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.

2 results for “disallowance”+ Section 260clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,190Delhi809Karnataka536Bangalore249Chennai234Kolkata199Telangana95Jaipur93Ahmedabad85Hyderabad45Pune45Calcutta39Chandigarh38Surat34Visakhapatnam34Lucknow31Rajkot29Raipur28Indore26Cuttack22Nagpur19SC16Cochin15Varanasi12Punjab & Haryana9Amritsar8Jodhpur8Patna7Kerala7Dehradun4Allahabad4Orissa3Panaji3Rajasthan3Himachal Pradesh2Ranchi2Jabalpur2RANJAN GOGOI PRAFULLA C. PANT1Andhra Pradesh1Uttarakhand1J&K1Agra1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1Guwahati1Bombay1

Key Topics

Section 2602Section 542Section 143(3)2Deduction2

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)

260-A of Income Tax Act, 1961, (for short, ‘the Act’), the assessee has assailed order dated 25.5.2007, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh in ITA No. 1044/Chandi/2005. The appeal was admitted for hearing vide order dated 11.10.2007 on the following substantial questions of law:- “1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. KESHAV DUTT SHREEDHAR

ITA/11/2020HC Himachal Pradesh27 Dec 2021

Bench: Hon’Ble Ms. Justice Sabina & Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya Income Tax Appeal No. 11 Of 2020 Between:- Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Shimla. ….Appellant (By Sh. Vinay Kuthiala, Senior Advocate With Ms. Vandana Kuthiala, Advocate)

Section 143(3)Section 260Section 54

disallowed and total income was assessed at Rs.2,05,36,949/-. The Assessing Officer held that the assessee had neither invested sale proceeds of the asset in new residential house nor he had deposited the capital gains to the capital gain account within the stipulated period. 5. Respondent assailed the above referred order of Assessing Officer before CIT(A), Shimla