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.

21 results for “disallowance”+ Section 156clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,136Delhi973Bangalore284Chennai265Kolkata220Ahmedabad134Pune116Hyderabad106Jaipur104Raipur95Cochin72Chandigarh62Surat57Panaji44Calcutta38Lucknow33Indore32Rajkot22SC21Nagpur20Allahabad15Ranchi15Karnataka15Visakhapatnam13Varanasi13Cuttack11Amritsar8Kerala5Jabalpur5Agra3Punjab & Haryana2Patna2Himachal Pradesh2Telangana2Dehradun2Rajasthan1Gauhati1Jodhpur1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1

Key Topics

Section 14310Deduction7Section 143(2)6Section 143(1)5Section 143(3)5Section 325Section 1484Section 36(1)(vii)4Section 271(1)(c)4Penalty

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

Showing 1–20 of 21 · Page 1 of 2

4
Depreciation3
Addition to Income3

MOHAN WAHI vs. COMMNR. INCOME TAX, VARANASI

The appeal stands allowed in

C.A. No.-002488-002488 - 2001Supreme Court30 Mar 2001
For Respondent: COMMISSIONER, INCOME-TAX, VARANASI & ORS

156 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 having not been served on the assessee on the sale held for recovery of arrears of income-tax? Taking up first question the first, according to Section 222 where an assessee is in default or is deemed to be in default in making a payment of tax, the Tax Recovery Officer may issue

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. RAJESH JHAVERI STOCK BROKERS PVT.LTD

The appeal is allowed without

C.A. No.-002830-002830 - 2007Supreme Court23 May 2007
For Respondent: Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd
Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)

disallowing deductions, allowance or relief. 13. One thing further to be noticed is that intimation under section 143(1)(a) is given without prejudice to the provisions of section 143(2). Though technically the intimation issued was deemed to be a demand notice issued under section 156

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 deduction U/s.24(1)  as per discussion  7200/­ 2. Additions in gross profit  10000/­ 3. Additions on the basis of less  Household expenses withdrawals 18000/­ 4. Unexplained credits as per discussions  226000/­  261200/­ Total taxable Income Tax          348700/­ Assessment was made. Necessary forms were issued. Notice be issued separately for imposition of penalty under Section 272(1)(c).” 3. Aggrieved

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

156 10 C.A.@S.L.P.(C)No.12859 of 2020 etc. 11. Sri Venkataraman, learned ASG appearing for the revenue, by drawing our attention to the provisions under Articles 285 and 289 of the   Constitution   of   India,   has   explained   the   intent   behind   the amendment to Section 40 of the Income­tax Act, 1961, by Act 17 of 2013.  It is submitted that

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S ALOM EXTRUCTIONS LIMITED

C.A. No.-007771-007771 - 2009Supreme Court25 Nov 2009
Section 43

disallowed under Section 43-B which, as stated above, was inserted with effect from 1st April, 1984. It is also relevant to note that the first proviso which came into force with effect from 1st April, 1988 was not on the statute book when the assessments were made in the case of Allied Motors (P) Limited (supra). However, the assessee

M/S. MANGALAM PUBLICATIONS, KOTTAYAM vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTTAYAM

C.A. No.-008580-008582 - 2011Supreme Court23 Jan 2024

Bench: This Court & On Leave Being Granted, Civil Appeals Have Been Registered. 3.

Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 260A

disallowances. He submits that for the assessment year 1993–1994, the appellant had maintained complete set of books of account, audited profit and loss account and balance sheet which were duly filed before the assessing officer. Following assessment proceedings, assessing officer passed the assessment order for the assessment year 1993 – 1994 on 27.01.1994 under Section

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 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 18.02.1992 praying for rectification of the demand. The assessee also filed a petition

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

disallowing depreciation as claimed and by taxing the interest income of Rs.1,07,85,590 as income from other sources and thus raised the demand of Rs. 1,30,83,741 under various heads and sections of taxes, surcharge and additional tax under Sections 143(1A), 234A and 234B. 4. Mr. Shah, learned counsel appearing for the assessee, has contended

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(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

disallowed the aforesaid claims, the assessee appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who dismissed the appeals. On further appeal the Tribunal allowed the claims and depreciation on the roads as well as development rebate in regard to the transport viz., tractor, trailer etc. The Revenue filed an application under Section 256(1) of the Income

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

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

M/S. ROTORK CONTROLA INDIA (P) LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI

Appeals stand allowed in favour of the assessee with no order as to

C.A. No.-003506-003510 - 2009Supreme Court12 May 2009
Section 37

disallowed the warranty claim that was in the assessment year 1985-86. The reason was in that year the assessee had not adjusted the excess out of the provision to the expense of the immediate following year and as a result the Closing Balance of the Provision Account was found to be swelling up from year to year. In other

COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, COIMBATORE vs. M/S. TEXTOOL CO. LTD

The appeal is dismissed with no order

C.A. No.-000447-000447 - 2003Supreme Court09 Sept 2009
Section 256(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(v)Section 40A(7)

disallowed on the ground that payment towards the gratuity fund was made by the assessee directly to the LIC and not to an approved gratuity fund and, therefore, it was not allowable under Section 36(1)(v) of the Act. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner observed that the initial payment

DILIP N. SHROFF vs. JOINT COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI &ANR

The appeal is allowed

C.A. No.-002746-002746 - 2007Supreme Court18 May 2007
For Respondent: Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai & Anr

disallowed in computing the total income of such person as a result thereof shall, for the purposes of clause (c) of this sub-section be deemed to represent the income in respect of which particulars have been concealed. Explanation 2\005\005\005\005. Explanation 3\005\005\005\005. Explanation 4.- For the purposes of clause (iii) of this

M/S.VIRTUAL SOFT SYSTEMS LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-I

C.A. No.-007115-007115 - 2005Supreme Court06 Feb 2007
For Respondent: Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-I
Section 260ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

disallowed i.e. Rs. 10,28,462.00, Rs. 57,51,520.00 and Rs. 1,15,000.00. He concluded that by adding these figures the total amount of Rs. 68,94,982.00 was the income in respect of which inaccurate particulars had been furnished. The tax was computed at Rs. 31,71,692.00. It was held that the tax sought

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. VANAZ ENGINEERING PVT.LTD

The appeal is allowed, the judgment of the High Court

C.A. No.-004253-004253 - 1983Supreme Court02 May 1986
For Respondent: VANAZ ENGINEERING (P) LTD., BOMBAY

Sections 22, 29 and 40A(7)(b)(ii) - Gratuity - Scheme introduced for first time in assessee firm in 1970 - On basis of Actuarial Report total liability as on December 31, 1970 debited to Profit and Loss Account Assessment proceedings - Income Tax Officer disallowing burden of liability - Appellate Assistant Commissioner and Tribunal allowing that liability - Appeal by Revenue to Supreme Court

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 CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PHOENIX INTERNATIONAL LTD

C.A. No.-008037-008047 - 2001Supreme Court20 Sept 2007
For Respondent: M/s. Phoenix International Ltd. & Anr
Section 130E

Section 130E of Customs Act, 1962 against order passed by CEGAT dated 22.12.2000 in Final Order No.411-421/2000-D in Appeal Nos.C/286/98-D and C/302-311 of 2000-D with E/Co/239, 257-260/2000-D whereby the Tribunal allowed the appeals of the importers herein (respondents). 2. The question of law that arises for determination in these civil appeals is: Whether shoe uppers, outer soles