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 2clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai22,685Delhi17,116Chennai6,579Kolkata6,166Bangalore5,807Ahmedabad2,689Pune2,322Hyderabad1,692Jaipur1,463Surat1,041Indore974Chandigarh929Cochin816Karnataka795Raipur659Rajkot619Visakhapatnam559Nagpur504Lucknow452Amritsar440Cuttack383Panaji286Telangana225Jodhpur223Agra220Calcutta213Patna191Ranchi187Guwahati179SC153Dehradun144Jabalpur107Allahabad99Kerala76Varanasi59Punjab & Haryana41Orissa20Rajasthan11Himachal Pradesh8A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN7Uttarakhand2Gauhati2Andhra Pradesh2ANIL R. DAVE AMITAVA ROY L. NAGESWARA RAO1RANJAN GOGOI PRAFULLA C. PANT1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1Tripura1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1J&K1Bombay1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)3Section 2602

M/S MERIDIAN PROMOTERS (P) lTD., vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the Appeal is allowed and the order, dated 26

ITTA/157/2019HC Andhra Pradesh17 Oct 2019

Bench: The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) In Ita.No.0782/Cc-2,Vizag/Cit(A)-

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 260A

2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [‘the Act’, for short] was first issued. Subsequently, notice under Section 142(1) of the Act was issued. Ultimately, the respondent had disallowed

SRI MAHESH GURRAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

ITTA/20/2024HC Andhra Pradesh22 Aug 2024

Bench: G.NARENDAR,KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA

For Respondent: SRI VIJAY KUMAR PUNNA (STANDING
Section 12ASection 138Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 151Section 23Section 260

Section 260 (A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the following substantial questions of law: A. Whether the Hon'ble ITAT erred in not foliowing and considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suo-Moto Cognizance for extension of limitation reported in 441 iTR 122, and holding that the Appeal filed