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.

54 results for “disallowance”+ Section 1aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai933Delhi917Bangalore517Chennai351Kolkata208Ahmedabad167Jaipur144Hyderabad138Pune115Raipur95Cochin68Karnataka54Indore54Chandigarh53Surat43Cuttack30Nagpur29Rajkot26Panaji25SC20Visakhapatnam20Jodhpur19Lucknow18Guwahati14Ranchi12Telangana10Jabalpur10Agra8Patna6Varanasi6Amritsar5Dehradun3Kerala2Punjab & Haryana2Allahabad2Orissa1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Calcutta1

Key Topics

Section 260A285Section 26058Section 80H15Section 812Deduction12Disallowance11Section 115J9Addition to Income9Section 407Section 11

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI RUPESH

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/255/2015HC Karnataka21 Sept 2016

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

Section 260

1A) or Explanation 1 of Section 32 of the Act. In our considered view, this being the correct position of law, the conclusions of both the Assessing Officer and the learned CIT(A) in the impugned orders that the expenses incurred on 14 leased premises have to be capitalized and only depreciation can be allowed thereon is not in tune

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI RUPESH

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/256/2015HC Karnataka21 Sept 2016

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

Section 260

1A) or Explanation 1 of Section 32 of the Act. In our considered view, this being the correct position of law, the conclusions of both the Assessing Officer and the learned CIT(A) in the impugned orders that the expenses incurred on 14 leased premises have to be capitalized and only depreciation can be allowed thereon is not in tune

Showing 1–20 of 54 · Page 1 of 3

7
TDS7
Section 46

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI RUPESH

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/257/2015HC Karnataka21 Sept 2016

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

Section 260

1A) or Explanation 1 of Section 32 of the Act. In our considered view, this being the correct position of law, the conclusions of both the Assessing Officer and the learned CIT(A) in the impugned orders that the expenses incurred on 14 leased premises have to be capitalized and only depreciation can be allowed thereon is not in tune

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI RUPESH ANAND

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/254/2015HC Karnataka21 Sept 2016

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

Section 260

1A) or Explanation 1 of Section 32 of the Act. In our considered view, this being the correct position of law, the conclusions of both the Assessing Officer and the learned CIT(A) in the impugned orders that the expenses incurred on 14 leased premises have to be capitalized and only depreciation can be allowed thereon is not in tune

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 vs. M/S.J.J.GLASTRONICS PVT LTD

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA/167/2021HC Karnataka13 Apr 2022

Bench: S.SUJATHA,J.M.KHAZI

Section 10Section 11Section 115JSection 12Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 254Section 260Section 260A

disallowance under Section 14A has to be adopted while arriving at book profit. Learned counsel further submitted that the Miscellaneous - 6 - Petition filed under Section 254(2) of the Act has been dismissed by the Tribunal without application of mind and hence seeks to answer the substantial question of law in favour of the revenue and against the assessee

M/S TOYOTA KIRLOSKAR MOTOR P LTD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA/245/2018HC Karnataka24 Mar 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.G.S. KAMAL

Section 201(1)Section 260Section 260ASection 40a

disallowances made under Section 40a(i) and (ia) of the Act. The assessee thereupon furnished the information vide communication dated 12.08.2013. 4. The Assessing Officer initiated the proceeding under Section 201 and 201(1A

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

In the result, I proceed to pass the following:

WP/7004/2014HC Karnataka24 Apr 2015

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 35Section 35(1)(i)

disallow the claim made by an assessee under Section 35(2AB) which does not include any expenditure incurred in the acquisition of rights, in, or arising out of scientific research would be within the domain of the jurisdictional assessing Officer. In other words, the issue of jurisdiction of assessing officer to examine such claim, is an issue which requires

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SHAMANUR KALLAPPA AND SONS

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/10/2009HC Karnataka12 Jan 2015

Bench: B.VEERAPPA,N.KUMAR

Section 260Section 80Section 80H

disallowed the said claim on the ground that the STC had declared loss. In other words, they had not earned any profit out of such exports. Secondly on the ground that deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act is permissible only when the realization is in foreign exchange. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S ASEA BROWN BOVERI LTD

ITA/420/2012HC Karnataka24 Jun 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA

Section 143(1)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 260Section 260ASection 40Section 43BSection 80H

Section 201(1A) of the Act. 3. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by an order dated 27.09.2008 upheld the finding of the assessing officer insofar as it pertains to disallowance

