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.

5 results for “disallowance”+ Section 16clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai11,338Delhi9,752Bangalore3,402Chennai3,207Kolkata2,818Ahmedabad1,370Hyderabad1,090Jaipur1,058Pune883Surat641Indore602Chandigarh523Raipur468Rajkot348Karnataka345Amritsar265Cochin260Visakhapatnam256Nagpur244Lucknow241Cuttack168Agra119Telangana105Guwahati103SC101Panaji99Jodhpur89Ranchi85Allahabad79Patna73Calcutta69Dehradun58Kerala35Varanasi33Jabalpur21Punjab & Haryana10Rajasthan8Orissa7A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN6Himachal Pradesh5Gauhati2RANJAN GOGOI PRAFULLA C. PANT1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Tripura1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1ANIL R. DAVE AMITAVA ROY L. NAGESWARA RAO1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1

Key Topics

Section 80I6Section 804Section 43D4Section 139(1)3Addition to Income3Section 143(3)2Section 1392Section 14A2Section 36

Pr. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SHIMLA vs. HP HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (HIMUDA)

Appeal is dismissed

ITA/35/2019HC Himachal Pradesh22 Dec 2023

Bench: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MAMIDANNA SATYA RATNA SRI RAMACHANDRA RAO,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTSNA REWAL DUA

For Appellant: Ms. Vandana Kuthiala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Vishal Mohan, Senior Advocate, with
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80Section 80ASection 80I

16 Two principles of construction- one relating to casus omissus and the other in regard to reading the statute as a whole -appear to be well settled. Under the first principle a casus omissus cannot be supplied by the court except in the case of clear necessity and when reason for it is found in the four corners

2
Deduction2

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

16. We find no merit in these civil appeals filed by the Department for the following reasons: firstly, as stated above, Section 43-B [main section], which stood inserted by Finance Act, 1983, with effect from April 1, 1984, expressly commences with a non-obstante clause, the underlying object being to disallow

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

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/82/2018HC Himachal Pradesh07 Dec 2022

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

Section 145Section 36Section 43D

16. We find no merit in these civil appeals filed by the Department for the following reasons: firstly, as stated above, Section 43-B [main section], which stood inserted by Finance Act, 1983, with effect from April 1, 1984, expressly commences with a non-obstante clause, the underlying object being to disallow

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)

disallowing the deduction of Rs. 45,00,000/-, the CIT(A)recorded the following reasons:- a) As; there was no specific provision under Section 36 of the Act relating to contribution to leave encashment fund, the amount of Rs. 45,00,000/- paid into the said fund by the assessee had no statutory recognition. b) There was no ascertained liability

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S HYCRON ELECTRONICS THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR

ITA/12/2021HC Himachal Pradesh20 Sept 2021

Bench: Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan & Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya.

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154

Section 14A of the Act. It was accordingly opined that interest to the tune of Rs. 15,91,976/- was liable to be disallowed and such omission has resulted in under assessment of Rs. 5,69,930/- (Rs. 15,91,976 - Rs.10,22,046/-). An order u/s 154 of the Act was accordingly passed by A.O on 18.08.2017 whereby addition