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

Mumbai22,423Delhi16,983Chennai6,497Kolkata6,113Bangalore5,778Ahmedabad4,585Pune3,781Hyderabad2,657Jaipur2,269Chandigarh1,509Cochin1,443Surat1,443Indore1,272Visakhapatnam895Karnataka795Raipur753Cuttack736Rajkot708Amritsar622Nagpur584Lucknow513Panaji306Jodhpur298Agra280Ranchi249Guwahati243Telangana225Calcutta213Patna191Dehradun170SC153Allahabad145Jabalpur140Kerala76Varanasi60Punjab & Haryana41Orissa20Rajasthan11Himachal Pradesh8A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN7Gauhati2Andhra Pradesh2Uttarakhand2ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1ANIL R. DAVE AMITAVA ROY L. NAGESWARA RAO1RANJAN GOGOI PRAFULLA C. PANT1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1J&K1Tripura1D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1Bombay1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1

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