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 5Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai182Delhi98Pune87Chennai64Bangalore63Kolkata59Hyderabad36Surat32Jaipur26Ahmedabad23Raipur17Indore17Ranchi14Panaji10Karnataka5SC4Jodhpur2Chandigarh2Cochin2Lucknow2Rajkot2Cuttack1Calcutta1Visakhapatnam1ANIL R. DAVE AMITAVA ROY L. NAGESWARA RAO1Amritsar1Allahabad1Nagpur1

Key Topics

Section 1014Section 8(2)2Section 172Section 2(5)2Section 2(7)2Section 22

M/S U.P STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,KANPUR vs. ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI, KANPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee is held to be partly allowed

ITA 3/LKW/2004[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow14 Oct 2025AY 1995-96
For Appellant: \nSh. Pankaj Shukla, Adv & Shubham
Section 10Section 17Section 2Section 2(5)Section 2(7)Section 8(2)

5A) and Section 2 (5B) of the \"Act\"\noperate in an altogether different context and direction then the provisions of\nsection 36(1)(viii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the analogy drawn by the\nlearned CIT (A), for the purposes of upholding the applicability of Interest tax Act,\n1974 in the case of the appellant, is misconceived

M/S U.P STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,KANPUR vs. ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI, KANPUR

ITA 4/LKW/2004[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow14 Oct 2025AY 1996-97
For Appellant: Sh. Pankaj Shukla, Adv & ShubhamFor Respondent: Sh. Puneet Kumar, CIT DR
Section 10Section 17Section 2Section 2(5)Section 2(7)Section 8(2)

5A) and Section 2 (58) of the "Act" operate in an altogether different context and direction then the provisions of section 36(1)(viii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the analogy drawn by the learned CIT (A), for the purposes of upholding the applicability of Interest tax Act, 1974 in the case of the appellant, is misconceived