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 256(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai882Delhi793Bangalore223Chennai215Kolkata207Ahmedabad195Jaipur181Cochin81Surat60Hyderabad60Raipur46Indore45Pune44Chandigarh43Lucknow35Nagpur31Cuttack26Visakhapatnam24Telangana21SC20Rajkot18Allahabad13Calcutta13Agra12Guwahati12Karnataka9Varanasi6Patna6Amritsar5Jabalpur3Jodhpur3Dehradun2Panaji2A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2Punjab & Haryana1Ranchi1RANJAN GOGOI PRAFULLA C. PANT1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)2Section 144C(13)2Transfer Pricing2Disallowance2Comparables/TP2

BG EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DDIT/ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE -1, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5/DDN/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun31 Mar 2022AY 2017-2018
For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri T.S. Mapwal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92C

2 of final assessment order wherein the details of various expenses incurred by Branch Office and various project office has been tabulated . 32 . The ld . CIT DR opposed for the same. However, could not controvert the above reproduced observation by this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for earlier years . 33 . We have heard the rival submissions and perused

BG EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DDIT/ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION ) CIRCLE-1, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7/DDN/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun14 Dec 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri V.P. Raoassessment Years: 2016-17

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. N.S. Jangpangi, CIT/DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 44C

2,65,85,446, the appellant submits that the aforesaid difference is on account of the fact that the appellant had capitalised certain costs as part of the cost of the fixed assets and appellant had claimed depreciation thereon. However, the tax auditor in the Tax Audit Report considered this asrevenue in nature.In this regard, the appellant submits that even