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.

233 results for “disallowance”+ Section 10(30)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai8,013Delhi6,815Bangalore2,404Chennai2,150Kolkata1,934Ahmedabad1,122Hyderabad930Jaipur813Pune694Indore444Surat401Chandigarh398Raipur343Rajkot266Karnataka233Amritsar221Lucknow202Nagpur200Visakhapatnam179Cochin160Cuttack145Agra123Allahabad84Panaji80SC74Jodhpur68Telangana67Guwahati65Dehradun60Patna56Ranchi55Calcutta51Varanasi26Jabalpur23Kerala23Punjab & Haryana11A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN4Rajasthan4Orissa3Himachal Pradesh3Gauhati1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1ANIL R. DAVE AMITAVA ROY L. NAGESWARA RAO1Tripura1Uttarakhand1

Key Topics

Section 260A186Section 260164Addition to Income30Section 14821Disallowance19Deduction19Section 143(3)13Section 14A13Depreciation12Section 147

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

30 accounted for in a later month. Any such action by the dealers would result in the rejection of the dealer’s books of accounts, leading to best judgment assessments being passed besides severe penal action. In the light of the foregoing, it is contended that the petitioner’s case can be summarised as follows: (a) Section 10(3) prior

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

30 accounted for in a later month. Any such action by the dealers would result in the rejection of the dealer’s books of accounts, leading to best judgment assessments being passed besides severe penal action. In the light of the foregoing, it is contended that the petitioner’s case can be summarised as follows: (a) Section 10(3) prior

Showing 1–20 of 233 · Page 1 of 12

...
9
Revision u/s 2639
Section 48

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

30 accounted for in a later month. Any such action by the dealers would result in the rejection of the dealer’s books of accounts, leading to best judgment assessments being passed besides severe penal action. In the light of the foregoing, it is contended that the petitioner’s case can be summarised as follows: (a) Section 10(3) prior

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

30 accounted for in a later month. Any such action by the dealers would result in the rejection of the dealer’s books of accounts, leading to best judgment assessments being passed besides severe penal action. In the light of the foregoing, it is contended that the petitioner’s case can be summarised as follows: (a) Section 10(3) prior

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

30 accounted for in a later month. Any such action by the dealers would result in the rejection of the dealer’s books of accounts, leading to best judgment assessments being passed besides severe penal action. In the light of the foregoing, it is contended that the petitioner’s case can be summarised as follows: (a) Section 10(3) prior

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

30 accounted for in a later month. Any such action by the dealers would result in the rejection of the dealer’s books of accounts, leading to best judgment assessments being passed besides severe penal action. In the light of the foregoing, it is contended that the petitioner’s case can be summarised as follows: (a) Section 10(3) prior

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

30 accounted for in a later month. Any such action by the dealers would result in the rejection of the dealer’s books of accounts, leading to best judgment assessments being passed besides severe penal action. In the light of the foregoing, it is contended that the petitioner’s case can be summarised as follows: (a) Section 10(3) prior

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

30 accounted for in a later month. Any such action by the dealers would result in the rejection of the dealer’s books of accounts, leading to best judgment assessments being passed besides severe penal action. In the light of the foregoing, it is contended that the petitioner’s case can be summarised as follows: (a) Section 10(3) prior

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

30 accounted for in a later month. Any such action by the dealers would result in the rejection of the dealer’s books of accounts, leading to best judgment assessments being passed besides severe penal action. In the light of the foregoing, it is contended that the petitioner’s case can be summarised as follows: (a) Section 10(3) prior

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

disallowed the claim of input tax credit. It is beneficial to refer to the relevant paragraphs which reads thus: “12. It is contended on behalf of the assessee that, once input tax has been paid, by virtue of Section 10 the assessee is entitled to the rebate of the tax against the output tax notwithstanding the fact that such

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. TE CONNECTIVITY INDIA PVT. LTD.,

Accordingly dispose of the appeal as allowed

ITA/53/2024HC Karnataka05 Jun 2025

Bench: ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE,S RACHAIAH

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 260ASection 263Section 40

disallowance is untenable in law and - 28 - ITA No.53 of 2024 failure to do so has resulted in short computation of income of Rs. 10,90,23,000/- (@30% of Rs.36,34,10,000/-) with a consequent tax effect of Rs.5,74,38,22/-. This has resulted in Loss to revenue. Considering these facts, the assessment order is erroneous

