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”+ Section 154clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,208Delhi994Bangalore327Chennai251Ahmedabad217Jaipur203Kolkata191Pune178Hyderabad134Cochin114Chandigarh113Raipur77Indore75Surat69Visakhapatnam63Lucknow61Nagpur44Jodhpur44Rajkot36Guwahati36Amritsar25Allahabad24Patna20SC18Agra15Cuttack14Panaji12Jabalpur11Dehradun8Ranchi3Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 15410Section 14A9Section 1437Section 17(5)(d)7Section 143(2)6Deduction6Section 80P(4)5Section 2644Section 36(1)(vii)4Revision u/s 263

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

Section 154 of the Act, rectification was not permissible on debatable issue. ...7/- - 7 - In Kil Kotagiri Tea and Coffee Estates Company Limited vs. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal & Ors., reported in [1988] 174 I.T.R.579, the facts were as follows: the assessee claimed interest on advance tax paid by it in excess but beyond the due dates. The Income Tax Officer

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

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

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY

4
Rectification u/s 1544
Addition to Income4
Bench:
Section 14Section 14A

154, for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2001.” 12. The sub-Section (2) and (3) were introduced to the main section by the Finance Act, 2006 with effect from 01.04.2007. 13. The question therefore to be answered is whether Section 14A, enables the Department to make disallowance

BASIR AHMED SISODIA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal is allowed

C.A. No.-006110-006110 - 2009Supreme Court24 Apr 2020

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR

Section 143(2)Section 24(1)Section 260ASection 272(1)(c)Section 68

disallowed: Provided further  that where adjustments are made under the first proviso, an intimation shall be sent to the assessee, notwithstanding that no tax or interest is found due from him after making the said adjustments: Provided also that an intimation for any tax or interest due under this clause shall not be sent after the expiry of two years

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

Section 143 or 144. Likewise, even though there is a shortfall in payment of tax according to the calculation made in the order of assessment, the assessee is obliged to pay interest on the seventy five percent of the amount of shortfall only upto the date of the assessment order, i.e., the date on which the amount of advance

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5 MUMBAI vs. M/S. ESSAR TELEHOLDINGS LTD. THROUGH ITS MANAGER

C.A. No.-002165-002165 - 2012Supreme Court31 Jan 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI

Section 10Section 143(2)Section 14A

disallow expenditure incurred to earn exempt income by applying the provisions of newly inserted section 14A of the Act.” 17. By   Finance   Act,   2002,   a   statutory   provision   was   also inserted by way of proviso to Section 14A.  What was clarified by the Circular have been statutorily engrafted in the proviso to the following effect:­            “Provided that nothing contained in this

HONDA SIEL POWER PRODUCTS LTD. vs. COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,DELHI

The appeal is allowed with no order as to costs

C.A. No.-005412-005412 - 2007Supreme Court26 Nov 2007
For Respondent: Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi
Section 154Section 254(2)Section 43A

154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("1961 Act") which provides for rectification of any mistake apparent from the record by any income tax authority. It may be mentioned at this stage that the words "rectification of any mistake apparent from the record" find place in section 254(2) of the said 1961 Act. Facts 3. Assessee company is engaged

M/S. SOUTHERN TECHNOLOGIES LTD. vs. JOINT COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, COIMBATORE

C.A. No.-001337-001337 - 2003Supreme Court11 Jan 2010
Section 145Section 2(24)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 37Section 37(1)

154 /2010 @ SLP(C) No. 22176/2009 TRANSFERRED CASE NO. 5/2005 & 6/2005 J U D G M E N T S.H. KAPADIA, J. Leave granted in the Special Leave Petition. Introduction An interesting question of law which arises for determination in these Civil Appeals filed by Non-banking Financial Companies (“NBFCs” for short) is: “Whether the Department is entitled to treat

RAJASTHAN STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD JAIPUR vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (ASSESSMENT)

In the result, we allow the appeal, set aside the

C.A. No.-008590-008590 - 2010Supreme Court19 Mar 2020

Bench: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI

Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 154Section 264Section 32(2)Section 617

disallowing 25% of the 3 depreciation, restricting the depreciation to 75%. Additional tax under Section 143(1-A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 amounting to Rs.8,63,64,827/- was demanded. The assessee filed an application under Section 154

VODAFONE IDEA LTD(EARLIER KNOWN AS VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 26 (2)

C.A. No.-002377-002377 - 2020Supreme Court29 Apr 2020

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 143(2)Section 244ASection 92

154. 7. Apart therefrom, the provisions of Section 143(1) (a)(i) indicate that the intimation sent under Section 143(1)(a) shall be without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (2). The legislature, therefore, intended 6 (2003) 260 ITR 84 77 (1996) 222 ITR 140 Guj. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2377 OF 2020 (@ SLP (C) NO.1169 OF 2019) VODAFONE

S.A. BUILDERS LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH

C.A. No.-005811-005811 - 2006Supreme Court14 Dec 2006
For Respondent: Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Chandigarh & Anr. .. Res
Section 154

disallowance from Rs. 20,08,836 to Rs. 10,03,538/- vide her order dated 28.7.1994. The assessee was granted further relief of Rs. 1,48,464/- by the CIT(A) vide order dated 6.9.1995 under Section 154

THE MAVILAYI SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CALICUT

C.A. No.-007343-007350 - 2019Supreme Court12 Jan 2021

Bench: Us, The Assessing Officer Denied Their Claims For Deduction, Relying Upon Section 80P(4) Of The It Act, Holding That As Per The Audited Receipt & 2

Section 147Section 19Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

disallow deductions claimed under section 80P of the IT Act, notwithstanding that mere nomenclature or registration certificates issued under the Kerala Act would show that the assessees are primary agricultural credit societies. These divergent decisions led to a reference order dated 09.07.2018 to a Full Bench of the Kerala High Court. 4 5. The Full Bench of the Kerala High

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADRAS vs. R.M. CHIDAMBARAM PILLAI ETC

- 0Supreme Court17 Nov 1976
For Respondent: R.M. CHIDAMBARAM PILLAI ETC
Section 10(4)(b)

154. (2) A./.R. 1966 S.C. 1300, 1303. http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 11 118 Counsel for the respondent cited the ’Australian Income Tax Law and Practice’ by F.C. Bock and F.F. Mannix(1) in support of the proposition that a partner’s salary is but a portion of the profits: "It follows that where

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,BOMBAY CITY II, BOMBAY vs. M/s. JADAVJI NARSIDAS & CO

- 0Supreme Court12 Oct 1962
For Respondent: M/s. JADAVJI NARSIDAS & CO
Section 26A

154, that a firm as such is not entitled to enter into partnership with another firm or individuals, the assessee firm could not in law enter into partnership with D, and the questions answered by the High Court did not really arise in the present case.- JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 545 of 1961. Appeal from the judgment

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)

154] where it was distinguished. Mr. Oyer’s stress was that the ratio of judgments cited by him was here the expense was not laid down for the business of the assessee and so was not deductible and that it was not for conducting or carrying on the business of the assessee but for closing the same. But then what

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

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

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

154 OF 2026 [Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 2188 of 2021] Digitally signed by NITIN TALREJA Date: 2026.01.09 16:59:31 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified 2 M/S ABHINANDAN TRADEX LTD. (EARLIER KNOWN AS M/S ABHINANDAN INVESTMENT LTD) ... APPELLANT(S) VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI – I, NEW DELHI ... RESPONDENT(S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 155 OF 2026 [Arising