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.

138 results for “disallowance”+ Section 9(1)(vi)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai3,839Delhi3,602Bangalore1,428Chennai1,056Kolkata934Ahmedabad520Jaipur461Pune374Hyderabad341Surat250Chandigarh244Indore225Raipur198Rajkot161Cochin151Karnataka138Nagpur132Visakhapatnam128Lucknow119Amritsar115Cuttack100Guwahati67Panaji61Calcutta46SC41Telangana39Allahabad38Patna37Jodhpur34Ranchi23Varanasi21Agra20Dehradun13Kerala11Punjab & Haryana7Jabalpur7Himachal Pradesh2Rajasthan2Gauhati1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Orissa1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 260A195Section 260188Section 4029Addition to Income29Deduction26Disallowance24Section 10A20Section 26316Depreciation16Section 143(3)

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

disallowed on the ground that the DTAA with USA and Canada shows that the claim is admissible only for the taxes paid under Income Tax Act in India and Federal tax in USA and Canada. In coming to the said conclusion the authorities have failed to notice Section 91 of the Act. Statutorily the assessee would be entitled to deduction

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

Showing 1–20 of 138 · Page 1 of 7

15
Section 14A14
Section 80I12

disallowed on the ground that the DTAA with USA and Canada shows that the claim is admissible only for the taxes paid under Income Tax Act in India and Federal tax in USA and Canada. In coming to the said conclusion the authorities have failed to notice Section 91 of the Act. Statutorily the assessee would be entitled to deduction

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT. G. LAKSHMI ARUNA

ITA/705/2018HC Karnataka31 Mar 2023

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153CSection 153DSection 260A

1(3), Bangalore dated 31.03.2013, further an appeal was preferred before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – VI wherein the appellate order and ground of decision was passed. The assessments under Section 153C read with Section 144 of the IT Act for assessment years 2005-06 to 2010-11 and under Section 153D read with Section 144 for the assessment

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. GALI JANARDHANA REDDY

ITA/704/2018HC Karnataka31 Mar 2023

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 153CSection 153DSection 260A

1(3), Bangalore dated 31.03.2013 an appeal was preferred before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – VI wherein the appellate order and ground of decision was passed. The assessments under Section 153C read with Section 144 of the IT Act for assessment years 2005-06 to 2010-11 and under Section 154D read with Section 144 for the assessment year

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5 vs. M/S. PUMA SPORTS INDIA P., LTD.,

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA/223/2018HC Karnataka12 Mar 2021

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 260Section 40Section 5(2)(b)Section 9(1)(i)Section 92C

disallowance made under Section 40(a)(1) of the Act for the sum of 5 Rs.7,29,13,934/- by holding that the income of the non-residents by way of commission cannot be considered as accrued or arisen or deemed to accrue or arise in India as the services of such agents were rendered or utilized outside India

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S SYNDICATE BANK

The appeals are disposed of

ITA/256/2011HC Karnataka24 Jan 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 260Section 260ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

disallowing an amount of Rs.192,53,21,426/- on reversal of interest pertaining to earlier years as deduction out of current years income and added back to interest on zero coupon bonds to the tune of RS.1,03,53,095/- along with other additions/disallowance in computation of regular income/book profit. It was held that as per section 36(1)(viia

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S LUWA INDIA PVT LTD

RP/333/2012HC Karnataka22 Jun 2012

Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,N.KUMAR

Section 260

vi) of sub- section (1) of section 9; By Finance Act, 2010, the said provision is substituted by the following: Substituted by the Finance Act, 2010, w.e.f. 01.04.2010. Prior to its substitution, proviso as substituted by the Finance Act, 2008, w.r.e.f. 01.04.2005, read as under: 12 “Provided that where in respect of any such sum, tax has been deducted

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. M/S TALLY SOLUTIONS PVT LTD

In the result, the appeals fail and are hereby

ITA/951/2017HC Karnataka16 Dec 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 195Section 260Section 40

9(1)(vi) of the Act and since, no TDS was deduction under Section 195 of the Act on the aforesaid payment, therefore, disallowance

PR. COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S TALLY SOLUTIONS PVT LTD.,

In the result, the appeals fail and are hereby

ITA/199/2017HC Karnataka16 Dec 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 195Section 260Section 40

9(1)(vi) of the Act and since, no TDS was deduction under Section 195 of the Act on the aforesaid payment, therefore, disallowance

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. M/S TALLY SOLUTIONS PVT LTD

In the result, the appeals fail and are hereby

ITA/952/2017HC Karnataka16 Dec 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 195Section 260Section 40

9(1)(vi) of the Act and since, no TDS was deduction under Section 195 of the Act on the aforesaid payment, therefore, disallowance

PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX-2 vs. M/S.EYGBS (INDIA) PVT LTD

ITA/107/2025HC Karnataka12 Sept 2025

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

Section 10ASection 14ASection 260Section 260A

9(1)(i) of the Act or the manner in which said income is to be determined as is reasonably attributable to the operations carried out in India. 18. It is relevant to refer to Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 92CD of the Act. The same reads as under: "92CD. (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained

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 201(1

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 201(1

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

The appeals stand disposed of

ITA/882/2017HC 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 201(1

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 201(1

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 201(1

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 201(1

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 201(1

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 201(1

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

The appeals stand disposed of

ITA/897/2017HC 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 201(1