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.

6 results for “disallowance”+ Section 13(3)(c)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai8,948Delhi7,907Bangalore2,946Chennai2,442Kolkata2,367Ahmedabad1,166Jaipur1,022Hyderabad805Pune612Chandigarh519Indore515Surat427Raipur374Amritsar273Karnataka268Rajkot230Visakhapatnam212Cochin207Nagpur186Lucknow178Cuttack140Panaji131Agra97SC95Telangana80Allahabad78Guwahati73Jodhpur71Calcutta64Dehradun49Kerala37Patna35Ranchi27Varanasi26Jabalpur19Punjab & Haryana9Rajasthan8Orissa6Himachal Pradesh5A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN4H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1Uttarakhand1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1ANIL R. DAVE AMITAVA ROY L. NAGESWARA RAO1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Gauhati1RANJAN GOGOI PRAFULLA C. PANT1

Key Topics

Section 14810Section 143(1)3Section 143(3)3Reassessment2Reopening of Assessment2

M/S.SHEETAL REAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

In the result, the appeal fails and the substantial questions of law

ITA/83/2010HC Orissa08 Feb 2022

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

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 372A

C) Bench, Kolkata ITA No. 552 of 1060/Kol/2009 for the assessment year 2005-06. The appeal was admitted on 20th March, 2010 on the following substantial question of law: “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is correct in holding the profit of Rs. 4,32,09,144/- as long-term

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

13. The assessee claimed a deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’) of Rs. 1,42,23,305/- and ITA Nos.68/2017, 196/2019, 63/2019, 1/2018, 219/2019 -8- return of income at Rs.1,62,080/-. 5. The Assessing Officer first disallowed the deduction claimed under Section 80P of the Act. Further, the Assessing Officer concludes

NALCO vs. COMNR.OF INCOME TAX

ITA/133/2012HC Orissa09 May 2022

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani & The Hon’Ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj Date : 16Th January, 2024 Appearance : Sri Vipul Kundalia, Adv. Smt. Oindrilla Ghosal, Adv. ...For The Appellant. Sri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Sri Sanjoy Bhaumik, Adv. Smt. Swapna Das, Adv. ...For The Respondent. 1. Heard Sri Vipul Kundalia, Learned Senior Standing Counsel For The Appellant/Revenue & Sri J.P. Khaitan, Learned Senior Advocate Assisted By Sri Sanjoy Bhaumik & Smt. Swapna Das, Learned Advocates For The Respondent/Assessee. 2. This Appeal Was Admitted By This Court By An Order Dated 30.11.2012 On The Following Substantial Questions Of Law: “1) Whether In View Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Instant Case The Tribunal Erred By Not Considering That Subsides Which May Be Used Freely

Section 43(6)Section 89

3. So far as the afore-quoted substantial question of law no.1 is concerned, we find that this issue has been decided in favour of the revenue and against the assessee by a judgment and order dated 18.12.2023 in ITA No.158/2010 (Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata – II, Kolkata Vs. M/s. Birla Corporation Limited). Following the aforesaid judgment, the substantial question

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

3. The assessee, it appears, had been disallowed such depreciation for earlier years but for the assessment year in question, the Assessing Officer had allowed the depreciation on the goodwill part and for subsequent years without assigning any reason, but it was done otherwise. 4. It is this part of the assessment orders the Commissioner proposed to revise

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

3. 4000000 Join Fashion P. Ltd., 4. 4000000 Management Services P. Ltd., 5. 4000000 Greenvision Construction P. Ltd., 6. 4000000 USK Exim P. Ltd., TOTAL 2,45,00,000/- On the basis of the reports received from the Investigation Wing, I have downloaded the return from the ITD portal and verified the records and it is clear that the assessee

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

3. 4000000 Join Fashion P. Ltd., 4. 4000000 Management Services P. Ltd., 5. 4000000 Greenvision Construction P. Ltd., 6. 4000000 USK Exim P. Ltd., TOTAL 2,45,00,000/- On the basis of the reports received from the Investigation Wing, I have downloaded the return from the ITD portal and verified the records and it is clear that the assessee