Search: disallowance | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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”+ Permanent Establishmentclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,108 Mumbai935 Chennai512 Bangalore292 Kolkata232 Ahmedabad84 Jaipur78 Raipur47 Chandigarh39 Karnataka39 Amritsar37 Indore31 Hyderabad26 Visakhapatnam21 Rajkot21 Pune20 Cochin19 Lucknow16 SC13 Surat11 Varanasi11 Guwahati11 Cuttack8 Dehradun6 Panaji6 Agra4 Nagpur4 Telangana4 Kerala3 Patna2 Rajasthan1 Calcutta1 Ranchi1

Key Topics

Section 407 Section 1956 Disallowance5 Addition to Income5 Section 9(1)(vii)4 Section 143(3)3 Section 143(1)3 Section 143(2)3 Section 14A3 Capital Gains

MADALBAL GOA EXPORTS PVT. LTD,MIRAMAR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1), PANAJI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 363/PAN/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji27 Jun 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Sandip Bhandare, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Rijula Uniyal, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 250(6)Section 40

permanent establishment in India. The learned AO disallowed the expenditure incurred on commission to a foreign party by invoking the provision

SOCIEADADE DE FOMENTO INDL. PVT. LTD.,MARGAO vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MARGAO RANGE, MARGAO

3

Short Term Capital Gains2

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 105/PAN/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji12 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Sh. Nishant Thakkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Ranjan Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

permanent establishment in India and there has to be territorial nexus with the earning of the income, no services are rendered in India and neither the same is received in India. Therefore, no income accrued in India. Explanation to Sec. 9 inserted by the Finance Act, 2010 is not applicable as all the payments were made when the Finance

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PANAJI vs. M/S SOCIADADE DE FOMENTO INDUSTRIAL P. LTD, MARGAO

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 116/PAN/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji12 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Sh. Nishant Thakkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Ranjan Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

permanent establishment in India and there has to be territorial nexus with the earning of the income, no services are rendered in India and neither the same is received in India. Therefore, no income accrued in India. Explanation to Sec. 9 inserted by the Finance Act, 2010 is not applicable as all the payments were made when the Finance

TUMKUR MINERALS PVT. LTD,VASCO vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MARGAO RANGE, MARGAO

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 401/PAN/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji20 Sept 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury(Through Virtual Hearing)

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwalla, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Ashwini Hosmani, Sr.DR

Section 195Section 40Section 5Section 9(1)(vii)

disallowed u/sec. 40(a). The assessee company submitted that the payments were made for the services rendered outside India. The above income is neither received nor deemed to have been received in India nor accrues or arises in India. Hence, it falls outside the purview of sec.5 of the Act. The assessee also stated that its case is covered within

BANDEKAR BROTHERS PRIVATE LIMITED,VASCO-DA-GAMA, GOA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANAJI, GOA

The appeal of the assessee is PARTLY ALLOWED in aforestated terms

ITA 38/PAN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji11 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Years: 2013-14 Bandekar Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Post Box No. 11, Suvarna Bandekar Bldg., Swatantra Path, Vasco-Da-Gama Goa-403802 Pan: Aaacb5502B . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Panaji, Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Represented Assessee By: Mr Pramod & Mr Shriniwas Deshpande [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By: Mr M Satish & Mr Renga Rajan [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 12/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 11/02/2026 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; This Assessee’S Appeal Filed U/S 253(1) Of The Income-

For Appellant: Mr Pramod & Mr Shriniwas Deshpande [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr M Satish & Mr Renga Rajan [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(14)Section 246ASection 250Section 253(1)Section 37(1)

disallowance of Renewal Charges of Mining Lease of Rs16,00,00,000/- He failed to appreciate that the learned Assessing Officer was wrong in holding the expenditure as Capital Expenditure. He ignored the fact that the appellant was in mining business since past several years in the same mine, hence charges for renewal of mining lease was entirely a revenue

M/S R. S. SHETYE & BROS,PANAJI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1), PANAJI

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

ITA 37/PAN/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji27 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. No.37/Pan/2023 (A.Y.2016-17) R.S.Shetye & Bros, Vs Acit 1(1), Flat.No.14, 1 St Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, . Trionara Apartments, Edc, Patto, New Muncipal Market, Panjim Panaji- Goa-403001. Goa-403001. Pan .No.Aabfr9785N (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

disallowance of community development and village welfare 7 ITA. No.37/PAN/2023 R.S.Shetye and Bros. expenses and this ground of appeal allowed in favour of the assessee. 7.On the second disputed issue, the Ld.AR mentioned that the expenses on stamp duty and registration charges of renewal of mining lease, paid as part payment towards second renewal of mining lease for the period