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.

145 results for “disallowance”+ Section 2(14)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai12,937Delhi10,934Bangalore3,683Chennai3,521Kolkata3,095Ahmedabad2,501Pune2,275Hyderabad1,715Jaipur1,604Surat972Chandigarh954Indore870Raipur588Cochin573Visakhapatnam515Cuttack454Rajkot420Amritsar416Karnataka413Nagpur344Lucknow280Agra184Jodhpur174Panaji167Guwahati145Ranchi132Telangana120Allahabad111SC109Patna87Dehradun83Calcutta78Kerala42Jabalpur41Varanasi38Orissa10Punjab & Haryana10Rajasthan8Himachal Pradesh6A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN5Gauhati2D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1RANJAN GOGOI PRAFULLA C. PANT1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1ANIL R. DAVE AMITAVA ROY L. NAGESWARA RAO1Tripura1Uttarakhand1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1

Key Topics

Section 80I68Section 143(3)66Addition to Income61Section 25059Disallowance51Section 4030Section 36(1)(va)29Section 153A28Section 6824Section 143(2)

GOMATI CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNION LIMITED,AGARTALA vs. ACIT-NATIONAL-E-ASSEMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI

ITA 136/GTY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati20 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Ble & Shri Rakesh Mishra, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Kishor Jain, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Kaushik Ray, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 5Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

disallowed by the ld. AO by treating it as income from other sources u/s 56 of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee filed 1st appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) 4. vide order dated 27.03.2023 dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Heard the representatives

Showing 1–20 of 145 · Page 1 of 8

...
24
Deduction24
TDS15

M/S. NUMALIGARH REFINERY LTD.,GUWAHATI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, GUWAHATI

In the result, appeals of the assessee in I

ITA 5/GTY/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Sept 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Assessee`S Appeals

For Appellant: Shri Jayanta Dutta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Sarma, DR
Section 80

section 80IC(2)(b)(iii) of the Act, for the assessment years 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11. 20. Common ground No.3 raised by the assessee is as follows: “(3). Disallowance of claim of expenses under the head 'Prior Period Exp.' Ground and Assessment Year Amount Ground No.(1) for the Assessment Year 2007- 08; Rs.2

M/S. NUMALIGARH REFINERY LTD.,GUWAHATI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, GUWAHATI

In the result, appeals of the assessee in I

ITA 90/GTY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Assessee`S Appeals

For Appellant: Shri Jayanta Dutta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Sarma, DR
Section 80

section 80IC(2)(b)(iii) of the Act, for the assessment years 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11. 20. Common ground No.3 raised by the assessee is as follows: “(3). Disallowance of claim of expenses under the head 'Prior Period Exp.' Ground and Assessment Year Amount Ground No.(1) for the Assessment Year 2007- 08; Rs.2

M/S. NUMALIGARH REFINERY LTD.,GUWAHATI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, GUWAHATI

In the result, appeals of the assessee in I

ITA 89/GTY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Assessee`S Appeals

For Appellant: Shri Jayanta Dutta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Sarma, DR
Section 80

section 80IC(2)(b)(iii) of the Act, for the assessment years 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11. 20. Common ground No.3 raised by the assessee is as follows: “(3). Disallowance of claim of expenses under the head 'Prior Period Exp.' Ground and Assessment Year Amount Ground No.(1) for the Assessment Year 2007- 08; Rs.2

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, GUWAHATI vs. M/S. NUMALIGARH REFINERY LTD., GUWAHATI

In the result, appeals of the assessee in I

ITA 278/GTY/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Sept 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Assessee`S Appeals

For Appellant: Shri Jayanta Dutta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Sarma, DR
Section 80

section 80IC(2)(b)(iii) of the Act, for the assessment years 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11. 20. Common ground No.3 raised by the assessee is as follows: “(3). Disallowance of claim of expenses under the head 'Prior Period Exp.' Ground and Assessment Year Amount Ground No.(1) for the Assessment Year 2007- 08; Rs.2