KARNATAKA STATE BEVERAGES CORPORTION LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP/12872/2013HC Karnataka18 Feb 2016

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Anand Byrareddy Writ Petition No.12872 Of 2013 (T-It) Connected With Writ Petition No.14687 Of 2014 (T-It), Writ Petition No.15910 Of 2015 (T-It) & Writ Petition No.17514 Of 2015 (T-It) In W.P.No.12872 Of 2013 Between: Karnataka State Beverages Corporation Limited, Represented By It’S Executive Director (Finance), Sri. Shrikant B Vanahalli, Aged About 57 Years, No.78, Seethalakshmi Towers, Mission Road, Bangalore 560 027. …Petitioner

10 of the Act in a sum of Rs.60,30,758/-, by order dated 12.03.2015. For the Assessment year 2009-10, an order under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 and 254 of the Act was passed as on 19.03.2015, disallowing

M/S WIPRO LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

ITA/881/2008HC Karnataka25 Mar 2015

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 260

10 - Central Revenue Building Queens Road, Bangalore 560001. …RESPONDENT (By Sri E.R.Indrakumar, Senior Counsel for Sri K.V.Aravind, Adv.) . . . . This I.T.A. is filed under Section 260-A of I.T.Act, 1961 arising out of order dated 31.10.2008 passed in ITA No.624/BANG/2007, for the assessment year 2003-2004, praying to I) Formulate the substantial questions of law stated therein, II) Allow the appeal

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S WIPRO LTD

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

ITA/211/2009HC Karnataka25 Mar 2015

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 260

10 - Central Revenue Building Queens Road, Bangalore 560001. …RESPONDENT (By Sri E.R.Indrakumar, Senior Counsel for Sri K.V.Aravind, Adv.) . . . . This I.T.A. is filed under Section 260-A of I.T.Act, 1961 arising out of order dated 31.10.2008 passed in ITA No.624/BANG/2007, for the assessment year 2003-2004, praying to I) Formulate the substantial questions of law stated therein, II) Allow the appeal

PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX-2 vs. M/S.EYGBS (INDIA) PVT LTD

ITA/107/2025HC Karnataka12 Sept 2025

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

Section 10ASection 14ASection 260Section 260A

30. It is also relevant to refer to the CBDT Circular No.14/2006. Paragraphs 24.1 and 24.2 of the said circular, as quoted in the assessment order, are reproduced below: "24.1 The existing provisions of section 92C provide for computation of arm's length price. Sub-section (4) of the said section provides that the Assessing Officer may compute the total

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CISCO SYSTEMS

The appeals are allowed; the impugned

ITA/27/2019HC Karnataka18 Jun 2021

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,R. NATARAJ

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 260ASection 263Section 32

disallowed the excess depreciation claimed on networking equipments. 3. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru, thereafter issued a notice under Section 263 of the Act of 1961 on 5.3.2015 and called upon the assessee to explain as to why the assessment order passed by the assessing officer under Section 143(3) of the Act of 1961 should

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI ADICHUNCHUNGIRI

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/233/2013HC Karnataka22 Feb 2016

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

Section 260

30 to 36, not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head ‘Profit and gains of business or profession’. Applying the same analogy if, application of income is allowed under Section

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S GOKULA EDUCATION FOUNDATION

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/431/2013HC Karnataka22 Feb 2016

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

Section 260

30 to 36, not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head ‘Profit and gains of business or profession’. Applying the same analogy if, application of income is allowed under Section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. SRI ADICHUNCHANAGIRI

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/1/2013HC Karnataka22 Feb 2016

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

Section 260

30 to 36, not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head ‘Profit and gains of business or profession’. Applying the same analogy if, application of income is allowed under Section

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/414/2010HC Karnataka22 Feb 2016

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

Section 260

30 to 36, not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head ‘Profit and gains of business or profession’. Applying the same analogy if, application of income is allowed under Section