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.

3 results for “disallowance”+ Deemed Dividendclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,238Delhi1,231Chennai579Kolkata507Bangalore437Ahmedabad178Pune132Cochin129Jaipur97Hyderabad93Chandigarh83Raipur58Lucknow42Indore34Karnataka29Surat29Nagpur24Visakhapatnam21SC18Guwahati13Rajkot9Cuttack9Telangana8Panaji7Jabalpur5Punjab & Haryana3Jodhpur3Agra3Calcutta3Amritsar2Orissa2Dehradun2Ranchi2A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1

Key Topics

Section 2636Section 2(22)(e)4Section 260A3Section 1433Section 362Section 2(24)(x)2Deemed Dividend2Addition to Income2

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-I, KOLKATA vs. HOOGHLY MILLS PROJECTS LTD, C/O SALARPURIA JAJODIA & CO.

Appeal stands dismissed and the substantial questions of law are answered against the

ITAT/73/2015HC Calcutta10 May 2022

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 10Th May, 2022. Appearance:- Ms. Smita Das De, Adv.

Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(24)(x)Section 260ASection 263Section 36

deemed dividend. In so far as the second question is concerned, he pointed out that the payment of arrear provident fund was in accordance with the order passed by the High Court. The same practice, as a matter of fact, he added, had been continuing for some time. In respect of one of the earlier years, the assessing Office

PRINCIPAL COMM OF INCOME TAX, KOL - 1 vs. M/S HOOGHLY MILLS PROJECTS LIMITED

ITAT/267/2017HC Calcutta25 Nov 2021

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(24)(x)Section 260ASection 263Section 36

deemed dividend. In so far as the second question is concerned, he pointed out that the payment of arrear provident fund was in accordance with the order passed by the High Court. The same practice, as a matter of fact, he added, had been continuing for some time. In respect of one of the earlier years, the assessing Officer

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION & TRA vs. JOY PARTNERSHIP MINING CENTRE

ITAT/71/2018HC Calcutta15 Nov 2021

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

Section 142Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 260A

disallowance on depreciation and thus the net profit came to 5 Rs.77,41,629/-. The loss carried forward by the assessee from previous year was Rs.2,88,71,747/- and after adjusting the aforesaid net profit, the loss carried forward for the next year was Rs.2,11,30,118/-. In the admitted facts of the case, the respondent assessee