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.

18 results for “disallowance”+ Permanent Establishmentclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi485Mumbai455Chennai153Bangalore84Jaipur48Raipur46Kolkata46Ahmedabad41Amritsar37Chandigarh33Visakhapatnam21Cochin19Hyderabad18Indore18SC18Pune11Rajkot11Guwahati10Lucknow8Cuttack7Dehradun6Agra4Panaji3Surat3Nagpur3Patna2Ranchi1

Key Topics

Section 44C11Deduction9Section 17(5)(d)7Section 326Addition to Income6Depreciation4Section 10(2)3Exemption3Section 372Section 10(2)(xv)

NATIONAL PETROLEUM CONSTRUCTION COMPANY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(2) INTERNATIONAL TAXATION NEW DELHI

Appeal is hereby allowed to the extent

C.A. No.-004964-004964 - 2022Supreme Court29 Jul 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE

Section 143(1)Section 197

permanent establishment situated there. It is further clarified that the profit of the enterprises may be taxed in other state to the   extent   of   the   profit   attributable   to   that   PE.   The determination thereof shall be on year to year basis and the deviation, if any, may be based on good and sufficient reasons to the contrary. Thus, it is clear

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (IT)-I, MUMBAI vs. M/S. AMERICAN EXPRESS BANK LTD

C.A. No.-008291-008291 - 2015Supreme Court15 Dec 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA

2
Section 1482
Section 122
Section 28
Section 37(1)
Section 44C

permanent establishment is situated, which, in this case, is India. Therefore, even under the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, the expenditure incurred by the respondent M/s American Express Bank, for the purposes of its Indian branches, is an allowable deduction. c) The reliance placed by the Revenue on Section 44C of the Act, 1961, to restrict the deduction that is otherwise

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

permanent establishment in India was not a sine qua non to demonstrate the assessee’s intention to carry on business, the High Court held to the contrary and disallowed

ENGINEERING ANALYSIS CENTRE OF EXCELLENCE PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

C.A. No.-008733-008734 - 2018Supreme Court02 Mar 2021

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

permanent establishment [“PE”] in India. 19 16. Shri S. Ganesh, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of Sonata Information Technology Ltd. in C.A. Nos. 8737-8941/2018, submitted that to comprehend the nature of a licence, one would have to refer to section 52 of the Indian Easements Act 1882. He stressed the fact that the ruling

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(CENTRAL) vs. M/S. GWALIOR RAYON SILK MFG.(WVG.)CO.LTD

The appeal is partly allowed

C.A. No.-002916-002916 - 1980Supreme Court29 Apr 1992
For Respondent: GWALIOR RAYON SILK MANUFACTURING CO. LTD
Section 256(1)Section 256(2)Section 32

disallowing the assessee’s claim for depreciation on roads and drains to the extent of Rs. 15,50,526. On appeal the C.I.T. (Appeals) allowed the assessee’s claim for depreciation. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the revenue. At the instance of the revenue on a reference under Section 256(1) the High Court answered the question against

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BANGALORE

The appeal is allowed

C.A. No.-009720-009720 - 2014Supreme Court25 Sept 2023

Bench: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA

Section 10(15)Section 148Section 245CSection 245C(1)Section 271Section 32Section 80M

disallowance of depreciation on 26 assets claimed to be leased. b) Treatment of bonus payments to employees. c) Treatment of share issue expenses. d) Treatment of depreciation on permanent assets and securities. iii. The Commission’s order dated 11.12.2000, makes multiple references to the Report of the Commissioner, as required under Section 245D (1). Therefore, we find no substance

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNJAB vs. THE LAHORE ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO

In the result, the appeals are dismissed with costs

- 0Supreme Court25 Nov 1965
For Respondent: THE LAHORE ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO

established an intention to resume it. That would be enough to show that no business was carried on and it would be irrelevant to enquire whether the business was permanently closed. We may add that we do not understand what was meant by saying that the Company did not sell its undertaking as a going concern. The only going trading

ASSAM BENGAL CEMENT CO. LTD. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,WEST BENGAL

- 0Supreme Court11 Nov 1954
For Respondent: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,WEST BENGAL
Section 10(2)Section 10(2)(xv)

disallowed as being expenditure of a capital nature and so not allowable under section 10(2) (xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act ". The High Court answered the question in the affirmative and hence this appeal. Clauses 4 and 5 of the deed of lease may be here set out :- 4. The lessee shall pay to the lessor

