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 10A(7)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai557Bangalore511Delhi470Chennai217Pune157Kolkata124Hyderabad106Ahmedabad104Karnataka52Jaipur45Chandigarh39Cochin29Visakhapatnam28Rajkot22Surat21Indore17Lucknow11Telangana11Guwahati10Amritsar9Dehradun5Cuttack5Jodhpur4Raipur3SC2Panaji2Nagpur2Varanasi2Calcutta1Agra1Kerala1

Key Topics

Section 10A15Section 10B15Exemption5Section 12A4Section 104Section 139(1)3Deduction3Addition to Income3Section 22

ITO, WARD-2(2), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR vs. BISWAJIT DAS, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the

ITA 473/CTK/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.S Saini & Shri Aby T. Varkeyassessment Year :2010-2011

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR
Section 10Section 10BSection 2

disallowed deduction u/s.10B of the Act to the assessee for Rs.80,51,858/- on the ground that the chemical composition of the product in the case of the assessee after the processes employed does not change. The chrome concentrate cannot be held to on a different character and use than chrome ore. The chemical composition, character

BISWAJIT DAS,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the

ITA 493/CTK/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.S Saini & Shri Aby T. Varkeyassessment Year :2010-2011

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR
Section 10Section 10BSection 2

disallowed deduction u/s.10B of the Act to the assessee for Rs.80,51,858/- on the ground that the chemical composition of the product in the case of the assessee after the processes employed does not change. The chrome concentrate cannot be held to on a different character and use than chrome ore. The chemical composition, character

DCIT, BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. DISCOVERTURE SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PVT. LTD., BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed

ITA 50/CTK/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack26 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Kuldip Singhassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Bibek Mohanty, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kunal Singh, CIT DR
Section 10ASection 10BSection 139(1)

10A and filed Form 56F in the audit report and subsequently vide submission dated 30.12.2013, the assessee is claiming exemption u/s.10B of the Act. Therefore, the Assessing Officer disallowed deduction u/s.10A on the ground that it was available only to unit established under Special Economic Zone and that in the case of the assessee it was not so. He also

WATCO,BHUBANESWAR vs. CIT(EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee allowed

ITA 78/CTK/2021[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack27 Sept 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiawatco, Ground Floor, Unnati Bhawan, Satyanagar, Bhubaneswar Pan No.Aabcw 7947 A ………………Assessee Versus Cit(Exemption), Hyderabad ………………..Revenue Shri B.R.Pattnaik, Ar For The Assessee Shri Suresh Shivnandan, Cit-Dr For The Revenue Date Of Hearing : 27/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 27/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am : This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed U/S 12A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), Hyderabad, Dated 06.12.2019, On The Following Grounds :- 1. The Order Passed By The Learned Cit(Exemption), Hyderabad Is Capricious, Invalid, Illegal & Bad In Law. 2. The Learned Commissioner (Exemption) Erred In Rejecting Our Application For Registration U/S 12Aa Of Income Tax Act On The Ground That The Appellant Was Carrying On Activities In The Nature Of Commerce & The Object Of The Appellant Were Not To Be Treated As For Charitable Purpose U/S 2(15) Of Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The Appellant Craves Leaves To Amend, Modify, Oblige, Add To Or Resigned Any Or All Of The Above Ground.

Section 12ASection 2(15)

10A for registration u/s. 12A of the Act is rejected. 7. On observation of the Ld CIT(E) in his order that ―Copy of Resolution dated 28.11.2018 wherein certain amendments were carried out to the objects. However, the said Resolution has not been registered before ROC. Hence, the objects as appearing in the original MOA are valid as on date

ITO, BHUBANESWAR vs. ORISSA COMPUTER APPLICATION CENTRE, BHUBANESWAR

ITA 282/CTK/2015[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack03 Oct 2017AY 2000-01

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Kumar Jena, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kunal Singh, CIT DR/D.K.Pradhan, DR
Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 251

disallowances of expenses and liabilities for expenses. 4. Aggrieved with the above order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT (Appeals)-II, Bhubaneswar who in his order passed in I.T Appeal No.0079/2009-10 dated 29.12.2009 partly allowed the appeal in excluding government grant and house rent recovered from the employees from the total receipts and after