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 03, GUWAHATI vs. NUMALIGARH REFINERY LIMITED, GUWAHATI

In the result, appeals of the assessee in I

ITA 28/GTY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Assessee`S Appeals

For Appellant: Shri Jayanta Dutta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Sarma, DR
Section 80

section 80IC(2)(b)(iii) of the Act, for the assessment years 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11. 20. Common ground No.3 raised by the assessee is as follows: “(3). Disallowance of claim of expenses under the head 'Prior Period Exp.' Ground and Assessment Year Amount Ground No.(1) for the Assessment Year 2007- 08; Rs.2

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, GUWAHATI vs. M/S. NUMALIGARH REFINERY LTD., GUWAHATI

In the result, appeals of the assessee in I

ITA 98/GTY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Assessee`S Appeals

For Appellant: Shri Jayanta Dutta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Sarma, DR
Section 80

section 80IC(2)(b)(iii) of the Act, for the assessment years 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11. 20. Common ground No.3 raised by the assessee is as follows: “(3). Disallowance of claim of expenses under the head 'Prior Period Exp.' Ground and Assessment Year Amount Ground No.(1) for the Assessment Year 2007- 08; Rs.2

NUMALIGARH REFINERY LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 03, GUWAHATI

In the result, appeals of the assessee in I

ITA 27/GTY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Assessee`S Appeals

For Appellant: Shri Jayanta Dutta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Sarma, DR
Section 80

section 80IC(2)(b)(iii) of the Act, for the assessment years 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11. 20. Common ground No.3 raised by the assessee is as follows: “(3). Disallowance of claim of expenses under the head 'Prior Period Exp.' Ground and Assessment Year Amount Ground No.(1) for the Assessment Year 2007- 08; Rs.2

M/S. NUMALIGARH REFINERY LTD.,GUWAHATI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, GUWAHATI

In the result, appeals of the assessee in I

ITA 7/GTY/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Assessee`S Appeals

For Appellant: Shri Jayanta Dutta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Sarma, DR
Section 80

section 80IC(2)(b)(iii) of the Act, for the assessment years 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11. 20. Common ground No.3 raised by the assessee is as follows: “(3). Disallowance of claim of expenses under the head 'Prior Period Exp.' Ground and Assessment Year Amount Ground No.(1) for the Assessment Year 2007- 08; Rs.2

M/S. NUMALIGARH REFINERY LTD.,GUWAHATI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, GUWAHATI

In the result, appeals of the assessee in I

ITA 8/GTY/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Assessee`S Appeals

For Appellant: Shri Jayanta Dutta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Sarma, DR
Section 80

section 80IC(2)(b)(iii) of the Act, for the assessment years 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11. 20. Common ground No.3 raised by the assessee is as follows: “(3). Disallowance of claim of expenses under the head 'Prior Period Exp.' Ground and Assessment Year Amount Ground No.(1) for the Assessment Year 2007- 08; Rs.2

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, GUWAHATI vs. M/S. NUMALIGARH REFINERY LTD., GUWAHATI

In the result, appeals of the assessee in I

ITA 97/GTY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Assessee`S Appeals

For Appellant: Shri Jayanta Dutta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Sarma, DR
Section 80

section 80IC(2)(b)(iii) of the Act, for the assessment years 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11. 20. Common ground No.3 raised by the assessee is as follows: “(3). Disallowance of claim of expenses under the head 'Prior Period Exp.' Ground and Assessment Year Amount Ground No.(1) for the Assessment Year 2007- 08; Rs.2

ASSAM ROOFING LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), GUWAHATI

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 352/GTY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati21 Aug 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 80Section 801ESection 80l

disallowing the claim of deduction are as under:- a) The initial year for claiming such deduction u/s 80IE would have been the year when the ‘substantial expansion’ first took place and not assessment year when such claim was first made. b) The case of the assessee has been hit by the provisions of section 80IE

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, DIBRUGARH vs. OIL INDIA LTD., DIBRUGARH

