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.

105 results for “disallowance”+ Business Incomeclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai19,747 Delhi13,513 Chennai5,594 Kolkata5,127 Bangalore4,876 Ahmedabad3,398 Pune3,097 Hyderabad2,312 Jaipur1,726 Cochin1,188 Chandigarh1,053 Surat1,020 Indore904 Visakhapatnam702 Raipur670 Cuttack646 Karnataka554 Rajkot524 Nagpur474 Lucknow381 Amritsar374 Panaji271 Agra213 Guwahati188 Jodhpur188 Ranchi170 Telangana166 Patna142 Dehradun136 Allahabad114 Calcutta112 SC105 Jabalpur90 Kerala66 Varanasi53 Punjab & Haryana27 Orissa12 Rajasthan9 Himachal Pradesh4 A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2 MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1 Andhra Pradesh1 ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1 Bombay1 Gauhati1 H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1 J&K1 A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1 RANJAN GOGOI PRAFULLA C. PANT1 Tripura1

Key Topics

Deduction66 Section 8051 Section 80H39 Section 4031 Addition to Income29 Disallowance23 Section 3721 Depreciation18 Section 37(1)16 Section 43B

THE BANK OF RAJASTHAN LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals are dismissed

C.A. No.-003291-003294 - 2009Supreme Court16 Oct 2024

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA

Section 18Section 19Section 20Section 21

income under the head “business” and disallowed it under the income under the head “interest on securities”. The Appellate Tribunal

NATIONAL CO-OPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-V, DELHI

C.A. No.-005105-005105 - 2009Supreme Court11 Sept 2020

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL

Showing 1–20 of 105 · Page 1 of 6

16

Section 41(1)13

Section 36(1)(iii)12

Section 12Section 12ASection 12BSection 13Section 13(1)Section 24Section 9

business income.” The issue which has arisen for consideration is whether the component of interest income earned on the funds received under Section 13(1), and disbursed by way of “grants” to national or state level co-operative 4 societies, is eligible for deduction for determining the “taxable income” of the appellant-Corporation. This was, as stated herein, contrary

M/S JINDAL EQUIPMENT LEASING CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms

C.A. No.-000152-000152 - 2026Supreme Court09 Jan 2026

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

Section 143(3)Section 28Section 47

Income Tax v. Mahagun Realtors (P) Ltd28, this Court explained that amalgamation is unlike liquidation. Though the corporate shell of the transferor disappears, its business continues within the transferee, and courts therefore identify the successor-in-interest upon whom rights and obligations devolve. The relevant paragraphs are extracted below for proper understanding: “19. Amalgamation, thus, is unlike the winding

NATIONAL COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

C.A. No.-004612-004612 - 2014Supreme Court10 Dec 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA

Section 36(1)(viii)

income could be characterized as "profits derived from the business of providing long-term finance" as envisaged by the Act. Accordingly, the AO disallowed

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MAHENDRA MILLS

The appeal is dismissed

C.A. No.-005394-005394 - 1994Supreme Court15 Mar 2000

For Respondent: MAHENDRA MILLS

Section 32Section 34Section 72Section 73

business or profession" is chargeable to income-tax under Section 28 and that income under Section 29 is to be computed in accordance with the provisions contained in http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 20 of 21 Sections 30 to 43A. The argument that since Section 32 provides for depreciation it has to be allowed in computing the income

ASST. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, MADRAS vs. THANTHI TRUST

C.A. No.-004406-004410 - 1996Supreme Court31 Jan 2001

For Respondent: THANTHI TRUST ETC. ETC

Section 11Section 148Section 2(15)Section 4(3)(i)

disallow the claim of the Trust for exemption under Section 4(3)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1922 for the Assessment Years 1955-56 to 1961-62. The Trust challenged the correctness of the tentative decision by filing a writ petition in the High Court of Judicature at Madras. On 25th June, 1961 the trustees of the Trust took

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) vs. AHMEDABAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

C.A. No.-021762-021762 - 2017Supreme Court19 Oct 2022

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

business, and the income earned is not derived in the course of any commercial activity. 65. Learned counsel also submitted that the assessee carries on R&D work which enables educational institutions with Information and Communication Technology infrastructure for making education reach the public at large solely for charitable purpose and further reliance was placed upon ICAI Accounting Research Foundation

M/S. I.C.D.S. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are allowed; the impugned

C.A. No.-003282-003282 - 2008Supreme Court14 Jan 2013

disallowed claims, both of depreciation and higher rate, on the ground that the assessee’s use of these vehicles was only by way of leasing out to others and not as actual user of the vehicles in the business of running them on hire. It had merely financed the purchase of these assets and was neither the owner nor user

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

C.A. No.-009606-009606 - 2011Supreme Court09 Sept 2021

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY

Section 14Section 14A

disallowance of expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to income, which does not form part of their total income. As such if the assessee incurs any expenditure for earning tax free income such as interest paid for funds borrowed, for investment in any business

