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 254(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,722Delhi1,458Surat510Bangalore481Chennai421Kolkata330Ahmedabad280Pune239Jaipur214Cochin158Hyderabad158Chandigarh138Indore86Raipur83Rajkot47Amritsar44Calcutta41Visakhapatnam40Lucknow40Karnataka38Guwahati31Nagpur20Panaji19Cuttack17SC16Jodhpur13Varanasi12Jabalpur11Agra10Telangana10Ranchi6Dehradun5Allahabad4Punjab & Haryana3Kerala3Patna2Rajasthan2A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Orissa1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1

Key Topics

Section 1545Section 143(1)5Section 36(1)(va)4Section 2503Deduction2

SIS CASH SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,PATNA vs. ADIT, CPC, BANGALORE, BANGALORE

ITA 240/PAT/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Patna26 May 2025AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Kavita Jha, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Ashwani Kr. Singal, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 43B

disallow Rs.2,25,91,254/- u/s. 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act. The impugned amount represented delayed payment of employees' contribution towards PF and another amount of Rs.20,78,087/- u/s. 40(a)(i) of the Act. it needs to be mentioned that the second amount is not under challenge before the ITAT. 1.2. Aggrieved with

JCIT(IN-SITU), CIRCLE-1, PATNA, PATNA vs. TECHNOCULTURE BUILDING CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED, PATNA

ITA 41/PAT/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Patna03 Jun 2025AY 2020-21
Section 142(1)Section 145Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

disallowance of the deduction, even if the payment was made before the due date for filing the ROI. We need to remind ourselves that this is exactly the case in the present appeal. The judgment reinforced the distinction between employer and employee contributions. While an employer's contributions could be governed by section 43B of the Act, employees' contributions