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.

160 results for “disallowance”+ Section 35clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai6,611Delhi5,655Bangalore2,113Chennai1,866Kolkata1,490Ahmedabad875Jaipur672Hyderabad639Pune519Indore404Raipur327Chandigarh325Surat301Rajkot247Amritsar160Karnataka160Cochin157Visakhapatnam156Nagpur154Lucknow136Cuttack95Guwahati60SC56Telangana55Ranchi55Calcutta54Allahabad52Patna47Jodhpur42Panaji39Kerala30Dehradun21Varanasi20Agra18Jabalpur17Punjab & Haryana8Orissa5Rajasthan4Himachal Pradesh4H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1ANIL R. DAVE AMITAVA ROY L. NAGESWARA RAO1Tripura1Uttarakhand1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1

Key Topics

Section 260191Section 260A173Addition to Income39Deduction26Section 14824Disallowance22Section 3514Section 14A14Section 143(3)12Section 147

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 such claim made by the assessee though duly certified by the prescribed authority by taking recourse to the later portion of sub-clause (ii) of sub-section (4) of Section 43 of the Act. He would summarise his 9 submissions by contending the definition of ‘scientific research’ found in Section 43(4) has been imported to Section 35

M/S ANS CONSTRUCTIONS LTD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL

Showing 1–20 of 160 · Page 1 of 8

...
11
Section 80H10
Revision u/s 2639
WP/32896/2016HC Karnataka06 Dec 2019

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice S.Sujatha

Section 10(3)Section 35

35 of the KVAT Act cannot defeat the substantial claim under Section 10[3] of the Act. The revenue is entitled only to verify that the sale invoices are genuine and valid and such input tax credit claim is not duplicate fictitious or bogus. Indeed, it was not in dispute the input tax credit was claimed in the returns filed

BIOCON LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY

In the result, the impugned order dated 30

ITA/416/2014HC Karnataka12 Jan 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

Section 10ASection 10BSection 14ASection 260Section 35

35(2AB), amounts to tinkering with the formula. It is also urged that the Tribunal grossly erred in relying on Section 14A of the Act to uphold the disallowance

MANGALORE REFINERY AND PETROCHEMICALS LTD vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, I pass the following:-

WP/10551/2022HC Karnataka18 Nov 2022

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar

Section 5(1)

section 40(a)(i) of the IT Act 66,66,00,074 Disallowance of Depreciation 15,35,39,722 Disallowance

MANGALORE REFINERY AND PETROCHEMICALS LTD vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, I pass the following:-

WP/10523/2022HC Karnataka18 Nov 2022

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar

Section 5(1)

section 40(a)(i) of the IT Act 66,66,00,074 Disallowance of Depreciation 15,35,39,722 Disallowance

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LTD

In the result, the order of the

ITA/468/2016HC Karnataka09 Dec 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 14ASection 260Section 260ASection 35

disallowance made under Section 14A of the Act? 3. I.T.A.No.468/2016 was admitted by a bench of this Court vide order dated 13.06.2017 on the following substantial question of law: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was 5 justified in directing the assessing officer to allow the claim of deduction under section 35

HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

In the result, the order of the

ITA/404/2016HC Karnataka09 Dec 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 14ASection 260Section 260ASection 35

disallowance made under Section 14A of the Act? 3. I.T.A.No.468/2016 was admitted by a bench of this Court vide order dated 13.06.2017 on the following substantial question of law: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was 5 justified in directing the assessing officer to allow the claim of deduction under section 35

M/S. HINDUSTAN COCA COLA vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

WP/38509/2015HC Karnataka29 Mar 2016

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

35(4) of the Act. Therefore the provisions of Section 10(3) of the Act is a Substantive provision vesting in the assessee a right to get input tax credit subject to the claim be made within the time frame and creating a liability on the assessee to forfeit the right to input tax credit if fails to make

