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.

467 results for “disallowance”+ Section 10(12)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai13,343Delhi11,506Bangalore3,992Chennai3,822Kolkata3,329Ahmedabad2,393Hyderabad1,527Pune1,415Jaipur1,344Surat921Indore795Chandigarh754Cochin593Raipur577Karnataka467Rajkot446Amritsar384Visakhapatnam376Nagpur347Cuttack331Lucknow274Jodhpur184Agra177Panaji176Telangana126Ranchi121Guwahati116Allahabad114SC110Patna97Dehradun89Calcutta73Jabalpur49Varanasi44Kerala41Punjab & Haryana17Rajasthan10Orissa7Himachal Pradesh6A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN5Gauhati2D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1RANJAN GOGOI PRAFULLA C. PANT1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1ANIL R. DAVE AMITAVA ROY L. NAGESWARA RAO1Tripura1Uttarakhand1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1

Key Topics

Section 260A164Section 260103Section 80I44Deduction43Addition to Income42Disallowance36Section 143(3)25Section 14723Section 14822Section 10A

INGRAM MICRO INDIA PVT. LTD. vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

WP/56067/2015HC Karnataka29 Mar 2016

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

12,14,17,18 and 19, the net tax payable by a registered dealer in respect of each tax period shall be the amount of output tax payable by him in that period less the input tax deductible by him as may be prescribed in that period and relatable to goods purchased during the period 22 immediately preceding five

SONAL APPAREL PRIVATE LTD., vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

WP/22483/2015HC Karnataka29 Mar 2016

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

12,14,17,18 and 19, the net tax payable by a registered dealer in respect of each tax period shall be the amount of output tax payable by him in that period less the input tax deductible by him as may be prescribed in that period and relatable to goods purchased during the period 22 immediately preceding five

Showing 1–20 of 467 · Page 1 of 24

...
22
Section 10B19
Depreciation8

M/S INDIA MOTOR PARTS & ACCESSORIES LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

WP/2925/2016HC Karnataka29 Mar 2016

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

12,14,17,18 and 19, the net tax payable by a registered dealer in respect of each tax period shall be the amount of output tax payable by him in that period less the input tax deductible by him as may be prescribed in that period and relatable to goods purchased during the period 22 immediately preceding five

KAVERI PLASTO CONTAINERS PVT LTD vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

WP/11249/2016HC Karnataka29 Mar 2016

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

12,14,17,18 and 19, the net tax payable by a registered dealer in respect of each tax period shall be the amount of output tax payable by him in that period less the input tax deductible by him as may be prescribed in that period and relatable to goods purchased during the period 22 immediately preceding five

M/S. HINDUSTAN COCA COLA vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

WP/38509/2015HC Karnataka29 Mar 2016

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

12,14,17,18 and 19, the net tax payable by a registered dealer in respect of each tax period shall be the amount of output tax payable by him in that period less the input tax deductible by him as may be prescribed in that period and relatable to goods purchased during the period 22 immediately preceding five

DEPA INDIA PRIVATE LTD. vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

WP/23533/2015HC Karnataka29 Mar 2016

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

12,14,17,18 and 19, the net tax payable by a registered dealer in respect of each tax period shall be the amount of output tax payable by him in that period less the input tax deductible by him as may be prescribed in that period and relatable to goods purchased during the period 22 immediately preceding five

ACE DESIGNERS LIMITED vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

WP/57835/2015HC Karnataka29 Mar 2016

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

12,14,17,18 and 19, the net tax payable by a registered dealer in respect of each tax period shall be the amount of output tax payable by him in that period less the input tax deductible by him as may be prescribed in that period and relatable to goods purchased during the period 22 immediately preceding five

M/S. HINDUSTAN COCA COLA vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

WP/38510/2015HC Karnataka29 Mar 2016

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

12,14,17,18 and 19, the net tax payable by a registered dealer in respect of each tax period shall be the amount of output tax payable by him in that period less the input tax deductible by him as may be prescribed in that period and relatable to goods purchased during the period 22 immediately preceding five

INGRAM MICRO INDIA PVT.LTD. vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

WP/3104/2016HC Karnataka29 Mar 2016

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

12,14,17,18 and 19, the net tax payable by a registered dealer in respect of each tax period shall be the amount of output tax payable by him in that period less the input tax deductible by him as may be prescribed in that period and relatable to goods purchased during the period 22 immediately preceding five

M/S ANS CONSTRUCTIONS LTD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL

WP/32896/2016HC Karnataka06 Dec 2019

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice S.Sujatha

Section 10(3)Section 35

Section 10[3] of the Act inasmuch as the belated claim made by the assessee much after the lapse of a reasonable period, 6 months, disallowed the claim of input tax credit. It is beneficial to refer to the relevant paragraphs which reads thus: “12

