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 194Jclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai459Delhi256Bangalore182Chennai159Kolkata138Jaipur17Hyderabad15Pune12Raipur11Karnataka9Panaji9Amritsar8Chandigarh8Ahmedabad8Patna7Surat5Cuttack4Dehradun4Cochin4Rajkot4SC3Lucknow3Jodhpur3Visakhapatnam2Calcutta2Indore2Telangana2Agra2Uttarakhand1Nagpur1Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 4012Section 9(1)6Section 1956Section 260A2Section 14A2Section 194H2Disallowance2Addition to Income2

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3, KOLKATA vs. M/S. EIH LTD

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is

ITAT/34/2020HC Calcutta16 Dec 2021

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

Section 14ASection 194HSection 195Section 260ASection 40Section 9(1)

disallowance was deleted. That apart, we note that identical issue was raised before this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. REI Agro passed in ITAT/161/2013, which was dismissed by judgment dated 23rd December, 2013. Thus, we find that the question no.5 has to be decided against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. With regard

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 14 KOLKATA vs. RAMESH CHAND GUPTA

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is

ITA/34/2020HC Calcutta07 Dec 2021

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

Section 14ASection 194HSection 195Section 260ASection 40Section 9(1)

disallowance was deleted. That apart, we note that identical issue was raised before this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. REI Agro passed in ITAT/161/2013, which was dismissed by judgment dated 23rd December, 2013. Thus, we find that the question no.5 has to be decided against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. With regard