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.

3 results for “disallowance”+ Section 32(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai6,846Delhi6,228Bangalore2,075Chennai1,972Kolkata1,589Ahmedabad875Hyderabad684Jaipur571Pune503Indore400Chandigarh314Raipur268Surat268Rajkot250Karnataka244Amritsar189Nagpur159Cochin153Visakhapatnam137Lucknow123Cuttack91Agra81Guwahati80Allahabad65SC64Ranchi63Panaji61Telangana60Jodhpur57Calcutta54Patna53Dehradun34Kerala28Varanasi25Jabalpur7Orissa6Punjab & Haryana5Rajasthan3A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2ANIL R. DAVE AMITAVA ROY L. NAGESWARA RAO1J&K1Himachal Pradesh1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Tripura1Uttarakhand1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TDS vs. M/S MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT LTD

ITA/6/2021HC Rajasthan01 Nov 2022

Bench: SANDEEP MEHTA,KULDEEP MATHUR

For Respondent: THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

32 ITR 688 (SC), it was held that the heads of income provided for in the sections of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 are mutually exclusive and where any item of income falls specifically under one head, it has to be charged under that head and no other. In other words, income derived from different sources falling under

C.I.T. II JODHPUR vs. M/S JEEWAN RAM CHOUDHARY

ITA/185/2013HC Rajasthan17 Sept 2019

Bench: SANGEET LODHA,VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

For Appellant: THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXFor Respondent: M/S.PTL ENTERPRISES LTD

2(14) is not a word of art but a word of commercial implication. The bottom line is the availability of assets, activities carried out for exploiting the assets and that the assessee is not a mere onlooker in the activities of the company or a passive recipient of rent for utilization of facilities. 18. Applying the above ratio

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SKYWAYS INDUSTRIAL ESTATE COMPANY (P) LTD.

ITA/82/2020HC Rajasthan14 Feb 2022

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,SUDESH BANSAL

2. This Regulation protects fundamental rights and freedoms of natural persons and in particular their right to the protection of personal data. 3. The free movement of personal data within the Union shall be neither restricted nor prohibited for reasons connected with the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data. Article 4: Definitions: Digitally Signed