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.

79,781 results for “disallowance”+ Section 5clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai22,198Delhi16,736Chennai6,512Kolkata6,125Bangalore5,762Ahmedabad3,937Pune2,435Hyderabad2,207Jaipur1,797Surat1,299Cochin1,275Indore1,127Chandigarh1,034Karnataka747Raipur684Rajkot678Visakhapatnam612Nagpur548Cuttack522Amritsar510Lucknow452Panaji302Jodhpur292Agra258Telangana201Guwahati198Ranchi194Patna190Dehradun167Calcutta149Allahabad141SC138Jabalpur129Kerala69Varanasi59Punjab & Haryana40Orissa15Rajasthan11Himachal Pradesh8A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN7Andhra Pradesh2Uttarakhand2Gauhati2H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1ANIL R. DAVE AMITAVA ROY L. NAGESWARA RAO1Tripura1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1RANJAN GOGOI PRAFULLA C. PANT1D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1J&K1Bombay1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1

Key Topics

Addition to Income70Disallowance60Section 143(3)55Section 14A53Section 153C43Section 6840Section 143(1)32Section 4030Deduction29Section 271(1)(c)

M/S MYSORE POLYMERS & RUBBER PRODUCTS LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES

In the result, writ appeal No

STRP/112/2008HC Karnataka17 Jun 2013

Bench: D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR,B.S.INDRAKALA

Section 23(1)Section 24(1)Section 4Section 6

section 5[3][a] of the Act but for the exemption. Submission is that exemption provision does not extinguish the liability and it is only because of the liability exemption is necessary. In support of this proposition, strong reliance is placed on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of ‘ASSOCIATED CEMENT COMPANIES LTD., v. STATE OF BIHAR

CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX vs. M/S SAFARI RETREATS PRIVATE LIMITED

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

Showing 1–20 of 79,781 · Page 1 of 3,990

...
26
Section 3523
Penalty14
C.A. No.-002948-002948 - 2023
Supreme Court
03 Oct 2024

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA

Section 17Section 17(5)(c)Section 17(5)(d)

5) of the CGST Act. Inviting our attention to Section 18(6), he submitted that the provision can be pressed into service only in case of supply of capital goods or plant and machinery on which ITC has been taken. He submitted that in the facts of the case, it is nobody’s case that the registered persons are supplying

ITO(E)-1(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. BHAVITHA FOUNDATION, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4766/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: 28/05/2024
Section 11Section 11(5)Section 13(1)(d)Section 143(3)

section 11(5)investment in shares is not a specified mode. Consequently, the dividend received there from such shares could not be therefore qualify dividend received there from such shares could not be therefore qualify dividend received there from such shares could not be therefore qualify to be an investment in specified modes us 11(5

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-1(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ALL INDIA GEM AND JEWELLERY DOMESTIC COUNCIL, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4652/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Respondent: Mr. Firoz Andhyarujina
Section 11Section 2(15)

5) would itself disqualify an institution from exemption under section 11. Such an interpretation cannot be from exemption under section 11. Such an interpretation cannot be from exemption under section 11. Such an interpretation cannot be sustained in law. 4.4 Further, the allegation of violation un Further, the allegation of violation under section 13(1)(c) was der section

RAMPURIA INDUSTRIES & INVESTMENTS LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, CENTRAL - 1, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 651/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2020AY 2013-14
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263Section 43(5)(d)

5) of the Act provided other conditions are speculation transactions u/s 43(5) of the Act provided other conditions are speculation transactions u/s 43(5) of the Act provided other conditions are satisfied because of recent and systemic and techn satisfied because of recent and systemic and technological changes introduced by ological changes introduced by stock exchanges. We have observed

M/S. BRIGADE ENTERPRISES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(3), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 2364/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Brigade Enterprises Ltd., 26/1, 30Th Floor Wtc, The Dy. Commissioner Of Dr. Rajkumar Road, Income-Tax, Malleshwaram, Circle-2(3), Rajajinagar, Bengaluru. Vs. Bengaluru-560 100. Pan – Aaacb 7459 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri P.C Kincha, C.A Revenue By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 20-07-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 11-10-2021 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 30/08/2019 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-11, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2013-14 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. General Ground 1.1. The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) ["Cit(A) For Short Hereinafter"] To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. 2. Disallowance Under Section 14A R.W. Rule 8D 2.1. The Learned Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle - 2(3), Bangalore ["Ao" For Short Hereinafter] Has Erred In Making A Disallowance Of Rs. 2,02,22,837/- Under Se Tion 14A Comprising Of Disallowa,,Ø-1S. 1,73,98,969/- Under Rule 8D(2)(Ii) & Rs. 28,23,868/- Under Rule 8D(2)(Iii) & The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Said Disallowance.