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)

established player out of the same 35 business, thereby earning better profits. Thus, there cannot be any dispute that by a non-compete covenant, an intangible asset is being used. No prudent businessman will pay non-compete fee if he is not going to get a return. 13.12. Summing up his arguments, Mr. Datar, learned senior counsel, submits that

MANSAROVAR COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI

C.A. No.-005769-005769 - 2022Supreme Court10 Apr 2023

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

Section 26Section 6(3)

disallowed). Separate penalty proceedings were initiated under sections 271(1)(a). 271(1)(c), 273/274 and 271-B of the Act. 2.12 The assessees then preferred appeals before the CIT(A). Subsequently on 08th December, 2000, the writ petitions filed by the assessees came to be dismissed by the High Court as the respective assessees moved the Appellate Authority prescribed

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

established was to see that the cultivators adopt all scientific methods for production of quality seeds in accordance with the Seeds Act and to carry on educational programs designed to promote the use of certified seeds. Charges are collected from the traders or the societies engaged in the trade of seeds. The society provides quality seeds to the farmers

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

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

disallowable on an application of this test. If the advantage consists merely in facilitating the assessee’s trading operations or enabling the management and conduct of the assessee’s business to be carried on more effectively or more profitably while leaving the fixed capital untouched, the expenditure would be on the revenue account, even though the advantage may endure

ALEMBIC CHEMICAL WORKS CO. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUJARAT

In the result, for the foregoing reasons the appeal

- 0Supreme Court31 Mar 1989
For Respondent: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUJARAT
Section 37

Disallowing the claim the Income Tax Officer held that the expenditure was for the acquisition of an asset or advantage of an enduring benefit and thus a capital outlay. The Appel- late Assistant Commissioner confirmed the order of the Income Tax Officer. The further appeal of the assessee was dismissed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal holding that the payment

CHANDRAKANT KRISHNARAO PRADHANAND ANOTHER vs. THE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, BOMBAYAND OTHERS

- 0Supreme Court11 Aug 1961
For Respondent: THE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, BOMBAYAND OTHERS
Section 4

permanent and temporary licences ceases to be material. No part of s.202 was challenged as being void or ultra vires. In these petitions, only the Rules &ire challenged as in breach of the fundamental rights under Arts. 14 and 19 of the Constitution and Also as being in excess of the rule- making power conferred

COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. M/S. GENERAL INSURANCE CORPN.OF INDIA

C.A. No.-004422-004422 - 2001Supreme Court25 Sept 2006
For Respondent: M/s General Insurance Corporation
Section 143Section 260Section 81

Disallowance of Rs. 1,04,28,500/- in respect of stamp duty and registration fees incurred in connection with the increase in the authorized share capital were bifurcated by the CIT (Appeals) into two categories, one relating to the increase in authorized share capital from Rs. 75 crores to Rs. 250 crores and second relating to issue of bonus shares

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BOMBAY vs. FINLAY MILLS LTD

- 0Supreme Court01 Oct 1951
For Respondent: FINLAY MILLS LTD
Section 10Section 10(2)

established a pension fund for its clerical and technical salaried staff. The fund was constituted by a trust deed which provided that members should contribute a percentage of their salaries to the fund and that the company should contribute an amount equal to half the contributions of the members; and further that the company should contribute a sum of pound

CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX vs. M/S SAFARI RETREATS PRIVATE LIMITED

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

C.A. No.-002948-002948 - 2023Supreme Court03 Oct 2024

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

Section 17Section 17(5)(c)Section 17(5)(d)

disallowance of ITC on goods and services used in the construction of buildings could be a logical corollary only if the buildings were intended to be sold as stock by the developer instead of being further used for providing taxable goods or services. There is no contradiction in promoting ITC on goods and services used for the construction of buildings

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) 2 vs. M/S MAHAGUN REALTORS (P) LTD

The appeal is allowed, in the above terms, without order on costs

C.A. No.-002716-002716 - 2022Supreme Court05 Apr 2022

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 276C

Permanent Account Number 4 CO No. 300/Del/2012 4 assessment order was made, as it had amalgamated with MIPL. The ITAT held inter alia, that: “The above assessee company did not exist on the date of the assessment order, we find that the assessment order passed by the ld AO is not sustainable in law in view of the· decision