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 192clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,100Delhi1,020Bangalore571Kolkata361Chennai248Indore172Hyderabad128Jaipur127Ahmedabad81Chandigarh76Nagpur74Agra66Raipur62Lucknow61Amritsar55Pune43Cuttack37Calcutta34Visakhapatnam32Surat31Rajkot30Cochin27Guwahati25Ranchi18SC14Jodhpur13Varanasi12Dehradun10Patna8Karnataka8Allahabad6Kerala5Telangana5Panaji4Orissa2Rajasthan2ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Uttarakhand1Jabalpur1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1RANJAN GOGOI PRAFULLA C. PANT1Punjab & Haryana1

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

192 ITR 165 (Kar) ITA/83/2010 REPORTABLE Page 30 of 60 well as business income. In the Circular No. 6 of 2016, the Board directed that in respect of listed shares and securities held for a period of more than twelve months immediately preceding the date of its transfer, if the assessee desires to treat the income arising from transfer thereof

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

192 ITR 547. Submission is that reasoning given by the Commissioner alone will be the criteria for invoking jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act and other authorities cannot supplement or give their own reasons and therefore, the Tribunal could not have given any further reasons to uphold the order of the Commissioner on the question of jurisdiction. Submitted that