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.

4 results for “disallowance”+ Section 171clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai903Delhi738Bangalore271Kolkata150Chennai129Jaipur125Ahmedabad124Pune99Chandigarh94Hyderabad77Raipur73Indore69Surat38Rajkot38Guwahati38Lucknow37Visakhapatnam34Cochin33Allahabad26Cuttack26Ranchi23Telangana14Patna13Karnataka11SC8Amritsar8Nagpur7Dehradun4Jodhpur3Panaji3Agra2Jabalpur2Calcutta2Rajasthan1Varanasi1Punjab & Haryana1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1

Key Topics

Section 80I9Section 143(3)8Section 808Section 143(2)4Section 80P4Deduction4Section 139(1)3Section 142(1)3Section 144C2Transfer Pricing

KARAM SAFETY PRIVATE LIMITED,SITARGANJ vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(5), UDHAM SINGH NAGAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Stay Applications are dismissed

ITA 24/DDN/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun23 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Nageshwar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Pramod Verma, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 80Section 80ISection 92BSection 92C

disallowing deduction u/s 80IC/Chapter VI-A of the Act. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/DRP have failed to appreciate that to invoke the provisions of Section 92BA, existence of any 'arrangement' to ‘more than ordinary profits’ between the Appellant and its Associate Enterprise (“AE”) need to be established under the provisions

2
Comparables/TP2
Addition to Income2

KARAM SAFETY PRIVATE LIMITED,UDHAM SINGH NAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(5), UDHAM SINGH NAGAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Stay Applications are dismissed

ITA 3/DDN/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun23 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Nageshwar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Pramod Verma, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 80Section 80ISection 92BSection 92C

disallowing deduction u/s 80IC/Chapter VI-A of the Act. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/DRP have failed to appreciate that to invoke the provisions of Section 92BA, existence of any 'arrangement' to ‘more than ordinary profits’ between the Appellant and its Associate Enterprise (“AE”) need to be established under the provisions

BHANIYAWALA KISAAN SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED,DEHARADUN vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(2), DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 12/DDN/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun27 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 234ASection 270A(10)(a)Section 271FSection 8Section 80ASection 80P

disallowed deduction u/s 80P of the Income Tax Act 1961 on the ground that the assessee has not filed its income return and also not considered that the assessee is co- operative society. 4. That on the facts and in circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred not considering Income Tax Return submitted during the assessment proceeding

KEVIN INTERNATIONAL,HARIDWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE HARIDWAR, HARIDWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5363/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun22 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us(Through Video Conferencing) M/S. Kevin International, Vs. Dy. Cit, C/O. Balesh Bhargava-Adv, Circle, Haridwar 56, Niranajani Akhara, Mayapur, Haridwar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aajfk4514C

For Appellant: Shri. K. K. Juneja, AdvFor Respondent: Smt Poonam Sharma, Add. CIT
Section 119Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80I

disallowing the claim of deprecation f Rs. 3,82,226/- on the fixed assets purchased during the year and also on fixed assets purchased in previous years and confirming the same and ignoring the fact that the assessment of the appellant for the immediate preceding assessment year had also been completed