M/S. HINDUSTAN COCA COLA vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

WP/38510/2015HC Karnataka29 Mar 2016

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

35(4) of the Act. Therefore the provisions of Section 10(3) of the Act is a Substantive provision vesting in the assessee a right to get input tax credit subject to the claim be made within the time frame and creating a liability on the assessee to forfeit the right to input tax credit if fails to make

INGRAM MICRO INDIA PVT.LTD. vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

WP/3104/2016HC Karnataka29 Mar 2016

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

35(4) of the Act. Therefore the provisions of Section 10(3) of the Act is a Substantive provision vesting in the assessee a right to get input tax credit subject to the claim be made within the time frame and creating a liability on the assessee to forfeit the right to input tax credit if fails to make

INGRAM MICRO INDIA PVT. LTD. vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

WP/56067/2015HC Karnataka29 Mar 2016

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

35(4) of the Act. Therefore the provisions of Section 10(3) of the Act is a Substantive provision vesting in the assessee a right to get input tax credit subject to the claim be made within the time frame and creating a liability on the assessee to forfeit the right to input tax credit if fails to make

M/S INDIA MOTOR PARTS & ACCESSORIES LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

WP/2925/2016HC Karnataka29 Mar 2016

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

35(4) of the Act. Therefore the provisions of Section 10(3) of the Act is a Substantive provision vesting in the assessee a right to get input tax credit subject to the claim be made within the time frame and creating a liability on the assessee to forfeit the right to input tax credit if fails to make

KAVERI PLASTO CONTAINERS PVT LTD vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

WP/11249/2016HC Karnataka29 Mar 2016

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

35(4) of the Act. Therefore the provisions of Section 10(3) of the Act is a Substantive provision vesting in the assessee a right to get input tax credit subject to the claim be made within the time frame and creating a liability on the assessee to forfeit the right to input tax credit if fails to make

DEPA INDIA PRIVATE LTD. vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

WP/23533/2015HC Karnataka29 Mar 2016

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

35(4) of the Act. Therefore the provisions of Section 10(3) of the Act is a Substantive provision vesting in the assessee a right to get input tax credit subject to the claim be made within the time frame and creating a liability on the assessee to forfeit the right to input tax credit if fails to make

SONAL APPAREL PRIVATE LTD., vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

WP/22483/2015HC Karnataka29 Mar 2016

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

35(4) of the Act. Therefore the provisions of Section 10(3) of the Act is a Substantive provision vesting in the assessee a right to get input tax credit subject to the claim be made within the time frame and creating a liability on the assessee to forfeit the right to input tax credit if fails to make

ACE DESIGNERS LIMITED vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Of the Department's clouded interpretation of the Centum

WP/57835/2015HC Karnataka29 Mar 2016

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

35(4) of the Act. Therefore the provisions of Section 10(3) of the Act is a Substantive provision vesting in the assessee a right to get input tax credit subject to the claim be made within the time frame and creating a liability on the assessee to forfeit the right to input tax credit if fails to make

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

35,02,720/-. The assessment was selected for complete scrutiny and notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was served on the assessee on 27.06.2016. A draft assessment order (‘DAO’ for short) under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(13) of the Act was passed on 18.12.2018. Aggrieved by the DAO, the respondent-assessee filed objections

COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LTD. vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders dated 21

ITA/313/2018HC Karnataka12 Mar 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

Section 260Section 260A

disallowance under Section 14A of the Act, to the extent of Rs.7,35,920/- under Rule 8D(2)(iii) 9 was upheld

COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LTD. vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders dated 21

ITA/315/2018HC Karnataka12 Mar 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

Section 260Section 260A

disallowance under Section 14A of the Act, to the extent of Rs.7,35,920/- under Rule 8D(2)(iii) 9 was upheld

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S AMALGAMATED BEAN COFFEE TRADING CO LTD

In the result, the orders dated 21

ITA/388/2018HC Karnataka12 Mar 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

Section 260Section 260A

disallowance under Section 14A of the Act, to the extent of Rs.7,35,920/- under Rule 8D(2)(iii) 9 was upheld