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 135clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,090Delhi911Bangalore314Kolkata215Ahmedabad204Chennai202Jaipur156Hyderabad140Cochin122Indore71Pune71Raipur63Chandigarh51Surat51Amritsar40Calcutta37Nagpur37Lucknow36Cuttack33Visakhapatnam29Allahabad29Karnataka28Rajkot26Ranchi17Varanasi9SC8Telangana7Agra6Dehradun5Jabalpur5Guwahati4Jodhpur4Panaji4Patna3Punjab & Haryana3Rajasthan1Orissa1

Key Topics

Section 35B8Section 17(5)(d)7Section 1546Section 69A5Section 473Section 143(3)3Section 403Section 2642Exemption2Revision u/s 263

KERALA STATE BEVERAGES MANUFACTURING AND MARKETING CORPORATION LIMITED vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1)

Accordingly, the civil appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

C.A. No.-000011-000011 - 2022Supreme Court03 Jan 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40

Section 40 (a) (iib) and is not an amount which can be disallowed   under   the   said   provision.   Therefore   the disallowance made in this regard is liable to be set aside.  24. In the result the assessment completed against the appellants with respect to the assessment years 2014­ 2015,   2015­2016   are   hereby   set   aside.   The   matter   is remitted to the Assessing

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

C.A. No.-007689-007690 - 2022Supreme Court
2
24 Apr 2023

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

Section 104Section 112Section 135Section 271Section 69A

135 of the Customs Act. The Collector, Customs held that the assessee Shri Prakash Chand Lunia is the owner of silver/bullion and the transaction thereof was not recorded in the books of accounts. The Collector of Customs, New Delhi ordered confiscation of the said 146 slabs of Civil Appeal Nos. 7689-90 of 2022 Page 3 of 27 silver weighing

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

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

section 30 of the Copyright Act, which transfers an interest in all or any of the rights contained in sections 14(a) and 14(b) of the Copyright Act, but is a “licence” which imposes restrictions or conditions for the use of computer software. Thus, it cannot be said that any of the EULAs that we are concerned with

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

COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, KERALA vs. M/S. TARA AGENCIES

Appeal is allowed and the

C.A. No.-003568-003568 - 2001Supreme Court09 Jul 2007
For Respondent: M/s Tara Agencies
Section 35B

disallowed the claim of the respondent assessee. 5. The respondent assessee aggrieved by the said http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 16 order preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The appeal filed by the respondent assessee was allowed on the ground that the respondent assessee was a small scale industrial unit

M/S MEPCO INDUSTRIES LTD.MADURAI vs. COMMR.OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are allowed with no order as to

C.A. No.-007662-007663 - 2009Supreme Court19 Nov 2009
Section 147Section 154Section 264Section 28

disallowed the claim of the assessee. The Commissioner of Income Tax upheld the claim of the assessee. Following the decision of a learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court in A. Sethumadhavan vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [1980] 122 I.T.R.587, the Tribunal held that belated payments were not to be taken into account as advance tax for the purpose

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

disallowed that claim; that view was upheld. This Court stated that : (SCC pp. 679-81, paras 5-6) “5. … In amalgamation two or more companies are fused into one by merger or by taking over by another. Reconstruction or “amalgamation” has no precise legal meaning. The amalgamation is a blending of two or more existing undertakings into one undertaking