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.

142 results for “disallowance”+ Section 10(13)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi4,877Mumbai4,790Chennai1,396Bangalore1,129Ahmedabad971Hyderabad965Jaipur797Kolkata737Pune629Chandigarh454Indore410Surat405Raipur401Cochin289Visakhapatnam282Rajkot248Nagpur200Amritsar195Lucknow149SC142Cuttack113Panaji106Ranchi90Jodhpur88Guwahati83Patna78Allahabad74Agra73Dehradun48Jabalpur26Varanasi12A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN5D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1RANJAN GOGOI PRAFULLA C. PANT1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1ANIL R. DAVE AMITAVA ROY L. NAGESWARA RAO1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1

Key Topics

Deduction62Section 80H29Addition to Income24Section 4017Disallowance17Depreciation15Section 143(2)11Section 44C11Section 37(1)11Section 10B

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

Section 12AA(1) of the IT Act, on 18.05.1979 and is engaged in the activity of promotion of the export of all kind of ready-made garments, knitwear, and garments made of leather, jute and hemp. It does not per se engage in any activity for profit, and its mandate is to ensure that Indian apparel manufacturers, are given forums

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 271

Showing 1–20 of 142 · Page 1 of 8

...
11
Section 8011
Exemption11
Section 69A

disallowable under Explanation 1 to Section 37(1). It is submitted that thus either way, neither can the Respondent- Assessee claim business loss due to him not being in the smuggling business nor can he claim business expenditure as the same is prohibited under Explanation 1 to Section 37(1). 3.6 Making above submissions and relying upon the above submissions

MAHARANA MILLS PVT. LTD. vs. INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL, AHMEDABAD & ORS

In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed

- 0Supreme Court03 May 1989
For Respondent: INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL, AHMEDABAD & ORS
Section 12Section 13Section 60A

13 of the Finance Act, 1950, the taxation laws in force in that State were repealed and the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, was extended to that area; and, in exercise of the powers conferred by section 12 of the Finance Act, 1950, the Central Government issued a notification dated December 2, 1950, called the Taxation Laws (Part B States

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 under Section 14A is not warranted, in absence of clear identity of funds. 10. The decision of the ITAT was reversed by the High Court by acceptance of the contentions advanced by the Revenue in their appeal and accordingly the Assessee Bank is before us Page 6 of 22 to challenge the High Court’s decision which was against

MADHAV PRASAD JATIA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, U.P., LUCKNOW

- 0Supreme Court17 Apr 1979
For Respondent: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, U.P., LUCKNOW
Section 10(2)Section 10(2)(iii)Section 12(2)

section 10(2) (xv) of the Act. [756F-H, 757A] Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City II v. Bombay Samachar Ltd., Bombay, 74 ITR 723; Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City IV v. Kishinchand, 109 I.T.R. 569; distinguished. (d) Both the Tribunal as well as the High Court were right in taking the view that the certificate dated October

COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, MADRAS vs. BRAKES INDIA LTD., MADRAS

Accordingly fails and is dismissed

C.A. No.-001287-001287 - 1982Supreme Court06 Apr 1993
For Respondent: BRAKES INDIA LTD
Section 10Section 10(6)(vii)Section 40

13,200 by way of perquisites. He disallowed the balance of Rs. 15,376. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, however, allowed the assessee’s appeal holding that inasmuch as the salary of the foreign technical director was exempt from tax under section 10

SHREE CHOUDHARY TRANSPORT CO. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

Section 40

10 Sub-section (2) was inserted by the Finance Act, 2002. 11 Sub-section (3) was inserted by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2004, w.e.f. 01.04.2005. 26 to in that sub-section does not deduct the whole or any part of the tax or after deducting fails to pay the tax as required by or under this

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

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

10 of 21 In CIT vs. Shri Someshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. [(1989) 177 ITR 443 (Bom.)] two issues were raised. One issue was whether the assessee had a choice in the matter of claiming a deduction on account of depreciation and the second issue was whether, having claimed in the original return, the Income-tax Officer was entitled

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, KERALA, ERNAKULAM vs. TRAVANCORE SUGAR & CHEMICALS LTD

