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.

9 results for “disallowance”+ Carry Forward of Lossesclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai6,900Delhi2,315Kolkata1,841Chennai870Bangalore784Ahmedabad734Pune507Jaipur340Hyderabad315Raipur309Chandigarh275Surat273Rajkot217Indore144Visakhapatnam140Nagpur139Amritsar118Karnataka113Cuttack108Lucknow101Cochin97Guwahati75Ranchi51Patna47Calcutta44SC28Panaji28Allahabad26Jodhpur25Agra18Varanasi17Jabalpur15Telangana15Kerala9Dehradun8Orissa4Himachal Pradesh3Rajasthan2ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Disallowance5Section 2634Deduction4Section 115B3Section 682Section 70(3)2Section 92C2Section 143(3)2Addition to Income2Set Off of Losses

BHIMA JEWELLERS vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

ITA/15/2021HC Kerala25 Aug 2022

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

For Appellant: M/S BHIMA JEWELLERSFor Respondent: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
Section 115Section 115BSection 263Section 68Section 69Section 69ASection 69BSection 69CSection 69D

disallowance is contrary to law in-so far as assessment year 2013-14 is concerned? ITA No.15 of 2021 -4- 4. The circumstances relevant for disposing of the appeal are in a limited sphere and are stated thus: On 30th of September 2013, the assessee filed the returns of the assessment year 2013-2014 declaring Rs.14,12,120/- as taxable

2

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. APOLLO TYRES LTD

Appeal is allowed in part as indicated

ITA/44/2017HC Kerala22 Sept 2021

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM

For Appellant: M/S. APOLLO TYRES LTDFor Respondent: THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 35Section 43ASection 92C

loss on forward contract as deduction : 98,10,765 ITA No.44/2017 -5- 7 Disallowance of claim of prepaid expenses as deduction : 5,15,34,726 2.2 We have heard learned Counsel Mr Christopher Abraham and Senior Advocate Mr Joseph Markos for the parties. 3. Substantial Question Nos.1, 1.1, 1.2: “1 Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal, in the facts and circumstances

M/S.APOLLO TYRES LTD. vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

ITA/272/2013HC Kerala04 Aug 2021

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

For Appellant: M/S.APOLLO TYRES LTDFor Respondent: THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
Section 260A

forward contracts in foreign exchange which was inextricably linked to the advancement of foreign currency loans to the Mauritius subsidiary and the loan was an advance for the purpose of the business of the assessee company. The advantage intended to be gained by the assessee was an enhancement of efficiency of tyre manufacturing business by leveraging the sophisticated technology

M/S. APPOLO TYRES LTD. vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

ITA/216/2013HC Kerala03 Aug 2021

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

Section 10Section 10(38)Section 70(3)

disallowed the set-off claimed by the assessee I.T.A. No.216/2013 -6- under Sec 70 (3) of the Act. 4.2 The reasoning of the Assessing Officer is that whatever income is exempt under different clauses of Section 10, such income shall be removed from the purview of income before computation of the total income of an assessee. Hence, an income that

M/S.APOLLO TYRES LTD. vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

ITA/26/2013HC Kerala29 Jul 2021

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

loss would have been carried forward to next year and allowed accordingly. Simply because assessee has not claimed a particular deduction, it cannot be said to be a colourable device as envisaged by the decision of McDowell case. The deduction relates to payment of bonus which has actually been paid in the present year and deduction has been claimed

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PREMIER TYRES LTD.

ITA/929/2009HC Kerala19 Jul 2021

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

For Appellant: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXFor Respondent: M/S.PREMIER TYRES LTD

forward, we bear in view the narrative considered by the authorities under the Act in the orders made by them and do not propose to state these circumstances in detail. The revenue categorized the receipt of lease rental as income from other sources, because the assessee was not actually manufacturing the tyres and selling the manufactured tyres in the market

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. PTL ENTERPRISES LIMITED,

ITA/483/2009HC Kerala19 Jul 2021

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

For Appellant: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXFor Respondent: M/S.PREMIER TYRES LTD

forward, we bear in view the narrative considered by the authorities under the Act in the orders made by them and do not propose to state these circumstances in detail. The revenue categorized the receipt of lease rental as income from other sources, because the assessee was not actually manufacturing the tyres and selling the manufactured tyres in the market

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PREMIER TYRES LTD.

ITA/758/2009HC Kerala19 Jul 2021

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

For Appellant: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXFor Respondent: M/S.PREMIER TYRES LTD

forward, we bear in view the narrative considered by the authorities under the Act in the orders made by them and do not propose to state these circumstances in detail. The revenue categorized the receipt of lease rental as income from other sources, because the assessee was not actually manufacturing the tyres and selling the manufactured tyres in the market

M/S. APPOLLO TYRES LTD vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

ITA/249/2015HC Kerala26 Aug 2021

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM

Section 40

forward contract. In other words, a notional gain is derived by the assessee. The Assessing Officer, in the draft assessment order under Section 144C of the I.T.A. No. 249/2015 -19- Act, disallowed the said claim and the disallowance was considered by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) as objection no.11. The DRP and the Assessing Officer considered that the assessee rests