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S EXIDE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD

In the result, both the appeals stand dismissed

ITA/112/2020HC Karnataka31 Aug 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 10Section 260Section 260ASection 44

disallowance of surplus from shareholders account treated as income from other sources by assessee by holding that surplus available both in Policy Holder’s 6 Account and share Holder’s account is to be consolidated and net surplus only to be taxed as income from business without appreciating that income from life insurance business is treated differently when compared

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S EXIDE LIFE INSURANCE CO LTD

In the result, both the appeals stand dismissed

ITA/118/2020HC Karnataka31 Aug 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 10Section 260Section 260ASection 44

disallowance of surplus from shareholders account treated as income from other sources by assessee by holding that surplus available both in Policy Holder’s 6 Account and share Holder’s account is to be consolidated and net surplus only to be taxed as income from business without appreciating that income from life insurance business is treated differently when compared

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX vs. M/S. MAHAVEER MARVEL

In the result, the appeal fails and the same is

ITA/13/2013HC Karnataka02 Sept 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 143(2)Section 260Section 260ASection 80I

disallowed and the profits earned from the project in question i.e., Rs.3,05,61,970/- were treated as income and subjected to levy of tax and interest. 3. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by an order 5 dated 10.11.2011 inter alia held that after

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIT(A) vs. M/S KARAVALI HOUSING

In the result, appeal stands dismissed

ITA/123/2016HC Karnataka04 Oct 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 260Section 260ASection 80I

disallowing the 3 deduction under Section 80IB(10) as amended by the assessee. On further appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) relying on his own order under ITA 185/MNG/CI(A)MNG/2012-13 dated 14.03.2013 for the assessment year 2010-11, allowed the assessee’s appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT (A), revenue preferred appeal before the Tribunal. Tribunal

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. INDIA HERITAGE FOUNDATION

The appeal is disposed of

ITA/382/2012HC Karnataka18 Aug 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 12ASection 13(8)Section 260Section 260ASection 263Section 80I

10) of the Act and that the AO should examine the claim for exemption under Section 11 of the Act in the light of the fact 16 whether the assessee has applied income for charitable purpose is also correct.” 12. The Tribunal thereafter could not have proceeded to examine the matter on merits after setting aside the order under Section

MANGALORE REFINERY AND PETROCHEMICALS LTD vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, I pass the following:-

WP/10551/2022HC Karnataka18 Nov 2022

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar

Section 5(1)

disallowance under section 40(a)(i), the disputed tax which 15 is subject matter of departmental appeal before the High Court is as under:- AYs Tax Arrears Disputed tax [i.e., tax @ 33.99% on disputed income] Payable under VsVs @ 50% of tax 2008-09 37,28,12,027 12,67,18,808 6,33,59,404 2009-10 42,92,10

MANGALORE REFINERY AND PETROCHEMICALS LTD vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, I pass the following:-

WP/10523/2022HC Karnataka18 Nov 2022

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar

Section 5(1)

disallowance under section 40(a)(i), the disputed tax which 15 is subject matter of departmental appeal before the High Court is as under:- AYs Tax Arrears Disputed tax [i.e., tax @ 33.99% on disputed income] Payable under VsVs @ 50% of tax 2008-09 37,28,12,027 12,67,18,808 6,33,59,404 2009-10 42,92,10

M/S J K CEMENT WORKS vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

STRP/100001/2014HC Karnataka23 Mar 2017

Bench: H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 63Section 65Section 65(1)

10. In the present case, though the cement is specified in item No.5 of Fifth Schedule, since the cement in the present case was admittedly utilised for laying down of foundation and civil works for erection of cement manufacturing plant and machinery itself, such cement, along with the plant and Date of Order: 23.03.2017 STRP Nos.100001

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PRAVEEN V DODDANAVAR

ITA/100003/2014HC Karnataka20 Feb 2017

Bench: SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 63Section 65Section 65(1)

10. In the present case, though the cement is specified in item No.5 of Fifth Schedule, since the cement in the present case was admittedly utilised for laying down of foundation and civil works for erection of cement manufacturing plant and machinery itself, such cement, along with the plant and Date of Order: 23.03.2017 STRP Nos.100001

THE BAILHONGAL URBAN COOPERATIVE BANK LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

ITA/100001/2014HC Karnataka16 Dec 2015

Bench: S.ABDUL NAZEER,P.S.DINESH KUMAR

Section 63Section 65Section 65(1)

10. In the present case, though the cement is specified in item No.5 of Fifth Schedule, since the cement in the present case was admittedly utilised for laying down of foundation and civil works for erection of cement manufacturing plant and machinery itself, such cement, along with the plant and Date of Order: 23.03.2017 STRP Nos.100001