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.

3 results for “reassessment”+ Section 36(1)(va)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai40Jaipur28Delhi26Chandigarh22Chennai20Indore18Guwahati12Jodhpur11Raipur11Bangalore9Hyderabad8Kolkata8Ahmedabad6Cochin6Rajkot5Lucknow3Pune3Allahabad3Karnataka3Surat2Cuttack1Visakhapatnam1

Key Topics

Section 14A9Section 103Section 2602Section 66(1)2Section 36(1)(va)2Addition to Income2

M/S KHODAY INDIA LTD vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

In the result, the orders passed by the Assessing

ITA/391/2012HC Karnataka16 Aug 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 260Section 260ASection 36(1)(va)

36(1)(va) of the Act and upheld the addition with regard to disallowance under Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed. 4. Learned Senior counsel for the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer has not recorded the satisfaction which is a mandatory requirement

M/S MAHENDRA APPLIANCES vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

STA/9/2011HC Karnataka20 Apr 2012

Bench: K.GOVINDARAJULU,D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR

Section 351Section 66(1)

1 2 200 e Ni g the t IX Ii lie a Ic fo 200 3 2. The assessee was filing monthly returns as per the provisions of section 35111 of the Act and the Rules and had all been accepted as such. 3. It appears there was a search of the premises and the examination of the accounts books

THE COMMR OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S WIPRO LTD

ITA/3200/2005HC Karnataka28 Feb 2012

Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,N.KUMAR

Section 10Section 1OSection 260Section 43B

36,04,819 as deduction of excise duty under Section 43B of the Act. It was also rejected on the ground that the working made by the assessee Is not correct. When the assessing officer allowed deduction under Section 10-A he excluded certain receipts/income not related to 10-A activity and has also allocated certain expenses not allocated