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.

5 results for “disallowance”+ Section 274(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,540Delhi1,031Bangalore360Chennai260Ahmedabad193Kolkata188Jaipur137Raipur113Pune112Surat85Hyderabad71Indore58Chandigarh55Allahabad40Lucknow26Rajkot25Ranchi25Cuttack23Amritsar20Karnataka19Visakhapatnam15Nagpur14Guwahati12Panaji11Cochin11Agra10SC10Telangana8Jodhpur6Dehradun5Calcutta5Punjab & Haryana2Jabalpur2Varanasi2Rajasthan2

Key Topics

Section 80I6Section 271(1)(c)4Section 153A4Deduction3Addition to Income3Section 132(4)2Section 2712Disallowance2Penalty2Search & Seizure

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (IT & TP) vs. M/S. DONGFANG ELECTRIC CORPORATION

ITAT/66/2018HC Calcutta09 Jul 2021

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 139Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

2 “Whether the penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are invalid if the show-cause notice does not specifically spell out the grounds for imposition of the proposed penalty?”. Facts 4. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that a search was conducted by the income tax department on 23.11.2007 under section

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 KOLKATA vs. BOTHRA SHIPPING SERVICES PVT LTD

2

In the result, the appeals are dismissed and the substantial

ITAT/85/2024HC Calcutta25 Sept 2024

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

Section 80I

disallowed the deduction claimed under Section 80IA(4) of the Act. The assessee moved the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) contending that the assessing officer erred in not considering that the assessee had produced the Port certificate granted by the specified authority which certified that the infrastructural facility developed by the assessee is an integral part of the port

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 KOLKATA vs. BOTHRA SHIPPING SERVICES PVT LTD

In the result, the appeals are dismissed and the substantial

ITAT/86/2024HC Calcutta25 Sept 2024

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

Section 80I

disallowed the deduction claimed under Section 80IA(4) of the Act. The assessee moved the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) contending that the assessing officer erred in not considering that the assessee had produced the Port certificate granted by the specified authority which certified that the infrastructural facility developed by the assessee is an integral part of the port

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL-1, KOLKATA vs. MONOJ KUMAR JAIN & SONS(HUF)

The appeal is allowed and the order passed by the

ITAT/131/2017HC Calcutta15 Dec 2021

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

For Appellant: MR. Smarajit Roy Chowdhury, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. J. P. Khiatan, Sr. Adv
Section 132Section 143Section 153CSection 260ASection 271

2 assessment years 2002-03 to 2007-08 and in ITA No.1183 to 1187/Kol/2011 for the assessment years 2002-03 to 2005-06 and 2007-08 respectively. The Revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration. a. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned Tribunal was justified in law in invalidating

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOL - IV vs. JCT. LTD.

ITA/19/2013HC Calcutta19 Dec 2023

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI,HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ

Section 263Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act 1961’]. 4. In appeal, the CIT(A) upheld the order passed by the assessing officer, which was also affirmed by the Tribunal in appeal filed by the assessee. The assessee carried the matter to this Court in ITA No.271 of 2005, which was disposed