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.

4 results for “disallowance”+ Section 35Cclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi5Nagpur4Chandigarh3Calcutta2Kolkata2Jaipur1Mumbai1

Key Topics

Section 35(1)(ii)13Section 1489Section 143(3)4Deduction4Disallowance4Addition to Income4Section 69C3Section 353Section 12A3Exemption3Section 1472

ASHOKKUMAR GOKULCHAND SANANDA,BULDHANA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX AKOLA CIRCLE, AKOLA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 427/NAG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Apr 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Royashokkumar Gokulchand Acit, Akola Circle, Akola Sananda, Rana Traders, Vs Gandhi Chowk, Khamgaon, Dist. Buldhan, Khamgaon Pan : Adpps 755I L Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri K.P. Dewani, Adv Revenue By : Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 20.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.04.2026

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Dewani, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 234B
Section 250
Section 35(1)(ii)

disallowance has been made without pointing out any specific incriminating evidence/information with regard to transaction made by assessee with the aforesaid scientific research association. Subsequent cancellation of approval u/s 35(1)(ii) can be no reason for denial of deduction u/s 35(1)(ii) of the Act in view of specific statutory provisions of explanation to section

C-DET EXPLOSIVE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD ,NAGPUR vs. D.C.I.T, CIRCLE-2, NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue (ITA/42/2020) is dismissed and the substantial question of law is answered against the revenue

ITA 311/NAG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur30 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh V. LoyaFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Subrahmanyan
Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 35Section 35(1)(ii)

Section 35C of the Act having been …………………………………effect. On facts, the tribunal noted that there is nothing on record to show that the respondent/assessee connived with the scheme of arrangement between the concerns in bogus billing etc. The factual finding recorded by the CIT(A) is to the following effect: “5.5 It has been brought to my notice that vide

C-DET EXPLOSIVE INDUSTRIES PVT.LTD.,,NAGPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2,, NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue (ITA/42/2020) is dismissed and the substantial question of law is answered against the revenue

ITA 310/NAG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur30 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh V. LoyaFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Subrahmanyan
Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 35Section 35(1)(ii)

Section 35C of the Act having been …………………………………effect. On facts, the tribunal noted that there is nothing on record to show that the respondent/assessee connived with the scheme of arrangement between the concerns in bogus billing etc. The factual finding recorded by the CIT(A) is to the following effect: “5.5 It has been brought to my notice that vide

C-DET EXPLOSIVE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD ,NAGPUR vs. D.C.I.T, CIRCLE-2, NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue (ITA/42/2020) is dismissed and the substantial question of law is answered against the revenue

ITA 312/NAG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur30 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh V. LoyaFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Subrahmanyan
Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 35Section 35(1)(ii)

Section 35C of the Act having been …………………………………effect. On facts, the tribunal noted that there is nothing on record to show that the respondent/assessee connived with the scheme of arrangement between the concerns in bogus billing etc. The factual finding recorded by the CIT(A) is to the following effect: “5.5 It has been brought to my notice that vide