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(30)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai8,013Delhi6,815Bangalore2,404Chennai2,150Kolkata1,934Ahmedabad1,122Hyderabad930Jaipur813Pune694Indore444Surat401Chandigarh398Raipur343Rajkot266Karnataka233Amritsar221Lucknow202Nagpur200Visakhapatnam179Cochin160Cuttack145Agra123Allahabad84Panaji80SC74Jodhpur68Telangana67Guwahati65Dehradun60Patna56Ranchi55Calcutta51Varanasi26Jabalpur23Kerala23Punjab & Haryana11A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN4Rajasthan4Orissa3Himachal Pradesh3Gauhati1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1ANIL R. DAVE AMITAVA ROY L. NAGESWARA RAO1Tripura1Uttarakhand1

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)

10. The AO vide assessment order dated 29.3.2005 had held the deduction of Rs. 45,00,000/- claimed by the assessee as inadmissible on following grounds: - a) The financial year 2001-02 relevant to the assessment year 2002-03 had already been over -6- on 31.3.2002 and the accounts of the assessee for the said financial year also stood closed