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.

2 results for “disallowance”+ Section 194Hclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai305Delhi219Kolkata98Bangalore94Chennai75Jaipur19Karnataka19Rajkot16Chandigarh10Ahmedabad8Pune6Hyderabad6Raipur5Lucknow4Patna4Telangana4Surat4Indore4Jodhpur3Calcutta3Nagpur2Kerala2Cochin2Amritsar2SC2Guwahati1Visakhapatnam1

Key Topics

Disallowance2Addition to Income2

DE vs. ON PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMMUVS.ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2, JAMMU

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 204/ASR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Vijay Dewan, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Ghansham Sharma, Sr. DR

disallowance of Rs.3,54,311/- be allowed and appeal accepted.” Devson Pvt. Ltd. v. Asstt./Dy.CIT 5. The learned additional CIT DR supported the impugned order. He contended that what is claimed by the assessee relates to incentives paid to its employees and no way related to the sales commission. The learned CIT appeal was therefore justified in confirming

DE vs. ON PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMMUVS.DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2, JAMMU

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 549/ASR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Sept 2022
AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Vijay Dewan, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Ghansham Sharma, Sr. DR

disallowance of Rs.3,54,311/- be allowed and appeal accepted.” Devson Pvt. Ltd. v. Asstt./Dy.CIT 5. The learned additional CIT DR supported the impugned order. He contended that what is claimed by the assessee relates to incentives paid to its employees and no way related to the sales commission. The learned CIT appeal was therefore justified in confirming