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.

3 results for “disallowance”+ Section 138clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai783Delhi736Bangalore310Chennai211Kolkata208Ahmedabad183Jaipur144Cochin83Hyderabad79Chandigarh65Raipur54Pune53Indore49Calcutta40Rajkot40Lucknow38Nagpur33Visakhapatnam33Surat28Amritsar26Karnataka16Cuttack13Allahabad13Jodhpur9Panaji7SC5Telangana5Agra3Guwahati3Dehradun3Patna3Orissa2Andhra Pradesh1Punjab & Haryana1Jabalpur1Rajasthan1Ranchi1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)4Section 1474Section 69C3Addition to Income3Section 2632Section 2502Section 194C2Section 143(2)2Disallowance2

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-SHILLONG, SHILLONG vs. DHAR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, SHILLONG

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

ITA 39/GTY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati22 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sri Manomohan Das & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 250Section 69C

section 69C, resulting in a total assessed income of Rs. 4,01,29,666/- 4.4 The assessee has provided comprehensive explanation in form of written submission for the payments made towards business expenses. It is essential to Page 3 of 10 I.T.A. No.: 39/GTY/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Dhar Construction Company. emphasize that the non-filing of the tax return

GREENLAM INDUSTRIES LIMITED,TINSUKIA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-TINSUKIA, TINSUKIA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per the terms indicated above

ITA 402/GTY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati19 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 244ASection 25Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 31(3)(a)

disallowance of amortization leasehold lands. We thus decline to interfere”. 30. We, therefore under the given facts and circumstances of the case and respectfully following the decisions referred hereinabove, are of the view that the amortization of leasehold land and land development charges of Rs.18,73,242/- deserves to be allowed as an expenditure under section

KAUSHIK INDUSTRIES (P) LIMITED,TINSUKIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TINSUKIA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 11/GTY/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati09 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Mody, FCAFor Respondent: Shri N. T. Sherpa, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 147(1)Section 148Section 263

section 147 of the Act. 3.1. In the course of assessment proceedings, Ld. AO called for details and explanation from the assessee in respect of deposit of cash of Rs.9,66,400/- in the bank account. In this respect, assessee submitted that cash deposits were mainly due to sale proceeds of fixed assets of the company during the year. Assessee