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.

27 results for “disallowance”+ Section 255(4)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai758Delhi710Bangalore242Chennai214Kolkata149Ahmedabad104Jaipur103Chandigarh84Raipur68Hyderabad60Pune41Surat40Cochin37Calcutta36Panaji34Guwahati27Karnataka27Allahabad22Rajkot21Lucknow21Indore20Amritsar15Visakhapatnam13Jodhpur12Nagpur8Cuttack6Telangana5Jabalpur5SC4Dehradun3Varanasi3Orissa2Ranchi2Rajasthan1Punjab & Haryana1Patna1Agra1

Key Topics

Section 260A265Section 26016Section 80I16Section 115J10Section 26310Section 14A8Disallowance7Section 143(3)6Deduction5Addition to Income

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

Section 145A of the Income- tax Act which was inserted with effect from assessment year 1999-2000. The said provision states that the valuation of stock should include the amount of any tax duty, cess or fee - 94 - actually paid or incurred to bring the goods to its present location and condition. The Department has followed a consistent stand

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

Showing 1–20 of 27 · Page 1 of 2

5
Section 1324
Set Off of Losses2

Section 145A of the Income- tax Act which was inserted with effect from assessment year 1999-2000. The said provision states that the valuation of stock should include the amount of any tax duty, cess or fee - 94 - actually paid or incurred to bring the goods to its present location and condition. The Department has followed a consistent stand

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

4. Ashok Logani (2012) 347 ITR 22 (Delhi) 5. Gee Vee Enterprises (1975) 99 ITR 375 (Delhi) 6. Vedanta Ltd. (2021) 279 Taxman 358 (Bom) 7. V. K. Bharathi (2019) 102 taxmann.com 255 (Kar) 8. Rajalakshmi Mills Ltd. v. ITO (2009) 121 ITD 343 (Chennai) (SB) 9. Lokesh M. (2021) 187 ITD 342 (Bang) 10. In view of the above

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

4) of section 186, no amendment - 10 - under this section shall be made after the expiry of four years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be amended was passed. [(8) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub- section (7), where an application for amendment under this section is made by the assessee

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

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

4) of the I.T. act, which came into effect on 01.06.2007 would be applicable only for the assessment year 2009-10 and not for the current assessment year 2008-09 by 60 relying several judgments and an order dated 29.07.2006 and held that the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 263 of the I.T. Act was erroneous. On this premise, allowed

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S JINDAL ALUMINIUM LIMITED

In the result, we do not find any merit in this

ITA/450/2013HC Karnataka08 Oct 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 260Section 260ASection 70Section 80I

disallowance of expenditure under Section 14A as the assessee was already having it sown surplus fund and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal have allowed the claim under Section 14A of the Act to the extent of Rs.26,61,011/- only after being satisfied that the aforesaid amount was 9 invested from the assessee

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. GOKALDAS IMAGES PVT.LTD

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

ITA/77/2015HC Karnataka02 Nov 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 115JSection 14ASection 2(45)Section 260Section 260ASection 709(1)

4. The revenue as well as the assessee approached the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the tribunal' for short) by filing the appeals against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The assessee also filed a cross objection against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Both the appeals as well

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/549/2018HC 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 IRELAND LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals stand disposed of

ITA/506/2018HC 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/502/2018HC 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/561/2018HC 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/564/2018HC 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/550/2018HC 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/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/507/2018HC 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

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/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

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

The appeals stand disposed of

ITA/505/2018HC 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