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.

5 results for “disallowance”+ Section 148clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai4,219Delhi2,580Chennai1,094Kolkata879Bangalore828Jaipur480Ahmedabad472Hyderabad372Pune322Surat315Chandigarh234Rajkot186Cochin186Indore170Raipur145Visakhapatnam128Amritsar118Nagpur113Lucknow111Agra102Karnataka77Panaji63Allahabad59Guwahati55Calcutta49Cuttack48Jodhpur40Patna34Ranchi24Dehradun22Varanasi19Telangana19SC16Jabalpur14Kerala5Punjab & Haryana4Orissa3Rajasthan2Gauhati1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1Tripura1

Key Topics

Section 2636Section 1483Section 112

M/S. NILESHWAR RANGEKALLU CHETHU VYAVASAYA THOZHILALI SAHAKARANA SANGHAM vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

ITA/120/2019HC Kerala14 Mar 2023

Bench: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.

For Appellant: M/S. NILESHWAR RANGEKALLU CHETHU VYAVASAYA THOZHILALIFor Respondent: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
Section 139(4)Section 148Section 80P

148, the Assessing Officer treated the same as invalid and proceeded to complete the assessment in terms of Section 144 of the IT Act after hearing the representative of the appellant and verifying the books of account and other details called for by the Department. While completing the assessment, the claim of the I.T.A..No.120/2019 & :: 5 :: I.T.A.No.11/2022 appellant

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

Section 148 of the Act. The proposed re-assessment principally was on the ground that the income received as lease rent from ATL could not have been treated as business income, and the lease rental amount qualifies as income from other sources. The case of assessee and the department in this behalf has been stated in sufficient detail

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

Section 148 of the Act. The proposed re-assessment principally was on the ground that the income received as lease rent from ATL could not have been treated as business income, and the lease rental amount qualifies as income from other sources. The case of assessee and the department in this behalf has been stated in sufficient detail

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

Section 148 of the Act. The proposed re-assessment principally was on the ground that the income received as lease rent from ATL could not have been treated as business income, and the lease rental amount qualifies as income from other sources. The case of assessee and the department in this behalf has been stated in sufficient detail

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTIONS) vs. M/S CHOICE FOUNDATION

ITA/180/2019HC Kerala11 Nov 2021

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

Section 11Section 11(5)Section 12Section 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 154Section 2(24)(iia)Section 260ASection 263

section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the assessment order dated 10/03/2015 is set aside with a direction to the Assessing Officer to redo the same afresh after considering all issues raised herein above and after affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.” 5. The assessee filed I.T.A No.20/Coch/2017 before the Tribunal