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.

15 results for “disallowance”+ Section 215clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai894Delhi709Chennai297Bangalore210Ahmedabad128Kolkata122Jaipur103Agra78Hyderabad74Chandigarh57Pune39Indore35Raipur32Surat31Rajkot28Visakhapatnam20Amritsar17Lucknow17Karnataka15Panaji11Jabalpur10Cochin9Jodhpur9Cuttack8SC8Guwahati6Telangana4Dehradun4Allahabad3Varanasi2Himachal Pradesh1Nagpur1Orissa1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Patna1Calcutta1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 26043Section 143(3)4Section 2634Disallowance4Section 32(1)(iia)3Section 260A3Section 143(2)3Section 2542Section 2(22)(e)2

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 u/s 40(a)(ia) on the transactions discussed above. He shall give the assessee an opportunity to furnish necessary evidence to establish his claim and explain why the proposed additions be not made to income. The AO shall consider the facts, and the results of any enquiries made, as well as the explanation furnished by the assessee, and make

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Addition to Income2
ITA/100012/2017HC Karnataka17 Mar 2023

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 260ASection 37(1)Section 92ASection 92C

Disallowance of Expenses under Explanation to section 37(1) and in respect of third issue i.e., addition made on account of sale of Land, the ITAT set-aside the order of CIT (A) on that issue and restored the matter to A.O. for a fresh decision with the same directions as were given by the tribunal

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

ITA/381/2018HC Karnataka29 Sept 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 260

disallowance made under Section 40[a][ia] for non deduction of TDS on payments made to Director’s towards sitting fees by holding that - 16 - the amendment will apply for A.Y.2014-15 onwards?” In ITA No.381/2018: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that incriminating

THE PR. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

ITA/198/2021HC Karnataka29 Sept 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 260

disallowance made under Section 40[a][ia] for non deduction of TDS on payments made to Director’s towards sitting fees by holding that - 16 - the amendment will apply for A.Y.2014-15 onwards?” In ITA No.381/2018: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that incriminating

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

ITA/385/2018HC Karnataka29 Sept 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 260

disallowance made under Section 40[a][ia] for non deduction of TDS on payments made to Director’s towards sitting fees by holding that - 16 - the amendment will apply for A.Y.2014-15 onwards?” In ITA No.381/2018: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that incriminating

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

ITA/380/2018HC Karnataka29 Sept 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 260

disallowance made under Section 40[a][ia] for non deduction of TDS on payments made to Director’s towards sitting fees by holding that - 16 - the amendment will apply for A.Y.2014-15 onwards?” In ITA No.381/2018: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that incriminating

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

ITA/382/2018HC Karnataka29 Sept 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 260

disallowance made under Section 40[a][ia] for non deduction of TDS on payments made to Director’s towards sitting fees by holding that - 16 - the amendment will apply for A.Y.2014-15 onwards?” In ITA No.381/2018: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that incriminating

THE PR. COMMISIONER INCOME TAX vs. M/S. GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

ITA/197/2021HC Karnataka29 Sept 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 260

disallowance made under Section 40[a][ia] for non deduction of TDS on payments made to Director’s towards sitting fees by holding that - 16 - the amendment will apply for A.Y.2014-15 onwards?” In ITA No.381/2018: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that incriminating

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

ITA/384/2018HC Karnataka29 Sept 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 260

disallowance made under Section 40[a][ia] for non deduction of TDS on payments made to Director’s towards sitting fees by holding that - 16 - the amendment will apply for A.Y.2014-15 onwards?” In ITA No.381/2018: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that incriminating

THE PR. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

ITA/199/2021HC Karnataka29 Sept 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 260

disallowance made under Section 40[a][ia] for non deduction of TDS on payments made to Director’s towards sitting fees by holding that - 16 - the amendment will apply for A.Y.2014-15 onwards?” In ITA No.381/2018: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that incriminating

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

ITA/383/2018HC Karnataka29 Sept 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 260

disallowance made under Section 40[a][ia] for non deduction of TDS on payments made to Director’s towards sitting fees by holding that - 16 - the amendment will apply for A.Y.2014-15 onwards?” In ITA No.381/2018: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that incriminating

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) vs. M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PVT. LTD.,

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

ITA/324/2018HC Karnataka29 Sept 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 260

disallowance made under Section 40[a][ia] for non deduction of TDS on payments made to Director’s towards sitting fees by holding that - 16 - the amendment will apply for A.Y.2014-15 onwards?” In ITA No.381/2018: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that incriminating

M/S. JSW STEEL PROCESSING CENTRES LTD., vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

The appeal is allowed;

ITA/479/2018HC Karnataka20 Sept 2022

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,UMESH M ADIGA

Section 143(3)Section 260Section 32(1)(iia)

215(SC) paras 15 to 17 - 5 - ITA No. 479 of 2018 proceedings before the Assessing officer and hence, CIT (A) has noticed that there were no bills produced. Therefore, its finding does not suffer from any legal infirmity. 6. We have carefully considered rival submissions and perused the records. 7. Additional depreciation is permissible in terms of Section

M/S FIDELITY BUSINESS SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

ITA/512/2017HC Karnataka23 Jul 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 2(22)(e)Section 254Section 260

disallowed the said claim of `93,215/- because it was not admissible as ‘development rebate’ as in the opinion of the ITO, it did not involve installation of new machinery. The first Appellate Authority affirmed the order of the ITO, but the Tribunal itself inspected the Spinning Factory of the Assessee and studied the working of the machinery with ‘Casablanca

M/S HAJEE A.P.BAVA & COMPANY vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the appeal is

ITA/555/2018HC Karnataka19 Jun 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 260Section 260A

disallowed. 3. The appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by an order dated 20.09.2017 inter alia held that assessee has only created a provision for doubtful entry in the books of 6 accounts and since it is following a double entry system of accounting, corresponding entries have been made