SHAH ORIGINALS vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 24 MUMBAI

C.A. No.-002664-002664 - 2011Supreme Court21 Nov 2023

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.V.N. BHATTI

business from exports outside India. The assessee claimed deduction under Section 80 HHC of the Income Tax Act, for short, “the Act”. 2. The Assessing Officer (AO), by the assessment order dated 10.02.2006, disallowed

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX JAIPUR vs. PRAKASH CHAND LUNIA (D) THR LRS

C.A. No.-007689-007690 - 2022Supreme Court24 Apr 2023

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH

Section 104Section 112Section 135Section 271Section 69A

Disallowance of illegal expenses 20.1 Section 37 of the Income-tax Act is amended to provide that any expenditure incurred by an assessee for any purpose which is an offence or which is prohibited by law shall not be deemed to have been incurred for the purposes of business

PRIDE FORAMER S.A. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

C.A. No.-004395-004397 - 2010Supreme Court17 Oct 2025

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 32(2)Section 37

disallowed the deduction of business expenditure under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act 19612, as well as carrying 1 Income

KILLICK NIXON LTD., MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMNR. OF INCOME TAX,MUMBAI

In the result, we allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High

C.A. No.-002614-002614 - 2001Supreme Court25 Nov 2002

For Respondent: DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI AND ORS

Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 87Section 90(1)Section 91Section 92

business income Rs. 15,49,724.00 against income from other sources in the original order (p. 29) Totaling Rs. 2,00,81,732.00 He again deducts therefrom the reliefs which had been allowed by C1T (A) on account of following ; 1. Interest disallowance

SHREE CHOUDHARY TRANSPORT CO. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

C.A. No.-007865-007865 - 2009Supreme Court29 Jul 2020

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

income of the previous year in which such tax has been paid. *** *** ***” (ii) After the amendment by Finance Act, 2010 “40. Amounts not deductible. - Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in sections 30 to 38, the following amounts shall not be deducted in computing the income chargeable under the head “Profits and gains of business or profession”,- (a) in the case

RAJASTHAN STATE WAREHOUSING CORPN. vs. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed with costs

C.A. No.-004049-004049 - 1994Supreme Court23 Feb 2000

For Appellant: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the caseFor Respondent: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

Section 10(29)Section 256(1)Section 37Section 37(1)

business or profession. The Income Tax Officer allowed only so much of the expenditure as could be allocated to the taxable income and disallowed

SHARP BUSINESS SYSTEM THR. FINANCE DIRECTOR MR. YOSHIHISA MIZUNO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III N.D

The appeals are hereby disposed of in terms of

C.A. No.-004072-004072 - 2014Supreme Court19 Dec 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA

Section 32(1)(ii)

disallowed being regarded as non-revenue expenditure, not for the purpose of business of the assessee. Accordingly, the assessee was held to be not entitled to depreciation. Consequently, appeal of the assessee was dismissed by CIT(A). 7.5. Assessee preferred further appeal before the Income

M/S MUNJAL SALES CORPORATION vs. COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,LUDHIANA

C.A. No.-001378-001378 - 2008Supreme Court19 Feb 2008

For Respondent: Commissioner of Income Tax,Ludhiana & Anr

Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40

Income. Sections 30 to 38 deal with Deductions. Sections 40A and 43B deal with Business Disallowances. Keeping in mind the said

M/S APEX LABORATORIES P. LTD. vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LARGE TAX PAYER UNIT II

The appeal is dismissed without order on costs

C.A. No.-001554-001554 - 2022Supreme Court22 Feb 2022

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 142(1)Section 37(1)

Income Tax Act has no substance. The entire tour of Sukhnandan Jain was for purchase of Tendu leaves of quality and for this purpose, he was on business tour and during his business tour, he was kidnapped and for his release the aforesaid amount was paid.” (emphasis supplied) 9. Counsel brought this Court’s attention to the Memorandum Explaining

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S WOODWARD GOVERNOR INDIA P. LTD

C.A. No.-002206-002206 - 2009Supreme Court08 Apr 2009

Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 37(1)Section 43(1)

income of 8 the assessee is decided only in terms of the system of accounting. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, in the facts of the case in M/s Maruti Udyog Ltd., the overall loss suffered by the assessee cannot be disallowed on the ground that such loss has occurred on account of fluctuation in the foreign exchange rate. According

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,NEW DELHI vs. M/S ELI LILLY & COMPANY (INDIA) P.LTD

C.A. No.-005114-005114 - 2007Supreme Court25 Mar 2009

Section 133ASection 192(1)Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(ii)

business income) inter alia states that any payment which is chargeable under the head “Salaries”, if it is payable outside India or to a non-resident and if the tax thereon is not deducted from such payment under Chapter XVII-B then notwithstanding the entitlement of the assessee to claim deduction, the same will be disallowed