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 275clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi714Mumbai631Bangalore172Chennai168Ahmedabad159Kolkata132Cochin109Jaipur104Chandigarh57Hyderabad52Surat47Raipur33Pune30Indore28Nagpur23Karnataka20Cuttack20Amritsar18Lucknow15Rajkot14Ranchi12Jodhpur10Guwahati10Visakhapatnam8Telangana5Calcutta5Jabalpur4Patna4Panaji4Allahabad3Varanasi3Agra3SC2Dehradun1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 14A6Section 260A5Disallowance4Addition to Income4Section 80I3Section 92B2Section 682Section 115J2Section 43B2Section 36(1)(iii)

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2, KOLKATA vs. M/S KESORAM INDUSTRIES LTD

In the result, the appeal is dismissed and it is held that substantial

ITAT/67/2022HC Calcutta20 Dec 2022

Bench: :

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 260ASection 68Section 80ISection 92B

section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, stating that the said ground was not relevant to the order of the lower authorities ? We have heard Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant/revenue and Mr. J.P. Khaitan, learned Senior Advocate for the respondent/assessee. It is pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent/assessee that

2

INDIAN ALUMINIUM COMPANY LIMITED vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue

ITA/173/2007HC Calcutta05 Jan 2023

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 5Th January, 2023 Appearance : Mr. Om Narain Rai, Adv. …For The Revenue. Mr. J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Ms. Arati Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Rosy Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Binayak Gupta, Adv. …For The Assessee The Court : These Appeals Filed By The Revenue As Well As The Assessee Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Are Directed Against The Order Dated October 20, 2006, Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal `A’ Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) In Ita 1221/Kol./2006 & Ita 1045/Kol./2006, For The Assessment Year 2002-03. The Appeal Being Ita 173 Of 2007 Was Admitted On 7Th May, 2008 On The Following Substantial Questions Of Law :- “Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Learned Tribunal Was Justified In Law In Not Allowing :

Section 14ASection 260ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 43BSection 80I

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act without considering the Supreme Court ruling reported in 288 ITR1(SC). 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case learned Tribunal was justified in law in making the addition of Rs.22,93,311/- in 3 respect of unutilized MODVAT credit for the relevant previous year without even considering that

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOL-III vs. M/S. INDIAN ALUMINIUM CO. LTD.

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue

ITA/96/2007HC Calcutta05 Jan 2023

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 5Th January, 2023 Appearance : Mr. Om Narain Rai, Adv. …For The Revenue. Mr. J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Ms. Arati Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Rosy Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Binayak Gupta, Adv. …For The Assessee The Court : These Appeals Filed By The Revenue As Well As The Assessee Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Are Directed Against The Order Dated October 20, 2006, Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal `A’ Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) In Ita 1221/Kol./2006 & Ita 1045/Kol./2006, For The Assessment Year 2002-03. The Appeal Being Ita 173 Of 2007 Was Admitted On 7Th May, 2008 On The Following Substantial Questions Of Law :- “Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Learned Tribunal Was Justified In Law In Not Allowing :

Section 14ASection 260ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 43BSection 80I

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act without considering the Supreme Court ruling reported in 288 ITR1(SC). 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case learned Tribunal was justified in law in making the addition of Rs.22,93,311/- in 3 respect of unutilized MODVAT credit for the relevant previous year without even considering that

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 PUNE vs. M/S NALCO WATER INDIA LTD ( FORMERLY NLC NALCO INDIA LTD

Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed

ITAT/61/2018HC Calcutta02 Dec 2021

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

Section 260A

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’, in brevity) and is directed against the order dated 5th April, 2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” Bench, Kolkata (the Tribunal) in ITA No.2111/Kol/2013 for the assessment year 2008-09. The Revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration: a) Whether on the facts

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. RAM RATAN MODI

ITAT/157/2022HC Calcutta13 Apr 2023

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

Section 158BSection 260A

disallowed the interest expenditure to the tune of Rs. 67.65 crores on the ITAT NO. 157 OF 2022 REPORTABLE Page 13 of 16 reason that amount of Rs. 89.02 crores was utilized for non- business purpose and we note that for these precise reasons that no substantial addition was made in the hands of the assessee because the entire money