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.

4 results for “disallowance”+ Section 17(1)(va)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi744Mumbai402Kolkata337Jaipur270Bangalore243Chennai214Ahmedabad154Chandigarh111Raipur101Pune87Hyderabad73Agra65Nagpur65Amritsar60Surat50Lucknow49Indore44Guwahati23Jodhpur23Cochin18Cuttack18Visakhapatnam15Rajkot12Varanasi11Ranchi7Allahabad6Karnataka6Dehradun4SC4Rajasthan3Patna2Telangana2Punjab & Haryana1Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 43B8Section 36(1)(va)3Deduction2

CHECKMATE SERVICES P LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I

C.A. No.-002833-002833 - 2016Supreme Court12 Oct 2022

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 2Section 2(24)(x)Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

disallowed under Section 43-B which, as stated above, was inserted with effect from 1-4-1984 *** 22. It is important to note once again that, by the Finance Act, 2003, not only is the second proviso deleted but even the first proviso is sought to be amended by bringing about a uniformity in tax, duty, cess

SHARP BUSINESS SYSTEM THR. FINANCE DIRECTOR MR. YOSHIHISA MIZUNO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III N.D

The appeals are hereby disposed of in terms of

C.A. No.-004072-004072 - 2014Supreme Court19 Dec 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA

Section 32(1)(ii)

17 depreciation on non-compete fee was disallowed by following the earlier order of assessment in the case of the assessee itself for the assessment year 1999-2000 holding that the expenditure was in no way connected with the acquisition of various assets. The disallowance in this regard was worked out at Rs. 12,18,37,337.00. 10.5. Assessee preferred

M.M. AQUA TECHNOLOGIES LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI - III

Appeals are allowed in the aforesaid terms

C.A. No.-004742-004743 - 2021Supreme Court11 Aug 2021

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

Section 43B

va) of sub-section (1) of section 36, and where such payment has been made otherwise than in cash, the sum has been realised within fifteen days from the due date." 15 20. This being the case, it is important to advert to the facts found in the present case. Both the CIT and the ITAT found, as a matter

SHIV RAJ GUPTA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, DELHI IV

C.A. No.-012044-012044 - 2016Supreme Court22 Jul 2020

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

va) by Finance Act 20 of 2002 with effect from the aforesaid date, any sum received under an agreement for not carrying out any activity in relation to any business was taxed, for the first time, under this provision and the provision not being retrospective would not apply to the facts of the present case. 11. Shri Arijit Prasad, learned