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.

12 results for “disallowance”+ Section 234Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi746Mumbai708Bangalore433Jaipur120Ahmedabad99Hyderabad74Chennai71Kolkata70Nagpur53Pune52Indore34Lucknow28Allahabad26Ranchi26Rajkot24Agra18Dehradun12Karnataka12Surat12Raipur11Chandigarh10Jodhpur10Guwahati9Amritsar6Patna5Cochin5Jabalpur4Visakhapatnam3SC3Panaji2Varanasi2Kerala1Telangana1Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Section 26036Section 14810Section 139(1)5Section 1535Revision u/s 2635Section 234A4Disallowance4Addition to Income4Section 143(2)3Section 40

M/S GAONKAR MINES vs. THE ADDL COMMISSIONER

WP/36428/2016HC Karnataka14 Nov 2017

Bench: The Hon'Ble Dr.Justice Vineet Kothari

Section 119Section 132Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 40

234A or section 234B or, as the case may be, section 234C can be considered, are as follows: (a) Where during the course of proceedings for search and seizure under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, or otherwise, the books of account and other incriminating documents have been seized, and the assessee has been unable to furnish the return

G. SHUBHA DEVI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

ITA/94/2016
3
Section 260A3
Deduction2
HC Karnataka
05 Jul 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 234ASection 260Section 68

DISALLOWING THE INTEREST ORDERED TO BE CHANGED UNDER SECTION 234A & B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE

SHRI NARAYAN RAO HEBRI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA/166/2025HC Karnataka20 Feb 2026

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,K. V. ARAVIND

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(2)Section 260Section 260A

234A of Rs.2,97,176/ -. 6.2. The Learned Assessing Officer is not justified in levying the aforesaid interest when the impugned addition is not tenable. For the above Grounds and for such other Grounds which may be allowed by the Honourable Members to be urged at the time of hearing, it is prayed that the aforesaid appeal be allowed

M/S MAYA VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4(1)(2),

The appeal is allowed

ITA/136/2018HC Karnataka18 Feb 2021

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 260

disallowing payment of Rs.65 Lakhs paid to the landlord towards the land expenses. 2.2. The facts further reveal that the appellant- Company has entered into a Joint Development Agreement dated 10.06.2004 with one Mr. D. Ramesh, the landlord for development of residential apartments measuring 2 acres and 7 guntas in Sy. No.70 of Jaraganahalli, Bangalore. The property in question

M/S BRIGADE PLAZA UNIT OWNERS ASSOCIATION vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA/464/2019HC Karnataka25 Feb 2021

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

Section 143(2)Section 260

disallowance claimed by the assessee to the tune of Rs.22,14,270/- under exempt income 4 category and assessed tax under Sections 234A

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.PARVATHI MADHAVA

The appeals are allowed

ITA/5037/2009HC Karnataka13 Aug 2012

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

Section 139(1)Section 148Section 153Section 260

234A, 234B & 234C of the Income Tax Act. 15. The Appellate authority held, since there was search on 21.10.2003, a notice under Section 153A had to be issued and, earlier when returns filed by him was beyond the period prescribed, a notice under Section 148 and/or 153A was ordered and, therefore, the contention that reopening of the assessment

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.MADHAVA, M/S BELLARY STEEL ROLING MILLS,

The appeals are allowed

ITA/5034/2009HC Karnataka13 Aug 2012

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

Section 139(1)Section 148Section 153Section 260

234A, 234B & 234C of the Income Tax Act. 15. The Appellate authority held, since there was search on 21.10.2003, a notice under Section 153A had to be issued and, earlier when returns filed by him was beyond the period prescribed, a notice under Section 148 and/or 153A was ordered and, therefore, the contention that reopening of the assessment

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.MADHAVA (HUF)

The appeals are allowed

ITA/5036/2009HC Karnataka13 Aug 2012

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

Section 139(1)Section 148Section 153Section 260

234A, 234B & 234C of the Income Tax Act. 15. The Appellate authority held, since there was search on 21.10.2003, a notice under Section 153A had to be issued and, earlier when returns filed by him was beyond the period prescribed, a notice under Section 148 and/or 153A was ordered and, therefore, the contention that reopening of the assessment

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.MADHAVA (HUF)

The appeals are allowed

ITA/5038/2009HC Karnataka13 Aug 2012

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

Section 139(1)Section 148Section 153Section 260

234A, 234B & 234C of the Income Tax Act. 15. The Appellate authority held, since there was search on 21.10.2003, a notice under Section 153A had to be issued and, earlier when returns filed by him was beyond the period prescribed, a notice under Section 148 and/or 153A was ordered and, therefore, the contention that reopening of the assessment

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.MADHAVA, M/S BELLARY STEEL ROLING MILLS,

The appeals are allowed

ITA/5035/2009HC Karnataka13 Aug 2012

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

Section 139(1)Section 148Section 153Section 260

234A, 234B & 234C of the Income Tax Act. 15. The Appellate authority held, since there was search on 21.10.2003, a notice under Section 153A had to be issued and, earlier when returns filed by him was beyond the period prescribed, a notice under Section 148 and/or 153A was ordered and, therefore, the contention that reopening of the assessment

M/S NITESH vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

In the result, the following:

ITA/210/2017HC Karnataka02 Aug 2022

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,M G UMA

Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 260

disallowance of Rs.28,83,17,552/- being deduction claimed on interest/redemption premium on debentures on the facts and circumstances of the case. ii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the liability to pay interest/redemption premium of Rs.28,83,17,552/- has not crystallized during the year and consequently passed a perverse order on the facts

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S BHARAT INFRA TECH (P) LTD.,

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/450/2018HC Karnataka09 Sept 2022

Bench: N S SANJAY GOWDA,S SUNIL DUTT YADAV

Section 234ASection 260ASection 40A

SECTION 260A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO: (I) FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED ABOVE; (II) ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN I.T.A. NO.1442/BANG/2014 DATED 19.01.2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-C CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER AND CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER