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 88clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai3,909Delhi3,133Chennai1,107Bangalore1,041Kolkata935Ahmedabad543Hyderabad409Jaipur351Indore260Pune247Surat230Chandigarh226Nagpur133Raipur124Cochin118Amritsar114Visakhapatnam107Rajkot105Agra97Lucknow96Cuttack91Guwahati62Allahabad53Calcutta49Karnataka47Patna45Panaji43Ranchi39Telangana37Jodhpur27SC17Dehradun15Jabalpur8Varanasi5Rajasthan3Kerala3Punjab & Haryana3Himachal Pradesh2ANIL R. DAVE AMITAVA ROY L. NAGESWARA RAO1Gauhati1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Uttarakhand1Orissa1

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)

Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? ix) Whether the Learned Tribunal was justified going beyond the pleadings in issuing the directions for enhancing the income by adding to the income the amount to the extent of which the said deduction has been set off against the liability when such a ground was neither agitated by either party

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