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI.M. ABDUL ZAHID

ITA/100034/2018HC Karnataka19 Jul 2021

Bench: KRISHNA S.DIXIT,PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

Section 260A

1A) prohibits transportation or storing of any mineral otherwise than by licence/permit; a business without licence/permit is made punishable under Section 21 of this Act. (b) Section 37 is in the nature of a residuary provision extending the allowance to items of business expenditure that are not covered by Sections 30 to 36 of the 1961 Act; the word ‘expenditure

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI.M ABDUL ZAHID

ITA/100033/2018HC Karnataka19 Jul 2021

Bench: KRISHNA S.DIXIT,PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

Section 260A

1A) prohibits transportation or storing of any mineral otherwise than by licence/permit; a business without licence/permit is made punishable under Section 21 of this Act. (b) Section 37 is in the nature of a residuary provision extending the allowance to items of business expenditure that are not covered by Sections 30 to 36 of the 1961 Act; the word ‘expenditure

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. M/S JAY MINERALS

ITA/100026/2018HC Karnataka19 Jul 2021

Bench: KRISHNA S.DIXIT,PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

Section 260A

1A) prohibits transportation or storing of any mineral otherwise than by licence/permit; a business without licence/permit is made punishable under Section 21 of this Act. (b) Section 37 is in the nature of a residuary provision extending the allowance to items of business expenditure that are not covered by Sections 30 to 36 of the 1961 Act; the word ‘expenditure

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. SRI SCORPIO ENGINEERING

ITA/551/2015HC Karnataka29 Feb 2016

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

Section 139Section 260Section 40

disallowance would be made if after deduction of tax during the previous 7 year, the same has been paid on or before the due date of filing of return of income as specified in sub-section (1) of Section 139. 1’his has been given retrospective effect from 1st April 2010. 16.5:Of course. the Legislature has given the effect

M/S GRANITE MART LIMITED vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER

In the result the order passed by the

ITA/28/2011HC Karnataka19 Mar 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA

Section 260Section 260A

disallowed the claim for deduction under Section 10B of the Act in respect of the sales made through third parties i.e., export houses and inter unit transfers. The Assessing Officer determined the income of the appellant as Rs.1,09,72,680/- as against the income declared by the appellant of Rs.1,88,920/- and passed an order under Section

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S LUWA INDIA PVT LTD

RP/333/2012HC Karnataka22 Jun 2012

Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,N.KUMAR

Section 260

disallowance of expenditure. The tax, if is deducted at any time during the financial year and paid before the date of filing of the return, the Legislature intended to allow deduction on such expenditure with an intention to permit additional time for most deductors upto September of the next financial year. 17.1: We draw further support from the fact that

M/S GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals stand disposed of

ITA/898/2017HC Karnataka17 Apr 2021

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

Section 260A

disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) of the IT Act was made on account of non-deduction of tax at source for the sums payable by the appellant to Google Ireland under the Distribution 7 Agreement. The assessing officer vide common order dated 22.2.2013 for the assessment years 2007-08 to 2012-13 passed an order under Section

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LTD

The appeals stand disposed of

ITA/125/2020HC Karnataka17 Apr 2021

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

Section 260A

disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) of the IT Act was made on account of non-deduction of tax at source for the sums payable by the appellant to Google Ireland under the Distribution 7 Agreement. The assessing officer vide common order dated 22.2.2013 for the assessment years 2007-08 to 2012-13 passed an order under Section

M/S GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals stand disposed of

ITA/563/2018HC Karnataka17 Apr 2021

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

Section 260A

disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) of the IT Act was made on account of non-deduction of tax at source for the sums payable by the appellant to Google Ireland under the Distribution 7 Agreement. The assessing officer vide common order dated 22.2.2013 for the assessment years 2007-08 to 2012-13 passed an order under Section

M/S GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals stand disposed of

ITA/504/2018HC Karnataka17 Apr 2021

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

Section 260A

disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) of the IT Act was made on account of non-deduction of tax at source for the sums payable by the appellant to Google Ireland under the Distribution 7 Agreement. The assessing officer vide common order dated 22.2.2013 for the assessment years 2007-08 to 2012-13 passed an order under Section

M/S GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals stand disposed of

ITA/562/2018HC Karnataka17 Apr 2021

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

Section 260A

disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) of the IT Act was made on account of non-deduction of tax at source for the sums payable by the appellant to Google Ireland under the Distribution 7 Agreement. The assessing officer vide common order dated 22.2.2013 for the assessment years 2007-08 to 2012-13 passed an order under Section