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.

8 results for “disallowance”+ Section 35Dclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai256Delhi208Chennai85Bangalore42Kolkata42Ahmedabad37Hyderabad29Raipur19Karnataka8Cochin7Rajkot5Jaipur5Pune3SC3Telangana3Guwahati3Visakhapatnam2Cuttack2Punjab & Haryana2Kerala1Dehradun1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Lucknow1Nagpur1Panaji1

Key Topics

Section 26016Section 35D9Section 194H6Disallowance6Section 80J4Section 260A4Section 2634Deduction4Addition to Income4Section 10A

M/S SUBEX LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III,

In the result, appeal is partly allowed as indicated

ITA/378/2015HC Karnataka01 Oct 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 143Section 154Section 200Section 260Section 263Section 35D

disallowed. The High Court of Gujarat in Deep Industries Ltd., supra has recorded the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties. It is observed that the Commissioner of Income Tax has invoked Section 263 of the Act on the ground that the assessee had wrongly claimed the deduction under Section 35D

COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LTD. vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

3
Section 143(1)2
Revision u/s 2632

In the result, the orders dated 21

ITA/313/2018HC Karnataka12 Mar 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

Section 260Section 260A

disallowance on the ground that in terms of proviso to Section 36(1)(iii) which was incorporated in the At with effect form 01.04.2004 the interest cost ought to have been capitalized. 21 12. It is pertinent to mention here that prior to amendment of Section 36(1)(iii) vide Finance Act, 2003, it is a well settled proposition

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 on the ground that in terms of proviso to Section 36(1)(iii) which was incorporated in the At with effect form 01.04.2004 the interest cost ought to have been capitalized. 21 12. It is pertinent to mention here that prior to amendment of Section 36(1)(iii) vide Finance Act, 2003, it is a well settled proposition

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 on the ground that in terms of proviso to Section 36(1)(iii) which was incorporated in the At with effect form 01.04.2004 the interest cost ought to have been capitalized. 21 12. It is pertinent to mention here that prior to amendment of Section 36(1)(iii) vide Finance Act, 2003, it is a well settled proposition

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S. ONMOBILE GLOBAL LTD

In the result, the matter is remitted to the Tribunal to

ITA/340/2014HC Karnataka18 Jan 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 260Section 35DSection 80J

disallowed the aforesaid claim on the ground that the expenditure is capital in nature and not revenue expenditure. Even the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has accepted the aforesaid finding of the Assessing Officer. However, the benefit of deduction of stamp duty has been granted in view of Section 35D

COFFEE DAY GLOBAL LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed

ITA/219/2020HC Karnataka28 May 2021

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,R. NATARAJ

Section 260Section 36(1)(iii)

disallowance on the ground that in terms of proviso to Section 36(1)(iii) which was incorporated in the At with effect form 01.04.2004 the interest cost ought to have been capitalized. 12. It is pertinent to mention here that prior to amendment of Section 36(1)(iii) vide Finance Act, 2003, it is a well settled proposition

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III, vs. M/S. TELCO CONSTRUCTION

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

ITA/336/2014HC Karnataka16 Feb 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 260Section 40

disallowance of consultancy charges is concerned, while considering the nature of expenditure to the capital or revenue the test to be applied is also whether there is any new asset being created or whether it is giving any enduring benefit and the tribunal has recorded a finding in favour of the assessee as the tribunal has found that

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S SUBEX LTD

In the result, appeal stands dismissed

ITA/684/2015HC Karnataka01 Oct 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 143Section 2Section 260Section 260ASection 263Section 35D

35D of the Act on the aforesaid two claims. The CIT in exercise of his powers under Section 263 of the Act exercised the revisional powers on the ground that allowing the aforesaid two claims made by the assessee was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and held that no evidence was placed to support