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.

2 results for “disallowance”+ Section 144C(10)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,330Delhi1,011Bangalore531Chennai161Kolkata154Hyderabad145Ahmedabad107Pune74Jaipur22Chandigarh18Karnataka15Indore15Visakhapatnam14Dehradun14Surat10Cochin10Rajkot9Amritsar3Nagpur2Raipur2Panaji2Kerala2Guwahati2Lucknow2SC1Jodhpur1Cuttack1

Key Topics

Section 2637Section 143(3)5Section 355Section 40A(7)2Deduction2

MIRZA INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,KANPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 2(1)(1), KANPUR

The appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed

ITA 35/LKW/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Jun 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Shri Akshay Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 40A(7)Section 80Section 92Section 92C

144C(13) and 144B of the Act at a total income of Rs.99,81,17,010/- after making the following additions/adjustments: 1 Adjustment in respect of Arm’s Length Rs.3,14,89,283/- Price (ALP)) by the TPO 2 Addition in respect of delayed Rs.55,79,597/- payment of employees’ contribution to EPF/ESI. 3 Disallowance

GENUS POWER INFRASTRUCTURES LIMITTED,NOIDA vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTERAL), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

ITA 74/LKW/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow18 Mar 2025AY 2016-17
For Respondent: \nShri Praveen Kumar, Adv
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35

10 page 7\nas under:\n\n“We have heard both the parties, perused the material available on record\nand gone through orders of the authorities below. We find that an identical\nissue has been considered by the Tribunal in assessee own case for A.Y.\n2010-11, where it has been held that once, R&D facility has been\nrecognized