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.

5 results for “disallowance”+ Section 23Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi31Mumbai10Kolkata8Jodhpur6SC5Hyderabad5Jaipur5Indore4Pune3Ahmedabad3Ranchi2Chennai1Raipur1Nagpur1

Key Topics

Section 23A5Section 11A4Limitation/Time-bar3

KARAMCHAND PREMCHAND PVT. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUJARAT

Accordingly fails and is dismissed

- 0Supreme Court25 Feb 1993
For Respondent: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUJARAT
Section 23ASection 256(1)

23A of the Income Tax Act, 1922) was indeed a provision and not a reserve. The assessee Itself called it a provision. It did not call it a reserve nor was the amount set apart or appropriated as a reserve. It is not to suggest that the description given or the Book entries made by the assessee are conclusive

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)

section 23A has to be adjudged in the light of commercial principles and not in the light of total receipts, actual or fictional. This view appears to have been taken by the High Courts in India without any dissentient opinion." The learned, Judge laid down the following test: "Whether it would be unreasonable to distribute a larger dividend

M/S.SAHAKARI KHAND UDYOG MANDAL LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE &CUSTOMS

C.A. No.-006832-006832 - 1999Supreme Court09 Mar 2005
For Respondent: Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs
Section 11B

disallowing the claim was not proper and accordingly it was set aside. Regarding the claim being barred by limitation, it was observed that since the sugar year was over on September 30, 1976, the claim was required to be submitted within six months. But the claim was submitted on 14th August, 1978, and hence, it was barred by limitation

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/s. McMILLAN & CO

- 0Supreme Court16 Oct 1957
For Respondent: M/s. McMILLAN & CO

23A, etc. In some other sections, it is pointed out, two or more authorities are named, e.g., ss. 27, 38, 48, etc. By what we must admit is a very adroit and plausible piecing together of some of these sections, learned counsel has built up his argument that in the present case the opinion of the Income-tax Officer that

COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPURC vs. M/S RAGHUVAR (INDIA) LTD

- 0Supreme Court11 May 2000
For Respondent: M/S RAGHUVAR (INDIA) LTD
Section 11Section 11ASection 35H

23A. The said Authority held that filing of a declaration being a statutory necessity and condition precedent to avail of credit under the scheme, the respondent was not eligible to take credit for the period prior to the filing of the declaration. As a matter of fact, the respondent did not appear to have contested the case on merit