For Appellant: Shri P.C Kincha, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 14ASection 35DSection 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80

5. Disallowance of deduction under section 80-lB 5.1. The learned AO has erred in making a disallowance of Rs. 1,00,17,863/- claimed

DCIT CENT CIR. 8(1), MUMBAI vs. KUNAL GOVIND KATARIA, MUMBAI

ITA 4026/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodkunal Govind Kataria Vs. Dcit,Cc-8(1) 2/B, Cenced Apartments Aaykar Bhawan Nr.Bajaj Park, Ambedkar M.K.Road Road, Bandra(West) Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 050 Pan/Gir No.Aodpk3994G (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 28Section 43Section 43(5)(e)

section 43(5)(e) of the Act, and thus, there is no error in the findings recorded by the Ld. AO in disallowing

KUNAL GOVIND KATARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENT CIR. 8(1), MUMBAI

ITA 2292/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodkunal Govind Kataria Vs. Dcit,Cc-8(1) 2/B, Cenced Apartments Aaykar Bhawan Nr.Bajaj Park, Ambedkar M.K.Road Road, Bandra(West) Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 050 Pan/Gir No.Aodpk3994G (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 28Section 43Section 43(5)(e)

section 43(5)(e) of the Act, and thus, there is no error in the findings recorded by the Ld. AO in disallowing

.M. SALGAOCAR & BORS. VS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Accordingly Civil Appeal No. 657 of 1994 is allowed and Civil Appeal Nos

C.A. No.-000657-000657 - 1994Supreme Court10 Apr 2000
For Respondent: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ETC
Section 17(2)Section 256(1)Section 256(2)Section 36Section 40ASection 40A(5)

disallowed. We do not think that the language of sub-section (5) of Section 40A of the Act provides for or permits

ACIT - 4(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. PROGRESSIVE SHARE BROKERS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5317/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2009-10 Acit-4(2)(1), M/S Progressive Share Room No.642, 6Th Floor, Brokers Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, B, 1St Floor, Fort Chambers, Vs. M. K. Road, Homi Modi Cross Street, Mumbai-400020 Off. Hamam Street, Fort, Mumbai-400001 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.Aaacp6712H

Section 14ASection 43(5)Section 73

disallowance under section 73 of Rs.43,11,377/- on account of treating share trading loss as speculative loss and further in not segregating the assessee’s share arbitrage business in to two segments i.e. cash segment and derivative segment by not giving them separate treatment under the provisions of section 43(5

ELARA CAPITAL (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT- CIRCLE 6(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1569/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Elara Capital (India) Pvt. Ltd., The Acit-Circle 6(2)(2), Tower 3, 21St Floor, One Room No. 506, 5Th Floor, Vs. International Center, Senapati Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Karve Road, Mumbai- Road (West), Mumbai-400013. 400020. Pan No. Aabce 6487 B Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Milind DattaniFor Respondent: Mr. P.D. Chogule (Addl. CIT)
Section 14A

5 of 2014 dated 11-2-2014, Direct Taxes in Circular No which h which has been relied by the Tribunal in the impugned as been relied by the Tribunal in the impugned order cannot be upheld and the disallowance under order cannot be upheld and the disallowance under order cannot be upheld and the disallowance under section

STRIDES PHARMA SCIENCE LTD.,NAVI MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT -5(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result ITA number 1004/M/2021 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2016 – 17 is allowed

ITA 1004/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Strides Pharma Science Ltd. Dcit 15(1)(2) 201, Devavrata, Sector-17, Aayakar Bhavan, M K Road, Vs. Vashi, Navi Mumbai, 400703 Mumbai 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcs8104P

For Respondent: Ms Samruddhi Hande SR DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 92C

5. Disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii), Section 37 and Section 38 of the Act amounting to INR 15,34,55,236 (Page

