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 13(2)(d)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai12,055Delhi7,579Chennai3,748Bangalore3,633Kolkata2,452Ahmedabad1,504Jaipur1,142Hyderabad967Indore663Pune654Surat619Chandigarh480Raipur374Cochin335Visakhapatnam325Nagpur282Rajkot275Lucknow262Cuttack248Karnataka208Amritsar179Panaji149Agra120Allahabad109SC106Ranchi83Jodhpur79Patna76Guwahati72Telangana62Calcutta54Kerala35Dehradun34Varanasi32Jabalpur28Punjab & Haryana7A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN5Orissa5Rajasthan5Himachal Pradesh4ANIL R. DAVE AMITAVA ROY L. NAGESWARA RAO1RANJAN GOGOI PRAFULLA C. PANT1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1

Key Topics

Section 14810Section 2(22)(e)4Section 682Section 143(3)2Section 143(1)2Reassessment2Reopening of Assessment2

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 vs. M/S.JAGANNATH CHAUDHURY

The appeal is disposed of as indicated above

ITA/1/2018HC Orissa18 Dec 2019

Bench: MR. JUSTICE K. S. JHAVERI (CJ),MR. JUSTICE K.R.MOHAPATRA

For Appellant: THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXFor Respondent: M/S. SAHYADRI CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD

D G M E N T [ITA Nos.68/2017, 196/2019, 63/2019, 1/2018, 219/2019] S.V.Bhatti, J. We have heard Mr Navneeth N. Nath holding for Mr Jose Joseph for the appellant and Mr A Kumar for the respondent. 2. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kottayam/Revenue, is the appellant. M/s. Sahyadri Co-operative Credit Society Ltd, Kottayam/assessee, is the respondent

M/S.BHASKAR TRADERS vs. ASST.COMMKNR.OF INCOME TAX,BERHAMPUR

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/174/2018HC Orissa30 Mar 2022

DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR (CJ),MR. JUSTICE R.K.PATTANAIK

Bench:
Section 132Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)Section 68

D E R % 13.02.2018 The Revenue in these appeals questions the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), which affirmed the appellate order of the Commissioner. It is contended that the deletion of amounts brought to tax under Section 2(22)(e) and Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) by the lower appellate authority

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) vs. M/S. ROLAND EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST

ITA/25/2022HC Orissa09 Feb 2023

Bench: DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR (CJ),MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

D E R % 28.02.2025 1. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax1 seeks to impugn the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2 dated 07 November 2019. We had, after hearing learned counsels for the respective parties, admitted this appeal by our order dated 30 January 2024 on the following questions of law:- “(a) Whether examination and analysis of information received

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 vs. PARBATI MOHAPATRA

ITA/19/2022HC Orissa08 Feb 2023

Bench: DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR (CJ),MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

D E R % 28.02.2025 1. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax1 seeks to impugn the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2 dated 07 November 2019. We had, after hearing learned counsels for the respective parties, admitted this appeal by our order dated 30 January 2024 on the following questions of law:- “(a) Whether examination and analysis of information received

COMNR.OF INCOME TAX vs. NEELACHAL ISPAT NIGA

Appeals are dismissed

ITA/119/2013HC Orissa21 Feb 2022

Bench: DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR (CJ),MR. JUSTICE R.K.PATTANAIK

Section 260

2. Assessee is a Private Limited Company. Under the impugned order, the Appellate Tribunal had in fact allowed the appeals of the assessee though termed it as for statistical purposes, had directed the Assessing Officer to examine the claims put forth by the assessee to reconsider the question of allowing depreciation on goodwill part of the assessee and for such