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 17(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai10,796Delhi9,166Bangalore3,228Chennai2,915Kolkata2,713Ahmedabad1,938Hyderabad1,326Jaipur1,219Pune911Surat782Indore694Chandigarh636Raipur440Cochin373Rajkot372Karnataka360Amritsar318Visakhapatnam261Cuttack259Nagpur253Lucknow245Jodhpur153Agra144Guwahati123Panaji117Telangana112Ranchi105Allahabad104SC103Patna79Dehradun74Calcutta63Varanasi36Kerala34Jabalpur28Punjab & Haryana11Rajasthan7Himachal Pradesh7A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN6Orissa4Gauhati2MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1RANJAN GOGOI PRAFULLA C. PANT1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1Tripura1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1ANIL R. DAVE AMITAVA ROY L. NAGESWARA RAO1D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1

Key Topics

Section 69C2

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

17. The assessee in their reply contended that they have accounted for the transactions as investment transactions in its books of accounts and has been specifically shown as such in the schedule. That the assessee has been investing idle funds within the limit prescribed under section 372A of the Companies Act, 1956. That the assessee has been investing funds with

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

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 vs. INDIAN METALS AND FERRO ALLOYS SLTD.

The Appeal is dismissed

ITA/145/2018HC Orissa07 Feb 2024

Bench: DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI,MR. JUSTICE GOURISHANKAR SATAPATHY

Section 40

3. In the present case, the assessing officer has not relied on any new material which has come to light after the initial assessment on 31.12.2011. Even as regards the issue of disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia), the Assessing Officer did not form a decision on the basis of any fresh or new material. Rather, the same material Digitally

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) vs. INDRANI PATNAIK

ITA/55/2022HC Orissa18 Dec 2024

Bench: MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA,MR. JUSTICE M.S.SAHOO

Section 69C

17,95,500/- as ‘unexplained expenditure’ in complete disregard of the system of accounting and the applicable accounting standards. August, 2020 passed by ITAT in ITA No. 6448/Del/2015 for the Assessment Year 2011-12. This is a digitally signed Judgement. NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/000993 ITA No.55/2022 Page 2 of 4 3. Having perused the paper book, this Court finds that