir D. Mistri

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

disallowance under section 35A of the Act relating to Sarabhai Piramal Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (SPPL). 61. Briefly stated facts are, noticing

M/S. HICAL INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), RANGE- 1, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 313/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sankarganesh K. Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40

disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) is only mandated if the proviso to section 36(1)(iii) is attracted. In the present case, it is undisputed that proviso to section 36(1)(iii) is not attracted. (ii) There is no provision in section 36(1)(iii) governing the allowability of interest expenditure in case of an amalgamation or demerger

M/S. MOBILY INFOTECH INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 313/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: FixedITAT Bangalore07 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sankarganesh K. Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40

disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) is only mandated if the proviso to section 36(1)(iii) is attracted. In the present case, it is undisputed that proviso to section 36(1)(iii) is not attracted. (ii) There is no provision in section 36(1)(iii) governing the allowability of interest expenditure in case of an amalgamation or demerger

HERO MOTOCORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 11(1), NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1351/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Amount of Proposed international

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C

disallowing this claim. Therefore, Ground No. 18 to 18.2 are allowed in favour of the assessee.” From the records it can be seen that the provision for the material is worked out in respect of price amendments which were already issued on 31.03.2009 which was made on the basis of actual supplied made upto the end of the year

ACIT - 2(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. YES BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

ITA 3017/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Section 14ASection 251Section 35DSection 8D(2)

disallowance of\nexpenditure in relation to earning of exempted income. The\nassessee has also raised additional ground in relation to\ndisallowance under section 14A of the Act.\n6.1 In the case in hand, the assessee bank has three types of\ninstruments appearing in its balance sheet, the income earned from\nwhich has been claimed as exempted under the provisions

M/S. GOLDMAN SACHS SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE-3, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2355/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jun 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.2355/Bang/2019 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S. Goldman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd., Wing A, B & C, Helios Business Park, 150, Orr, Kadubeesanahalli, Bangalore-560103 ….Appellant Pan Aaccg 2435N Vs. Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Special Range 3, Bangalore. ……Respondent.

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (D.R)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

disallowance under Section 40 (a)(i) of the Act for secondment of employees payment for non-deduction of TDS on Fees for Technical Services(FTS) Rs.48,35,91,738/-.Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed objections in Form 35A

YES BANK LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(2)(2)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 4278/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Section 14ASection 251Section 35DSection 8D(2)

disallowance of\nexpenditure in relation to earning of exempted income. The\nassessee has also raised additional ground in relation to\ndisallowance under section 14A of the Act.\n\nM/s Yes Bank Ltd. 10\nITA No. 3017,& 4278/M/2019\nआयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण\nCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\nSPEEDY JUSTICE\n6.1 In the case in hand, the assessee bank has three types of\ninstruments

MUFG BANK LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-2(2)(1), NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7895/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Mufg Bank Ltd, Vs. Acit (International Taxation), 5Th Floor, Worldmark 2, Asset 8, Circle-2(2)(1), Aerocity, Nh-8, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aabct3880D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar, AdvFor Respondent: Shr Surender Pal, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 244ASection 37(1)Section 44C

35A) of the act. The assessee company has not disallowed the proportionate expenditure incurred on the above income as per the provisions of Section

DCIT 4(1), MUMBAI vs. HSBC SECURITIES AND CAPITAL MARKETS (INDIA) P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1661/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Ms. Samruddhi Dhananjay Hande, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Porus Kaka / Tejas Mhatre

Section 143(3)Section 92CSection 92D

disallowed Rs. 27, 16, 560/- under section 14A. Against this draft order of AO, assessee objected the same before the DRP through Form No. 35A

HSBC SECURITIES AND CAPITAL MARKETS (I) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 702/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Ms. Samruddhi Dhananjay Hande, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Porus Kaka / Tejas Mhatre

Section 143(3)Section 92CSection 92D

disallowed Rs. 27, 16, 560/- under section 14A. Against this draft order of AO, assessee objected the same before the DRP through Form No. 35A

HSBC SECURITIES AND CAPITAL MARKETS (INDIA) P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4459/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Ms. Samruddhi Dhananjay Hande, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Porus Kaka / Tejas Mhatre

Section 143(3)Section 92CSection 92D

disallowed Rs. 27, 16, 560/- under section 14A. Against this draft order of AO, assessee objected the same before the DRP through Form No. 35A

M/S. BHARAT ELECTRONICS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU, CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU

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

ITA 394/BANG/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Bharat Electronics The Assistant Ltd., Commissioner Of Registered Office, Income Tax, Outer Ring Road Ltu, Nagawara, Circle – 1, Vs. Bangalore – 560 045. Bangalore. Pan: Aaacb5985C Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Smt. Richa .B, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 14ASection 43A

35A; or (iv) the amount of expenditure of a capital nature referred to in clause (ix) of sub-section (1) of section 36; or (v) the cost of acquisition of a capital asset (not being a capital asset referred to in section 50) for the purposes of section 48, and the amount arrived at after such addition or deduction shall

MIRAE ASSET CAPITAL MARKETS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2099/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm& Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Pratik Poddar, & Shreyas SardesaiFor Respondent: 14.10.2025

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 14ASection 234CSection 250

35A] of the Act. The assessee has not disallowed any sum u/s 14 A of the act. The learned assessing officer has computed the disallowance of Rs. 22,521,366/ The learned AO did not 12 Mirae Asset Capital Markets (India) Pvt Ltd disallow any interest expenditure income which is directly relating to the investment in the passthrough certificates. However

HERO MOTOCROP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 11(1), NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 9187/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Apr 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 145ASection 80ISection 92C

disallowance made in that year was deleted on the ground that since in the first place, the Hero Motocorp Ltd. vs. ACIT parties were not related to the assessee company in terms of section 40A (2), disallowance on ground of excessive purchase price could not have been made under that section. Further, the Tribunal held that the transactions were entered

PIRAMAL HEALTHCARE LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 7(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1257/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ravish Soodpiramal Healthcare Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income (Now Known As Piramal Enterprises Ltd.) Tax- 7(1) Piramal Tower, Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Vs. M.K. Road Lower Parel, Mumbai- 400 020 Mumbai – 400 013

For Appellant: Sh. J.D, Mistry, Senior Advocate &For Respondent: S/sh. Bhupendra Kumar Singh &

Section 143(3)Section 35

section 35A of the Act. 3. The Appellant prays that the A.O be directed to allow deduction claimed u/s. 35A of the Act since the term trademark in the context of pharmaceutical medicine has similar meaning to that of a patent right. GROUND VIII: DISALLOWANCE