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.

17,113 results for “disallowance”+ Section 80clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai5,010Delhi4,080Bangalore1,446Chennai1,322Kolkata993Ahmedabad764Hyderabad506Pune468Jaipur445Chandigarh258Indore206Cochin174Raipur144Surat134Lucknow124Karnataka123Visakhapatnam111Rajkot109Nagpur98Guwahati70Panaji63Jodhpur61Amritsar54Patna43Ranchi42SC36Dehradun32Cuttack32Allahabad32Calcutta31Agra27Kerala16Jabalpur15Punjab & Haryana13Telangana10Varanasi9Himachal Pradesh4Rajasthan3Orissa2ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)110Section 80I90Addition to Income62Disallowance61Section 153A50Deduction47Section 26344Section 13232Section 14331Section 14A

SHITAL FIBERS LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

C.A. No.-014318-014318 - 2015Supreme Court20 May 2025

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

Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 80

Section 80-IA and 80-HHC were disallowed. 7. The appeal preferred by the appellant against the said Order was dismissed

RAMNATH AND CO. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

C.A. No.-002506-002509 - 2020Supreme Court05 Jun 2020

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

Showing 1–20 of 17,113 · Page 1 of 856

...
30
Section 153C21
TDS12
Section 80

80-O as the services made available to the foreign enterprises were rendered in India.” 11 5.7. In the aforesaid view of the matter, the AO disallowed the claim for deduction under Section

CIT vs. DELHI PRESS PATRA PRAKASHAN LTD

ITA - 302 / 2002HC Delhi31 May 2013
For Appellant: Mr N.P. SahniFor Respondent: Mr O.P. Dua, Sr. Adv. with Ms Babita
Section 143(1)Section 260ASection 80

Section 80-I of the Act with respect to Unit Nos. 2 & 3 was disallowed. The Assessing officer observed that

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. DELHI PRESS PATRA PRAKASHAN LT

ITA - 480 / 2005HC Delhi31 May 2013
For Appellant: Mr N.P. SahniFor Respondent: Mr O.P. Dua, Sr. Adv. with Ms Babita
Section 143(1)Section 260ASection 80

Section 80-I of the Act with respect to Unit Nos. 2 & 3 was disallowed. The Assessing officer observed that

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

ITA/480/2005HC Delhi31 May 2013
For Appellant: Mr N.P. SahniFor Respondent: Mr O.P. Dua, Sr. Adv. with Ms Babita
Section 143(1)Section 260ASection 80

Section 80-I of the Act with respect to Unit Nos. 2 & 3 was disallowed. The Assessing officer observed that

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S DELHI PRESS PATRA PRAKASHAN LTD

ITR-49-50/1996HC Delhi31 May 2013
For Appellant: Mr N.P. SahniFor Respondent: Mr O.P. Dua, Sr. Adv. with Ms Babita
Section 143(1)Section 260ASection 80

Section 80-I of the Act with respect to Unit Nos. 2 & 3 was disallowed. The Assessing officer observed that

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV vs. DELHI PRESS PATRA PRAKASHAN LTD

ITA-302/2002HC Delhi31 May 2013
For Appellant: Mr N.P. SahniFor Respondent: Mr O.P. Dua, Sr. Adv. with Ms Babita
Section 143(1)Section 260ASection 80

Section 80-I of the Act with respect to Unit Nos. 2 & 3 was disallowed. The Assessing officer observed that

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV vs. DELHI PRESS PATRA PRAKASHAN LTD

ITA-151/2002HC Delhi31 May 2013
For Appellant: Mr N.P. SahniFor Respondent: Mr O.P. Dua, Sr. Adv. with Ms Babita
Section 143(1)Section 260ASection 80

Section 80-I of the Act with respect to Unit Nos. 2 & 3 was disallowed. The Assessing officer observed that

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

ITA/302/2002HC Delhi31 May 2013
For Appellant: Mr N.P. SahniFor Respondent: Mr O.P. Dua, Sr. Adv. with Ms Babita
Section 143(1)Section 260ASection 80

Section 80-I of the Act with respect to Unit Nos. 2 & 3 was disallowed. The Assessing officer observed that

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV vs. DELHI PRESS PATRA PRAKASHAN LTD

ITA-480/2005HC Delhi31 May 2013
For Appellant: Mr N.P. SahniFor Respondent: Mr O.P. Dua, Sr. Adv. with Ms Babita
Section 143(1)Section 260ASection 80

Section 80-I of the Act with respect to Unit Nos. 2 & 3 was disallowed. The Assessing officer observed that

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

ITA/151/2002HC Delhi31 May 2013
For Appellant: Mr N.P. SahniFor Respondent: Mr O.P. Dua, Sr. Adv. with Ms Babita
Section 143(1)Section 260ASection 80

Section 80-I of the Act with respect to Unit Nos. 2 & 3 was disallowed. The Assessing officer observed that

