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(4)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai395Delhi240Jaipur94Chennai89Bangalore84Kolkata83Raipur53Ahmedabad53Pune48Hyderabad44Amritsar40Chandigarh30Nagpur28Visakhapatnam27Indore27Surat26Ranchi19Lucknow18Guwahati12Patna11Rajkot10Cuttack7SC5Varanasi5Panaji4Allahabad4Jodhpur3Cochin2Dehradun2Agra1ASHOK 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

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

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-appellant returned an income of Rs. 1,32,44,507.29 subject to depreciation. The depreciation claimed for the year

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

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

249 as compensation payable to the assessee. The assessee was not satisfied with the amount of compensation, and preferred an appeal before the Arbitrator, 24 Parganas, Calcutta. The Arbitrator made an award dated July 29, 1955 whereby he fixed the amount of compensation at Rs.30,10,873 on account of the permanent acquisition of the land, thus enhancing the original

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

4 PETITIONER: COMHISSIONER OF INCOHE-TAX, BOMBAY Vs. RESPONDENT: VANAZ ENGINEERING (P) LTD., BOMBAY DATE OF JUDGMENT02/05/1986 BENCH: PATHAK, R.S. BENCH: PATHAK, R.S. MISRA, R.B. (J) OZA, G.L. (J) CITATION: 1987 AIR 1143 1986 SCR (2) 951 1986 SCC Supl. 266 JT 1986 325 1986 SCALE (1)978 ACT: Income Tax Act, 1961, Sections