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 249(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai401Delhi247Jaipur96Chennai89Bangalore84Kolkata81Ahmedabad53Raipur53Pune51Hyderabad44Amritsar40Chandigarh30Nagpur28Surat28Visakhapatnam27Indore27Lucknow22Ranchi19Guwahati12Patna11Rajkot10Cuttack7SC5Varanasi5Panaji4Allahabad4Jodhpur3Cochin2Dehradun2Agra1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 69A5Section 271(1)(c)4Penalty2Addition to Income2

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

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 271
Section 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

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

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

2. Whether the ITAT was justified in holding that the judgments in Prithipal Singh’s case (183 ITR 69 and 249 ITR 670) will apply even after insertion of Explanation 4 to Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 with effect from 1.4.1976? FACTS (C.A. NO. 7115 OF 2005) For the assessment year 1996-97, the assessee

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,WEST BENGAL-II, CALCUTTA vs. HINDUSTAN HOUSING & LAND DEVELOPMENTTRUST LIMITED

The appeal is dismissed

- 0Supreme Court29 Jul 1986
For Respondent: HINDUSTAN HOUSING & LAND DEVELOPMENTTRUST LIMITED

2 of 6 no absolute right to receive the amount at that stage, for if the appeal had been allowed in its entirety the right to payment of the enhanced compensation would have fallen altogether. The sum, therefore, could not be said to have accrued or arisen during the relevant assessment year. [393G; 394A-B] E.D. Sassoon & Company