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 10(26)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai6,903Delhi6,435Bangalore2,244Chennai1,842Kolkata1,612Ahmedabad946Hyderabad805Jaipur706Pune490Indore452Chandigarh389Surat363Raipur336Rajkot192Karnataka182Lucknow177Amritsar176Nagpur173Cochin166Visakhapatnam145Cuttack127Agra110Guwahati87Allahabad82Panaji64Telangana63Jodhpur62SC59Ranchi51Calcutta47Dehradun38Patna33Varanasi27Kerala21Jabalpur19Punjab & Haryana7Rajasthan4Orissa4Himachal Pradesh3A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN3MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1Tripura1Gauhati1ANIL R. DAVE AMITAVA ROY L. NAGESWARA RAO1

Key Topics

Section 43D4Section 362Section 1452Addition to Income2

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. THE KANGRA CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/83/2018HC Himachal Pradesh07 Dec 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUSHIL KUKREJA

Section 145Section 36Section 43D

10. The decision of the High Court on the first question, having been based on the decision in State Bank of Travancore [1986] 158 ITR 102 (SC) must be held to be 19 incorrect in view of the subsequent judgment of this Court in the case of UCO Bank Vs. CIT [1999] 237 ITR 889.” 17. Learned counsel

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. THE KANGRA CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/82/2018HC Himachal Pradesh
07 Dec 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUSHIL KUKREJA

Section 145Section 36Section 43D

10. The decision of the High Court on the first question, having been based on the decision in State Bank of Travancore [1986] 158 ITR 102 (SC) must be held to be 19 incorrect in view of the subsequent judgment of this Court in the case of UCO Bank Vs. CIT [1999] 237 ITR 889.” 17. Learned counsel

H.P.STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION vs. ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

ITA/56/2008HC Himachal Pradesh31 Dec 2024

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATYEN VAIDYA

Section 260Section 37Section 37(1)

26 & 29 of the Central Civil Services Leave Rule as applicable to the employees of the appellant and has been rightly claimed as an expense deductible during the year under assessment? vii) Whether the procedure adopted for ascertaining of liability as leave encashment by adhering to Accounting Standard-15 issued by ICAI was proper & correct and the expense so claimed