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.

6 results for “disallowance”+ Section 244clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai731Delhi591Chennai241Bangalore184Kolkata149Ahmedabad112Cochin96Jaipur92Hyderabad67Nagpur63Pune62Lucknow43Indore38Calcutta36Cuttack33Visakhapatnam30Surat28Chandigarh27Amritsar23Raipur23Allahabad20Ranchi17Rajkot16Karnataka10Agra6SC6Jodhpur5Varanasi5Telangana3Jabalpur2Punjab & Haryana2Guwahati2ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Patna1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 17(5)(d)7Section 80H7Section 271(1)(c)4Section 373Section 18A3Section 233Section 2072Exemption2Deduction2

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

SHRI K. RAVINDRANATHAN NAIR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the civil appeals are allowed

C.A. No.-004475-004476 - 1998Supreme Court30 Nov 2000
For Respondent: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ERNAKULAM
Section 256(2)Section 37

244 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BHARUCHA, J. We are concerned in these appeals from a decision of Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala, with the Assessment Year 1972-73, the previous year of which ended for the assessee on 30th September, 1971. The question that was referred to the High Court and which

P.R. PRABHAKAR vs. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, COIMBATORE

C.A. No.-000877-000877 - 2006Supreme Court18 Jul 2006
For Respondent: Commissioner of Income Tax, Coimbatore
Section 80H

disallowed by the Assessing Officer on the premise that they having incurred loss in respect of export business were not entitled thereto. An appeal preferred thereagainst was rejected by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal). The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, however, on further appeal preferred by the Appellant opined that the commissioner received by the Appellant from the other exporters

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

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