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, DIGBOI, DIGBOI vs. ARUNACHAL TEA COMPANY, MARGHERITA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed while the CO of the assessee is allowed

ITA 133/GTY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati29 Jan 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Sri Manomohan Das & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 44ASection 6Section 7Section 80Section 801E

disallowance made u/s 80-IE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 when as per sub-section 6 of section 80

EATON TECHNOLOGIES PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-1,, PUNE

ITA 902/PUN/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & G.D.Padmahshaliआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.590/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Eaton Technologies Private Limited, Dcit, Circle-1(2), Cluster C, Wing 1, Eon Free Zone, Vs Pune Plot No.1, Sr.No.77, Midc Kharadi Knowledge Park, Kharadi, Pune 411 014 Pan : Aabce4323Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.902/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Eaton Technologies Private Limited, Pr.Cit-1, Cluster C, Wing 1, Eon Free Zone, Vs Pune Plot No.1, Sr.No.77, Midc Kharadi Knowledge Park, Kharadi, Pune 411 014 Pan : Aabce4323Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 80I

Disallowance under section 40(a)(i) of the Act 7. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the AO in considering the payments of INR 16,80

EATON TECHNOLOGIES PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(2),, PUNE

ITA 590/PUN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & G.D.Padmahshaliआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.590/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Eaton Technologies Private Limited, Dcit, Circle-1(2), Cluster C, Wing 1, Eon Free Zone, Vs Pune Plot No.1, Sr.No.77, Midc Kharadi Knowledge Park, Kharadi, Pune 411 014 Pan : Aabce4323Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.902/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Eaton Technologies Private Limited, Pr.Cit-1, Cluster C, Wing 1, Eon Free Zone, Vs Pune Plot No.1, Sr.No.77, Midc Kharadi Knowledge Park, Kharadi, Pune 411 014 Pan : Aabce4323Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 80I

Disallowance under section 40(a)(i) of the Act 7. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the AO in considering the payments of INR 16,80

ITO, WARD-35(2), NEW DELHI vs. VIJAY GUPTA, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4080/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Tulsiyan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR
Section 1Section 3Section 6Section 8Section 801CSection 80I

disallowed the remaining 75%, amounting to Rs.69,93,427/-. 3. The assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A), who vide order dated 19.02.2018 deleted the addition and allowed the assessee’s appeal holding as under:- 7. Decision 7.1 “The undisputed facts are that Assessee is deriving income from manufacturing of LPG Gas Stove under the name & style M/s Supershine Domestic

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

section 80-lB amounting to Rs. 1,00,17,863/- be allowed. v) Disallowance of deduction under section 80-lB amounting

KOTHARI AGRITECH PVT. LTD,,SOLAPUR vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1, SOLAPUR

In the result, the both appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2455/PUN/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Sept 2025AY 2018-2019

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

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 80Section 801ASection 80ISection 80J

80-IA of the Act, if the return is furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139 of the Act. The Appellant has filed its return of income within the due date as specified under section 139(1) of the Act. b. Disallowance

KOTHARI AGRITECH PRIVATE LIMITED,SOLAPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1, SOLAPUR

In the result, the both appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2392/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 80Section 801ASection 80ISection 80J

80-IA of the Act, if the return is furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139 of the Act. The Appellant has filed its return of income within the due date as specified under section 139(1) of the Act. b. Disallowance

EATON TECHNOLOGIES PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(2),, PUNE

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 3075/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.3075/Pun/2017 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Eaton Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Cluster C, Wing 1, Eon Free Zone, Plot No.1, Sr. No.77, Midc Kharadi Knowledge Park, Kharadi ,Pune- 411 014. .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan : Aabce4323Q बनधम / V/S. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Dcit, Circle-1(2), Pune Assessee By : Shri Vishal Karla Revenue By : Shri S. P. Walimbe

For Appellant: Shri Vishal KarlaFor Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144C(8)Section 40Section 80ISection 92C

disallowance is merited under section 10AA of the Act. The basic condition for application of the said provisions of the Act are an arrangement between the parties, which is so arranged as to enable the assessee to earn super normal profits. The TPO/Assessing Officer/DRP has not pointed out any such arrangement whatsoever between the assessee and the comparable companies selected

M/S. INDAGRO FOODS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT - (OSD) 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7342/MUM/2008[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2019AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, with Ms. Vasanti PatelFor Respondent: Shri Chaitnya Anjaria and Sh. Manoj Kumar Singh (Sr.DR’s)
Section 254(1)Section 80HSection 80I

disallowed the deduction under section 80IB holding that the assessee’s activities undertaken at industrial unit at District-Unnao, State of U.P. does not fall in the category of ‘manufacturing’ or ‘production’. The ld. CIT(A) while deciding the appeal held that in the entire process involved in converting Carcass into meat, there is no difference in between input