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.

17,310 results for “disallowance”+ Section 57clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai4,703 Delhi3,855 Bangalore1,584 Chennai1,266 Kolkata1,010 Ahmedabad902 Jaipur493 Hyderabad464 Pune433 Indore336 Chandigarh293 Cochin272 Surat261 Rajkot165 Raipur139 Nagpur134 Visakhapatnam116 Lucknow109 Karnataka89 Cuttack82 Panaji67 Amritsar63 Jodhpur54 Allahabad53 Agra51 Ranchi48 Calcutta46 Telangana42 SC35 Dehradun31 Guwahati27 Varanasi25 Patna23 Jabalpur20 Punjab & Haryana6 Kerala6 Orissa2 Himachal Pradesh1 ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1 Gauhati1 Rajasthan1 RANJAN GOGOI PRAFULLA C. PANT1

Key Topics

Addition to Income63 Disallowance51 Section 143(3)44 Section 14A39 Deduction31 Section 14819 Section 80H18 Depreciation18 Section 10A17 Section 260

ALNESH AKIL SOMJI,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 35/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nitin RanderFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 24

disallowance of interest u/s 57(iii) of the Act since the only requirement to be fulfilled for claiming expenses under the said section

Showing 1–20 of 17,310 · Page 1 of 866

...

16

D.C.I.T. CENT. CIR. - 7(2), MUMBAI vs. RAJAHMUNDHRY EXPRESSWAY LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals are dismissed

ITA 6487/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri G. Manjunatha

disallowance made under section 14A of the Act while computing the book profit under section 115JB of the Act. 55. We have dealt with this issue while deciding ground no.11, raised by the assessee in its appeal being ITA no.6518/Mum./2017, wherein we have upheld the decision of the learned Commissioner (Appeals). Facts being identical, following our decision therein

M/S. BHARTI AIRTEL LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee with respect to ground No

ITA 5816/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishibharti Airtel Ltd, Addl Cit, Bharti Crescent, 1, Vs. Range-2, Cr Building, Ip Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Estate, New Delhi Kunj, New Delhi Pan:Aaacb2894G (Appellant) (Respondent) Bharti Airtel Ltd, Addl Cit, Bharti Crescent, 1, Vs. Range-2, Cr Building, Ip Nelson Mandela Road, Vaxant Estate, New Delhi Kunj, New Delhi Pan:Aaacb2894G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, SrFor Respondent: Sh. NC Swain, CIT DR (OSD)

Section 201Section 254Section 40

section clearly imposing liability". This exception has been also reiterated by Supreme Court in the case of Oil & Natural Gas Commission v. CIT [2015] 59 taxmann.com 5. However, in the present case, this exception has no application. The rule of resolving ambiguity in favour of the assessee does not also apply where the interpretation in favour of assessee will have

ALNESH MOHAMADAKIL SOMJI,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

ITA 34/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 153ASection 24

disallowance of interest\nu/s 57(iii) of the Act since the only requirement to be fulfilled for claiming\nexpenses under the said section

BRIGADE ENTERPRISES LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1)(2), , BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 2008-09 to 2010-11 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 529/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri. B. R. Sudheendra, CAFor Respondent: Shri. R. N. Siddappaji, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 14A

57(iii) of the Act, where the expression used is ‘for the purpose of making or earning such income’. Section 14A of the Act on the other hand contains the expression ‘in relation to income which does not form part of the total income.’ The decision in Rajendra Prasad Moody (supra) cannot be used in the reverse to contend that

M/S BRIGADE ENTERPRISES LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 2008-09 to 2010-11 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 530/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri. B. R. Sudheendra, CAFor Respondent: Shri. R. N. Siddappaji, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 14A

57(iii) of the Act, where the expression used is ‘for the purpose of making or earning such income’. Section 14A of the Act on the other hand contains the expression ‘in relation to income which does not form part of the total income.’ The decision in Rajendra Prasad Moody (supra) cannot be used in the reverse to contend that

BRIGADE ENTERPRISES LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 2008-09 to 2010-11 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 528/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Feb 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri. B. R. Sudheendra, CAFor Respondent: Shri. R. N. Siddappaji, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 14A

57(iii) of the Act, where the expression used is ‘for the purpose of making or earning such income’. Section 14A of the Act on the other hand contains the expression ‘in relation to income which does not form part of the total income.’ The decision in Rajendra Prasad Moody (supra) cannot be used in the reverse to contend that

DCIT 2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. BAJAJ ELECTRICALS LTD, MUMBAI

Accordingly we remit the impugned issue back to the AO with similar directions. The grounds raised by the assessee in this regard are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5749/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

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

For Respondent: Shri Rakesh Ranjan-CIT-DR &

Section 115Section 14ASection 250

57,22,635/- respectively. The assessee's case was selected for scrutiny and the statutory notices were duly served on the assessee. The Assessing Officer (AO) completed the assessment by making the following disallowance: (i) Disallowance under section

BAJAJ ELECTRICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 2(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly we remit the impugned issue back to the AO with similar directions. The grounds raised by the assessee in this regard are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 110/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

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

For Respondent: Shri Rakesh Ranjan-CIT-DR &

Section 115Section 14ASection 250

57,22,635/- respectively. The assessee's case was selected for scrutiny and the statutory notices were duly served on the assessee. The Assessing Officer (AO) completed the assessment by making the following disallowance: (i) Disallowance under section

