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.

10 results for “disallowance”+ Section 161(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai486Delhi321Jaipur123Bangalore115Chennai109Kolkata88Hyderabad85Ahmedabad73Cochin70Pune62Raipur53Panaji40Chandigarh40Indore39Allahabad21Nagpur17Surat17Lucknow15Agra11SC10Amritsar8Patna7Rajkot5Guwahati4Jodhpur3Visakhapatnam3Cuttack2Ranchi2Jabalpur1Dehradun1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 69A5Section 43Section 36(1)(vii)3Section 36(1)(viia)3Deduction3Section 35B2Penalty2

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

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,NEW DELHI vs. M/S ELI LILLY & COMPANY (INDIA) P.LTD

C.A. No.-005114-005114 - 2007
Supreme Court
25 Mar 2009
Section 133ASection 192(1)Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(ii)

1) with Section 160 and Section 161 which are machinery sections (See The Law and Practice of Income Tax by Kanga & Palkhivala, eighth edition., at pp. 1268 and 1269). (b) Similarly, Section 40(a)(iii), quoted above, which finds place in Chapter IV (computation of business income) inter alia states that any payment which is chargeable under the head “Salaries

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

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 271Section 69A

disallowed otherwise through a statute. This Court in SC Kothari (supra) had merely laid down the general proposition of law by taking note of the position prevailing in other countries, but in any case, it has got no application over a case of either a penalty or confiscation. 21.2 The law as laid down in Haji Aziz (supra) despite being

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

M/S. SIDDACHALAM EXPORTS PRIVATE LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE DELHI-III

The appeal is allowed; the

C.A. No.-000810-000810 - 2007Supreme Court01 Apr 2011
Section 108Section 110Section 114Section 130

disallowed, and penalty under Section 114 of the Act should not be imposed on the exporter. 7. On 7th December, 2004, the said Pankaj, authorised signatory of M/s Skipper International submitted another letter to the Commissioner (Adjudication Bench) stating that their earlier letter dated 12th March, 4 2003 should not be relied upon for any purpose in as much

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MYSORE vs. M/S. TVS MOTORS COMPANY LTD

C.A. No.-005155-005156 - 2007Supreme Court15 Dec 2015
Section 4Section 4(3)(d)

161 (Bom.) Civil Appeal Nos. 5155-5156 of 2007 & Ors. Page 18 of 27 Page 19 JUDGMENT specifically defined in Section 4(3)(d) of the said Act. The present Section 4(1)(a) r/w definition of term transaction value gives more clarity and all doubts as to how the assessable value is to be arrived at are removed

ARAVINDA PARAMILA WORKS vs. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX

In the result, we uphold the view taken by the

C.A. No.-011366-011366 - 1995Supreme Court31 Mar 1999
For Respondent: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
Section 35BSection 35B(1)(b)

disallowed by the Assessing Authority. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) took a contrary view. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that the Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified in allowing the said weighted deduction. From out of the judgment and order of the Tribunal, the following question was referred to the High Court for its considerations: Whether on the facts

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, WEST BENGAL,CALCUTTA vs. GUNGADHAR BANERJEE AND CO. (P) LTD

In the result we hold that the order of the High Court is

- 0Supreme Court22 Mar 1965
For Respondent: GUNGADHAR BANERJEE AND CO. (P) LTD
Section 23ASection 66(1)

disallow many expenses actually incurred by the assessee; and in computing his income he may include many items on notional basis. But the commercial or accounting profits are the actual profits earned by an assessee calculated on commercial principles. [445F-H.] Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City v. Bipinchandra Maganlal and Co. Ltd. (1961)41 I.T.R. 296, followed

2TATE BANK OF PATIALA, PATIALA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATIALA

The appeals are allowed

C.A. No.-004270-004273 - 1996Supreme Court15 Mar 1996
For Respondent: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,PATIALA

disallowed. The assessee has filed special leave petitions in this Court directly against the aforesaid order of the Appellate Tribunal. 4. Special leave petition (C) No. 27551 of 1995, relating to the same assessee and involving consideration of the same question, relates to the assessment year 1985-86. The Appellate Tribunal finally decided against the assessee following the earlier decision