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 80clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai5,812Delhi4,535Bangalore1,587Chennai1,508Kolkata1,251Ahmedabad764Hyderabad506Jaipur479Pune479Indore359Karnataka263Chandigarh258Surat231Cochin198Raipur186Rajkot170Lucknow124Visakhapatnam119Nagpur118Amritsar100Guwahati78Panaji73Jodhpur61Cuttack60Calcutta58Telangana56Patna47Ranchi42Dehradun40SC36Allahabad33Varanasi28Agra27Kerala16Jabalpur16Punjab & Haryana13Himachal Pradesh4Rajasthan3Orissa2ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Andhra Pradesh1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 2602

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

disallowance of I.T.A. No.193/12 & Conn. Cases -:19:- Rs.52 lakhs claimed under the head “sales tax written off”. A penalty of Rs.75,80,772/- for the years 1987-88 to 1993-94 was imposed in the year 1996-97 section

M/S SARAF EXPORT PALACE vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

ITA/268/2018HC Rajasthan19 Mar 2021

Bench: SABINA,MANOJ KUMAR VYAS

Section 260Section 45(2)

80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA BENGALURU - 560 095. ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI E I SANMATHI, STANDING COUNSEL) 3 AND: M/s. CANARA BANK BSCA SECTION HEAD OFFICE, 112 JC ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 002. ....RESPONDENT (BY SRI P SURYANARAYANA, SR. COUNSEL FOR SMT. TANMAYEE RAJKUMAR, ADVOCATE) THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER

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

Sections 2(h), 2(j), 2(n), 2(t), 2(u) & 2(x). It is argued that in terms of the said provisions information of Registrants would be clearly covered and thus would have to be protected from disclosure. The said sections are extracted hereinunder for ease of reference: “2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,— (h) “data