BAJAJ ELECTRICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 2(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly we remit the impugned issue back to the AO with similar directions. The grounds raised by the assessee in this regard are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4172/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

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

For Respondent: Shri Rakesh Ranjan-CIT-DR &

Section 115Section 14ASection 250

57,22,635/- respectively. The assessee's case was selected for scrutiny and the statutory notices were duly served on the assessee. The Assessing Officer (AO) completed the assessment by making the following disallowance: (i) Disallowance under section

SHRI GIRISHBHAI VADILAL SHAH,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 332/AHD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 330, 331 & 332/Ahd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17) िनधा"रण वष" Girishbhai Vadilal Shah Dcit बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम 139, V R Shah Smruti Circle – 4(1)(2), Vs. Shikshan Mandir, Nr. Ahmedabad Dharnidhar Derasar, Vasna, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, 380007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abjps3102P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Jaimin Shah, Ar अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 26/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 15/07/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: These Three Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Ahmedabad, (In Short The ‘Cit(A)’), (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’) All Dated 16.03.2020 For The Assessment Year 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17. As The Issues Involved In The Three Appeals Are Common, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Vide This Common Order.

For Respondent: Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. DR

Section 40A(2)(b)Section 57

disallowance of interest expenditure can be made under Section 58(2) of the Act as upheld by the Ld. CIT(A). The provision of Section 58 of the Act is found to be as under: 58. Amounts not deductible. (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in section 57

SHRI GIRISHBHAI VADILAL SHAH,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 331/AHD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 330, 331 & 332/Ahd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17) िनधा"रण वष" Girishbhai Vadilal Shah Dcit बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम 139, V R Shah Smruti Circle – 4(1)(2), Vs. Shikshan Mandir, Nr. Ahmedabad Dharnidhar Derasar, Vasna, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, 380007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abjps3102P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Jaimin Shah, Ar अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 26/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 15/07/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: These Three Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Ahmedabad, (In Short The ‘Cit(A)’), (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’) All Dated 16.03.2020 For The Assessment Year 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17. As The Issues Involved In The Three Appeals Are Common, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Vide This Common Order.

For Respondent: Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. DR

Section 40A(2)(b)Section 57

disallowance of interest expenditure can be made under Section 58(2) of the Act as upheld by the Ld. CIT(A). The provision of Section 58 of the Act is found to be as under: 58. Amounts not deductible. (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in section 57

SHRI GIRISHBHAI VADILAL SHAH,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 330/AHD/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 330, 331 & 332/Ahd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17) िनधा"रण वष" Girishbhai Vadilal Shah Dcit बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम 139, V R Shah Smruti Circle – 4(1)(2), Vs. Shikshan Mandir, Nr. Ahmedabad Dharnidhar Derasar, Vasna, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, 380007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abjps3102P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Jaimin Shah, Ar अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 26/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 15/07/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: These Three Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Ahmedabad, (In Short The ‘Cit(A)’), (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’) All Dated 16.03.2020 For The Assessment Year 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17. As The Issues Involved In The Three Appeals Are Common, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Vide This Common Order.

For Respondent: Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. DR

Section 40A(2)(b)Section 57

disallowance of interest expenditure can be made under Section 58(2) of the Act as upheld by the Ld. CIT(A). The provision of Section 58 of the Act is found to be as under: 58. Amounts not deductible. (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in section 57

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

57 (iii) of the act. Ratio of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of AMRITABEN R SHAH was followed. 28 g) Hon’ble ITAT Mumbai D bench in the case of GANJAM TRADING CO PVT LTD ( ITA NO 3724/ MUM/2005) wide order dated 28-6-2012 dealt with section 14 A as well

ACIT,, NEW DELHI vs. M/S RELIGARE FINVEST LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, for assessment year 2007-08 the appeal of the assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5872/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Aug 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh, Judicialmember

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

disallowance of ₹ 2,77,57,100/-under section 14A of the Act read with rule 8D as under: Particulars Amount

M/S RELIGARE FINVEST LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, for assessment year 2007-08 the appeal of the assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6474/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Aug 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh, Judicialmember

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

disallowance of ₹ 2,77,57,100/-under section 14A of the Act read with rule 8D as under: Particulars Amount

RELIGARE FINVEST LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIY, RANGE-21, NEW DELHI

In the result, for assessment year 2007-08 the appeal of the assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1947/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Aug 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh, Judicialmember

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

disallowance of ₹ 2,77,57,100/-under section 14A of the Act read with rule 8D as under: Particulars Amount

ACIT, CIRCLE- 21(1), NEW DELHI vs. RELIGARE FINVEST LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, for assessment year 2007-08 the appeal of the assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2364/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Aug 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh, Judicialmember

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

disallowance of ₹ 2,77,57,100/-under section 14A of the Act read with rule 8D as under: Particulars Amount

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

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1982/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat

Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)Section 40Section 40a

57,820/- under normal provisions and Rs. 2984,69,82,290/- under section 115JB of the Act. Aggrieved against this the assessee preferred appeal before learned CIT(Appeals), who after considering the submissions deleted the disallowances

VARDHMAN SPECIAL STEELS LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA

ITA 79/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 May 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: \nShri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: \nDr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 270ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 57

disallowance of interest\nexpenditure on notional basis amounting to Rs.8,16,010/- on\ninvestments under the provisions of Section 36(1) (iii) of The Act.\n5. Without pre-judice to ground no.4, the National Faceless\nAppeal Centre /Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not allowing the above mentioned\ninterest expenditure under Section 57