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.

14 results for “disallowance”+ Section 234Cclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,256Delhi866Bangalore582Ahmedabad202Kolkata159Chennai116Jaipur107Hyderabad83Pune74Nagpur50Indore45Rajkot32Raipur30Allahabad28Lucknow22Surat21Chandigarh21Agra18Karnataka14Jodhpur9Dehradun9Visakhapatnam8Amritsar7Patna4SC3Cochin2Cuttack2Jabalpur2Telangana2Ranchi1Punjab & Haryana1Panaji1Guwahati1Calcutta1

Key Topics

Section 26043Section 14810Section 409Section 260A6Section 234B5Section 115J5Section 139(1)5Section 1535Disallowance5Revision u/s 263

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

disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) as liability to pay TDS had already arisen during the financial year itself and the same did not accrue as on the last day of the year. The charge of interest under section 234B and 234C

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S UNITED SPIRITS LTD

ITA/548/2015HC Karnataka
5
Addition to Income4
Deduction3
02 Sept 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 143Section 260Section 260A

disallowance of Bad debts, set off of brought forward losses and charged interest under Section 234C and 234D of the Act further

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

The Appeal is partly allowed

ITA/130/2007HC Karnataka10 Apr 2013

Bench: B.MANOHAR,N.KUMAR

Section 115JSection 234Section 234BSection 260Section 4

disallowance of Rs.4,92,69,808/-. 7 5. Learned counsel for the Revenue contends though now the said issue is covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ROTORK CONTROLS INDIA (P) LIMITED –vs- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX reported in (2009) 314 ITR 62. Such a relief is permissible only if the condition

M/S A Y GARMENTS INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA/422/2012HC Karnataka29 Jun 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 254(2)Section 260Section 260ASection 40Section 6

234C of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case? 2. Facts leading to filing of the appeal briefly stated are that the assessee is a private limited company carrying on the business of manufacture and export of ready made garments. The assessee for the Assessment year 2005-06 filed the return of income on 30.10.2005 declaring loss

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

234C of the Act on the facts and circumstance of the case? 2. Since, in all the appeals common questions of law arise for consideration, they were heard analogously and are being decided by this common judgment. 7 I.T.A.NO.28/2011 3. The appellant filed its return of income for the assessment year 2005-06 and declared total income of Rs.1

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

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

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 is not valid

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

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 is not valid

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

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 is not valid

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

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 is not valid

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

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 is not valid

M/S TRIMM EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the order dated 08

ITA/43/2017HC Karnataka13 Jul 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Section 143(2)Section 234BSection 260Section 48

234C of the Act, 1961 on the facts and circumstances of the case? 2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the appellant is a private limited company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 engaged in the business of printing and finishing of silk sarees and fabrics. The assessee filed its return of income

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