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.

19,915 results for “disallowance”+ Section 36(1)(iii)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai5,325 Delhi4,467 Bangalore1,670 Chennai1,375 Kolkata1,243 Ahmedabad1,093 Jaipur605 Hyderabad521 Chandigarh419 Pune408 Indore330 Surat265 Raipur245 Cochin218 Amritsar196 Rajkot177 Nagpur158 Karnataka158 Visakhapatnam147 Cuttack111 Agra98 Lucknow96 Jodhpur83 Guwahati69 Telangana65 Allahabad63 SC60 Calcutta51 Panaji44 Ranchi33 Varanasi23 Patna20 Jabalpur18 Kerala18 Dehradun16 Punjab & Haryana11 Rajasthan7 Orissa1 MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1 RANJAN GOGOI PRAFULLA C. PANT1 Himachal Pradesh1 H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1 ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1 ANIL R. DAVE AMITAVA ROY L. NAGESWARA RAO1 A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1 A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Addition to Income60 Section 143(3)58 Disallowance51 Section 14A48 Deduction31 Section 14729 Section 80I20 Section 36(1)(iii)19 Section 43B19 Depreciation

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CICLE-3(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. BOMBAY MINERALS LIMITED, GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue

ITA 5409/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Mr. Gaurang R. Sanghavi (Virtually appeared)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

disallowance of notional interest under section 36(1)(iii) without considering the fact that the assessee under section 36(1

BOMBAY MINERALS LIMITED,KHAMBHALIA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue

Showing 1–20 of 19,915 · Page 1 of 996

...

19

Section 271(1)(c)18

ITA 5410/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed

ITAT Mumbai

12 Mar 2026

AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Mr. Gaurang R. Sanghavi (Virtually appeared)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

disallowance of notional interest under section 36(1)(iii) without considering the fact that the assessee under section 36(1

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

ITA 1548/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2018-2019

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT (DR)

Section 10Section 14ASection 250Section 32Section 90

section 36(1)(iii) of the\nAct. Accordingly, the AO disallowed the amount of Rs.160,77,00,000 claimed\nas deduction

BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-2(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

ITA 1451/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1452/Mum/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT (DR)

Section 10Section 14ASection 250Section 32Section 90

disallowance of interest on perpetual bonds. 62. The brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue, as emanating from the record, are: During the assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to show cause as to why the perpetual bonds should not be treated as equity and consequently the interest paid on such bonds should be allowed under section 36

BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. THE NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, MUMBAI

ITA 1452/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT (DR)

Section 10Section 14ASection 250Section 32Section 90

section 36(1)(iii) of the\nAct. Accordingly, the AO disallowed the amount of Rs.160,77,00,000 claimed\nas deduction

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

ITA 1547/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1452/Mum/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT (DR)

Section 10Section 14ASection 250Section 32Section 90

disallowance of interest on perpetual bonds. 62. The brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue, as emanating from the record, are: During the assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to show cause as to why the perpetual bonds should not be treated as equity and consequently the interest paid on such bonds should be allowed under section 36

STATE BANK OF MYSORE,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

ITA 661/BANG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved & Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Shri P.C. Chhotaray, Spl. Counsel

Section 2Section 250Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 41(1)

section 36(1)(iv) & (v) of the Income Tax Act,1961?” iii. Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in allowing a loss of Rs. 16,84,481/-on revaluation of on account of loss permanent category investments, even though the same is a notional loss and inadmissible

DY..C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S STATE BANK OF MYSORE, BANGALORE

ITA 684/BANG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved & Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Shri P.C. Chhotaray, Spl. Counsel

Section 2Section 250Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 41(1)

section 36(1)(iv) & (v) of the Income Tax Act,1961?” iii. Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in allowing a loss of Rs. 16,84,481/-on revaluation of on account of loss permanent category investments, even though the same is a notional loss and inadmissible

KAUSALYA AGRO FARMS AMD DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of our above findings

ITA 804/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 251(1)(a)Section 36(1)(iii)

36(1)(iii) of the Act. In this background, we find substance in the contention of the Ld. AR that the Ld. CIT(A), while exercising his powers under the proviso to section 251(1)(a) of the Act, should have restricted the remand to the specific issue of disallowance

SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(3)(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 2971/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Section 115JSection 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

section 14A of\nthe Act at Rs.1867,45,30,421/-.\n(i) Disallowance to bad-debts u/s 36(1)(vii)\n(ii) Disallowance of amortized rent\n(iii

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 3(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

ITA 2894/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

section 14A of the Act at Rs. 1867,45,30,421/-. (i) Disallowance to bad-debts u/s 36(1)(vii) - Rs. 84,46,95,341/- (ii) Disallowance of amortized rent - Rs. 60,79,783/- (iii

SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(3)(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 2970/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

section 14A of the Act at Rs. 1867,45,30,421/-. (i) Disallowance to bad-debts u/s 36(1)(vii) - Rs. 84,46,95,341/- (ii) Disallowance of amortized rent - Rs. 60,79,783/- (iii

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 3(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

ITA 2943/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

section 14A of the Act at Rs. 1867,45,30,421/-. (i) Disallowance to bad-debts u/s 36(1)(vii) - Rs. 84,46,95,341/- (ii) Disallowance of amortized rent - Rs. 60,79,783/- (iii

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 3(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

ITA 3173/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Section 115JSection 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

section 14A of\nthe Act at Rs.1867,45,30,421/-.\n(i) Disallowance to bad-debts u/s 36(1)(vii)\n(ii) Disallowance of amortized rent\n(iii

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 3(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

ITA 2893/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Section 115JSection 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

section 14A of\nthe Act at Rs.1867,45,30,421/-.\n\n(i) Disallowance to bad-debts u/s 36(1)(vii)\n(ii) Disallowance of amortized rent\n(iii

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 3(3)(1), MUMBAI , MUMBAI vs. SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

ITA 3160/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

section 14A of the Act at Rs. 1867,45,30,421/-. (i) Disallowance to bad-debts u/s 36(1)(vii) - Rs. 84,46,95,341/- (ii) Disallowance of amortized rent - Rs. 60,79,783/- (iii

DCIT, CEN CIR 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. JAYAPRIYA COMPANY, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and

ITA 1252/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Yamuna, CIT

Section 132Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 250

disallowed the same. The Hon’ble High Court is noted to have examined the provisions of Section 10(2)(iii) [now Section 36(1

DCIT, CC2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. JAYAPRIYA COMPANY, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and

ITA 1251/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Yamuna, CIT

Section 132Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 250

disallowed the same. The Hon’ble High Court is noted to have examined the provisions of Section 10(2)(iii) [now Section 36(1

M/S HERO CYCLES LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, C-V, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed and the\nappeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 473/CHANDI/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

For Respondent: \nShri Ashwani Kumar, Shri Ashish Aggarwal &

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

disallowance of interest under section 14A\nand Section 36(1) (iii). In para 4 the AO made disallowance of interest

DCIT, C-V, LUDHIANA vs. M/S HERO CYCLES LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 588/CHANDI/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 588/Chd/2018 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2012-13 The DCIT C-V, Ludhiana बनाम M/s Hero Cycles Ltd. Hero Nagar, G.T. Road Ludhiana स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAACH4073P अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 473/Chd/2018 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2012-13 M/s Hero Cycles Ltd. Hero Nagar, G.T. Road Ludhiana बनाम The ACIT C-V, Ludhiana स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAACH4073P

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, Shri Ashish Aggarwal &For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

disallowance of interest under section 14A and Section 36(1) (iii). In para 4 the AO made disallowance of interest