ITA 123/GTY/2008[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati26 Aug 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 143(3)Section 251Section 80I

disallowance. Mr. Jain took us to page 214 in the assessee’s paper book comprising of its Form 10CCB audit report (revised) making it clear that it had in fact raised sec. 80IB(4) deduction claim than sec. 80IB(a) (supra) of the Act. Page 219 (internal page 6) thereafter also contains the assessee’s specific response to clause “2

OIL INDIA LTD.,DIBRUGARH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2, DIBRUGARH

ITA 9/GTY/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati26 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 143(3)Section 251Section 80I

disallowance. Mr. Jain took us to page 214 in the assessee’s paper book comprising of its Form 10CCB audit report (revised) making it clear that it had in fact raised sec. 80IB(4) deduction claim than sec. 80IB(a) (supra) of the Act. Page 219 (internal page 6) thereafter also contains the assessee’s specific response to clause “2

OIL INDIA LTD.,,DIBRUGARH vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2,, DIBRUGARH.

ITA 33/GTY/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati26 Aug 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 143(3)Section 251Section 80I

disallowance. Mr. Jain took us to page 214 in the assessee’s paper book comprising of its Form 10CCB audit report (revised) making it clear that it had in fact raised sec. 80IB(4) deduction claim than sec. 80IB(a) (supra) of the Act. Page 219 (internal page 6) thereafter also contains the assessee’s specific response to clause “2

OIL INDIA LTD.,DIBRUGARH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE -2, DIBRUGARH

ITA 325/GTY/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati26 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 143(3)Section 251Section 80I

disallowance. Mr. Jain took us to page 214 in the assessee’s paper book comprising of its Form 10CCB audit report (revised) making it clear that it had in fact raised sec. 80IB(4) deduction claim than sec. 80IB(a) (supra) of the Act. Page 219 (internal page 6) thereafter also contains the assessee’s specific response to clause “2

OIL INDIA LTD.,DIBRUGARH vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE -2, DIBRUGARH

ITA 87/GTY/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati26 Aug 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 143(3)Section 251Section 80I

disallowance. Mr. Jain took us to page 214 in the assessee’s paper book comprising of its Form 10CCB audit report (revised) making it clear that it had in fact raised sec. 80IB(4) deduction claim than sec. 80IB(a) (supra) of the Act. Page 219 (internal page 6) thereafter also contains the assessee’s specific response to clause “2

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2,, DIBRUGARH. vs. OIL INDIA LTD., DIBRUGARH

ITA 120/GTY/2008[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati26 Aug 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 143(3)Section 251Section 80I

disallowance. Mr. Jain took us to page 214 in the assessee’s paper book comprising of its Form 10CCB audit report (revised) making it clear that it had in fact raised sec. 80IB(4) deduction claim than sec. 80IB(a) (supra) of the Act. Page 219 (internal page 6) thereafter also contains the assessee’s specific response to clause “2

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, DIBRUGARH vs. OIL INDIA LTD., DIBRUGARH

ITA 122/GTY/2008[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati26 Aug 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 143(3)Section 251Section 80I

disallowance. Mr. Jain took us to page 214 in the assessee’s paper book comprising of its Form 10CCB audit report (revised) making it clear that it had in fact raised sec. 80IB(4) deduction claim than sec. 80IB(a) (supra) of the Act. Page 219 (internal page 6) thereafter also contains the assessee’s specific response to clause “2

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2,, DIBRUGARH. vs. OIL INDIA LTD., DIBRUGARH

ITA 121/GTY/2008[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati26 Aug 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 143(3)Section 251Section 80I

disallowance. Mr. Jain took us to page 214 in the assessee’s paper book comprising of its Form 10CCB audit report (revised) making it clear that it had in fact raised sec. 80IB(4) deduction claim than sec. 80IB(a) (supra) of the Act. Page 219 (internal page 6) thereafter also contains the assessee’s specific response to clause “2