- 0Supreme Court27 Oct 1972
For Respondent: TRAVANCORE SUGAR & CHEMICALS LTD
Section 10Section 10(1)Section 10(2)Section 10(2)(xv)Section 2

disallowance of personal expenses is because that has been dealt with under s. 7 which deals with expenses wholly and necessarily incurred in the performance of duties and therefore are not included in this clause. Once the crucial question is decided by this Court that the expenditure is not of a capital nature but is a revenue expenditure, we should

M/S. W. T. SUREN & CO. LTD. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. BOMBAY

- 0Supreme Court23 Feb 1998
For Respondent: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. BOMBAY
Section 66(1)

10(2) (xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act in the computation of taxable profits (omitting parts of the clause not material) "any expenditure laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of such business, profession or vocation", i.e., business, profession or vocation carried on by the assessee, is a permissible allowance. But to be a permissible allowance

.M. SALGAOCAR & BORS. VS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Accordingly Civil Appeal No. 657 of 1994 is allowed and Civil Appeal Nos

C.A. No.-000657-000657 - 1994Supreme Court10 Apr 2000
For Respondent: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ETC
Section 17(2)Section 256(1)Section 256(2)Section 36Section 40ASection 40A(5)

disallowance under Section 40A(5) of the Act. High Court said that the Section was admittedly applicable only where the assessee incurred expendi-ture which resulted directly or indirectly in the payment of any salary or in the provisions of any perquisite (whether convertible into money or not) to its employees. It was nobody’s case that in providing interest

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)

13 SCC 225 Civil Appeal No.2948 of 2023 etc. Page 24 of 91 c. In response to the principles for examining the constitutional validity of taxation statutes, he submitted that the test of vice of discrimination in a taxing statute is less rigorous. He submitted that the Parliament is entitled to make policy choices and adopt appropriate classifications given

EMPIRE JUTE CO. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

- 0Supreme Court09 May 1980
For Respondent: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
Section 10(2)

section 10(2) (xv) of the Income Tax Act. [1387 C-D] Commissioner of Income Tax v Nchanga Consolidated Copper Mines ltd.. [1965] 58 ITR 241; Commissioner of Taxes v. Curron Company 45 Tax Cases 18; followed. http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 16 JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/s. McMILLAN & CO

- 0Supreme Court16 Oct 1957
For Respondent: M/s. McMILLAN & CO

Section 31 (3) does not in terms say that the power to vary the assessment including the power to enhance it is subject to ally limitation. We have so far dealt with the questions at issue untrammelled by any authorities. We now turn to such authorities as have been placed before us. We take up first the decision

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

10. On the above question of law, Mr. S. Ganesh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of assessee, contended that prior to 1.4.93, Section 40(b) referred to disallowances per se but after the Finance Act 1992 the said Section 40(b)(iv) allows deduction, subject to the above limit of 18/12% per annum. According to learned counsel, Section

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

Section 80

disallowing deduction under Section 80 HHC is illegal. In fine, the arguments are:- i. The foreign exchange credited to the EEFC account is a direct revenue from the export of garments. ii. The foreign exchange credited to the EEFC account is used for the business purposes of the assessee. 1 (1978) 4 SCC 358. 2 (2009) 13

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 6 vs. KHYATI REALTORS PVT. LTD

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

C.A. No.-005804-005804 - 2022Supreme Court25 Aug 2022

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)

disallowed by Explanation to Section 36(1)(vii), if claimed, has got to be added back to the total income of the assessee because the said Act seeks to tax the “real income” which is income computed according to ordinary commercial principles but subject to the provisions of the IT Act. Under Section 36(1)(vii) read with the Explanation

CHECKMATE SERVICES P LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I

C.A. No.-002833-002833 - 2016Supreme Court12 Oct 2022

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 2Section 2(24)(x)Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Disallowance of unpaid statutory liability - Section 43B *** 35.2 Several cases have come to notice where taxpayers do not discharge their statutory liability such as in respect of excise duty, employer's contribution to provident fund, Employees' State Insurance Scheme, etc., for long periods of time, extending sometimes to several years. For the purpose of their income-tax assessments, they claim

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

10 Tax Cases 155, 192-83: (1926) AC 205 (HL) 15 the revenue account and the test of enduring benefit may break down, but what is material to consider is the nature of the advantage in a commercial sense and it is only where the advantage is in the capital field, that the expenditure would be disallowable on an application