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD vs. NSL RENEWABLE POWER PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 165/HYD/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Aliasgar RampurwalaFor Respondent: Shri P. Chandra Sekhar
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 80I

section 14A, expenditure incurred in relation to income which does not form part of total income shall be disallowed and also referring to the CBDT Circular No. 5/2014, dated 11/02/2014, the AO computed the disallowance u/s 14A at Rs. 13,51,57,665/- and added to the income returned by the assessee. He, accordingly, assessed the gross total income

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD vs. NSL RENEWABLE POWER PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 166/HYD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Aliasgar RampurwalaFor Respondent: Shri P. Chandra Sekhar
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 80I

section 14A, expenditure incurred in relation to income which does not form part of total income shall be disallowed and also referring to the CBDT Circular No. 5/2014, dated 11/02/2014, the AO computed the disallowance u/s 14A at Rs. 13,51,57,665/- and added to the income returned by the assessee. He, accordingly, assessed the gross total income

DCIT 4 (1)(1), MUMBAI vs. DHARAMSHI SECURITIES P LTD., MUMBAI

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 6789/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकर अपील िं./ I.T.A. No.6789/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Dcit-4(1)(1) M/S Dharamshi Securities Limited 6Th Floor, 640, Aaykar Bhawan बनाम/ 1073, Quest, Behind Beau Monde Towers M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Rajabhau Desai Marg, Prabhadevi Vs. Mumbai – 400 025 Pan No.: Aaacd-3924-G (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Paresh Shaparia- Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Sunil Jha- Ld. Cit-Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 25/05/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 27/07/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri Paresh Shaparia- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Jha- Ld. CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 43(5)Section 43(5)(d)Section 73Section 73(1)

Section 73(1), disallowed business loss after treating the same as speculation loss. On similar lines, Ld. AO proceeded to disallow the same in this year also. 3.2 The assessee submitted that no loss was incurred on transactions in cash segment for daily square-off. The other losses were in derivative segment which were to be treated as normal business

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAHARA INDIA MASS COMMUNICATION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 2480/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2026AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 40

5, disallowed this claim on the following I. grounds: 1. No statutory' head for "reimbursement": The AO noted that the Income-tax Act does not contain a specific section

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAHARA INDIA MASS COMMUNICATION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 2478/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2026AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 40

5, disallowed this claim on the following I. grounds: 1. No statutory' head for "reimbursement": The AO noted that the Income-tax Act does not contain a specific section

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAHARA INDIA MASS COMMUNICATION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 2479/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2026AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 40

5, disallowed this claim on the following I. grounds: 1. No statutory' head for "reimbursement": The AO noted that the Income-tax Act does not contain a specific section

VAIJANTHI MAHAVIR OZA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(IT)-3(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 5799/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5799/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) बिाम/ Vaijanthi Mahavir Oza, Income Tax Officer- C/O. Chhajed & Doshi, (International Taxation)- 101, Hubtown Solaris, 3(3)(1) V. N.S Phadke Marg, Room No. 1628, Near East West Flyover, 16Th Floor Andheri (E), Air India Building Mumbai- 400069 Mumbai स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Abepo5631J (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Piyush Chhajjed Revenue By: Miss. Deepika Arora (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 09.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.04.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 5799/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 23.06.2017, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-57, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2014-15, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Assessment Order Dated 23.12.2016 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2014-15. I.T.A. No.5799/Mum/2017

For Appellant: Shri. Piyush ChhajjedFor Respondent: Miss. Deepika Arora (DR)
Section 1Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54F

5(2) and section 14 of the Act and thereby importing its meaning into section 54 read with section 45 of the Act. In fact, the words 'in India' are already present in section 54 of the Act when applying it in the case of a non-resident and thus, the new residential house has to be purchased or constructed

TATA CHEMICALS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT 2 (3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 7912/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2026AY 2015-16
For Appellant: \nMr. Nitesh Joshi a/wFor Respondent: \nMr. Ajay Chandra, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 35Section 43BSection 80Section 91Section 92Section 92A(3)

disallowing the expenditure\non Scientific Research and Development u/s 35(2AB) totaling to Rs.\n4,24,13,526/- for all the three units, on the basis of the auditor's\ncertificate which stated that these expenses are beyond the\nguidelines laid down by DSIR. These guidelines are in contradiction\nwith the provisions of section