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 65clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai4,150Delhi3,540Bangalore1,277Chennai1,193Kolkata943Ahmedabad515Hyderabad380Jaipur375Pune321Indore279Chandigarh195Surat178Raipur133Cochin126Rajkot99Lucknow97Nagpur94Visakhapatnam81Karnataka75Amritsar66Ranchi58Cuttack56Calcutta46Guwahati44Allahabad42Patna38Jodhpur37SC29Agra26Telangana20Varanasi17Dehradun14Panaji11Punjab & Haryana8Jabalpur8Rajasthan4Kerala3Himachal Pradesh2Orissa2ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

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

65. In CIT v. Devi Films (P) Ltd., the Madras High Court held that the regular mode of accounting only determined the mode of computing the taxable income and the point of time at which the tax liability was attracted. It would not determine or affect the range of taxable income or the ambit of taxation. It was further held

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

65. In CIT v. Devi Films (P) Ltd., the Madras High Court held that the regular mode of accounting only determined the mode of computing the taxable income and the point of time at which the tax liability was attracted. It would not determine or affect the range of taxable income or the ambit of taxation. It was further held