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.

8 results for “disallowance”+ Section 131(1)(d)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,002Delhi1,381Kolkata560Jaipur472Bangalore456Chennai408Ahmedabad337Hyderabad229Pune213Indore168Chandigarh143Raipur138Cochin127Surat108Visakhapatnam94Nagpur71Lucknow59Rajkot54Guwahati51Cuttack43Calcutta34Karnataka29Amritsar20Jodhpur16Telangana16Ranchi16Allahabad12Agra11Panaji11Patna9SC8Jabalpur6Varanasi5RANJAN GOGOI PRAFULLA C. PANT1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 806Section 36(1)(vii)3Section 36(1)(viia)3Section 18A3Section 233Deduction3Section 2072

CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THRISSUR

C.A. No.-001143-001143 - 2011Supreme Court17 Feb 2012
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

disallowed. This amount was added back to the taxable income of the assessee, for which a demand notice and challan was accordingly issued. This order of the assessing officer dated 24th January, 2005, was challenged in appeal by the assessee on various grounds. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’], vide its order

MODI INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MODINAGAR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, DELHI

The appeals are allowed in the above

C.A. No.-000928-000928 - 1980Supreme Court15 Sept 1995
For Respondent: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI AND ANR. ETC. ETC
Section 143Section 144Section 18Section 18ASection 2Section 207Section 208Section 209Section 211Section 214

131 I.T.R.239), a Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court followed the decision of the Bombay and Allahabad High Courts and dissented from the view taken by http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 39 the Calcutta High Court. A Full Bench of the Bombay High Court considered the question once again in Commissioner of Income

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 3 vs. ABHISAR BUILDWELL P. LTD

C.A. No.-006580-006580 - 2021Supreme Court24 Apr 2023

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

Section 153ASection 2(45)Section 4Section 5

131, 133, 133A and 285BA. It is submitted that apart from this, the Department keeps getting information relating to assessee from various sources, viz.: (i) Suspicious Transaction Report from the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) (ii) Information from other taxation authorities viz. GST, and Law Enforcement Agencies, viz. ED, etc. (iii) Information from foreign tax jurisdictions under Automatic Exchange of Information

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

1. GRANT OF LICENSE: This EULA grants you the following rights: a. Systems Software - You may install and use one copy of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT on a single computer, including a workstation, terminal, or other digital electronic device (“COMPUTER”). You may permit a maximum of five (5) COMPUTERS to connect to the single COMPUTER running the SOFTWARE PRODUCT solely

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

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 v. DGIT(E)70, Bureau of Indian Standards v. DGIT(E)71 and GS1 India v. DGIT(E)72. 66. Mr. Ajay Vohra, learned senior counsel

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

M/S.PREMIER BREVERIES LTD.KARNATAKA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN

C.A. No.-001569-001569 - 2007Supreme Court10 Mar 2015
Section 256Section 256(2)Section 37

D G M E N T PRAFULLA C. PANT, J. 1. Civil Appeal No. 1569 of 2007 is directed against the judgment and order dated 31.03.2005 of the High Court of Kerala by which in exercise of jurisdiction under Section Page 2 JUDGMENT Page 2 of 18 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (as it then existed) (hereinafter

RAMNATH AND CO. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

C.A. No.-002506-002509 - 2020Supreme Court05 Jun 2020

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

Section 80

D of the Tribunal held that the object and spirit of Section 80-O was to mainly encourage Indian technical know-how and skill abroad and since the information was given outside India party and it was used outside India and payment was received in convertible foreign exchange, the condition required for allowing deduction under Section 80-O could said