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 201(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,600Delhi1,278Bangalore717Chennai491Kolkata446Ahmedabad286Jaipur196Hyderabad185Raipur124Pune108Surat102Cochin101Chandigarh63Cuttack61Karnataka56Indore53Rajkot49Lucknow34Amritsar29Panaji26Nagpur25Visakhapatnam25Jodhpur23Telangana15Ranchi13Agra12Guwahati10SC10Patna9Dehradun9Jabalpur8Punjab & Haryana6Allahabad5Kerala5Varanasi3Rajasthan2Calcutta2Tripura1

Key Topics

Section 260A2Section 372Addition to Income2

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 2 KOLKATA vs. M/S JAJODIA FINANCE LIMITED

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed

ITAT/2/2025HC Calcutta22 Jul 2025

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Chief Justice T.S Sivagnanam

Section 143(1)Section 254Section 255Section 260A

3 We have heard Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, learned senior standing counsel for the appellant/revenue and Mr. Abhratosh Majumdar, learned senior advocate for the respondent/assessee. The assessee filed its return of income declaring total income as ‘nil’ which was processed under Section 143(1) where a refund of Rs.22,83,940/- was raised and issued. The case was selected for scrutiny

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL-1, KOLKATA vs. M/S. FEEGRADE AND COMPANY PVT. LTD.

In the result, the substantial questions of law are answered against

ITAT/25/2018HC Calcutta04 Jan 2022

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

Section 260ASection 37Section 37(1)Section 73

disallowance as the overloading charges is nothing but penalty as per Provision of Section 73 of the Indian Railway Act 1989. d) Whether on the fact and circumstances of the case Net Present Value (NPV) paid to Forest department is a non-recovering outlaw whose benefit was/would be consumed for several years and it was one time/lump sum payment