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.

10 results for “disallowance”+ Section 250clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai4,911Delhi2,725Kolkata1,596Bangalore1,212Chennai987Ahmedabad823Pune585Jaipur551Hyderabad347Chandigarh339Amritsar272Cochin267Surat242Indore232Rajkot224Raipur201Visakhapatnam157Nagpur153Panaji150Lucknow133Patna128Guwahati124Cuttack67Allahabad57Jodhpur48Agra48Ranchi48Dehradun38Calcutta35Jabalpur34Karnataka18Varanasi11SC10Telangana8Punjab & Haryana3Kerala2Rajasthan2Gauhati1Himachal Pradesh1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 876Section 143(2)5Section 36(2)4Deduction4Section 18A3Section 233Section 36(1)(vii)3Section 683Addition to Income3Disallowance

BASIR AHMED SISODIA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal is allowed

C.A. No.-006110-006110 - 2009Supreme Court24 Apr 2020

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR

Section 143(2)Section 24(1)Section 260ASection 272(1)(c)Section 68

disallowed: Provided further  that where adjustments are made under the first proviso, an intimation shall be sent to the assessee, notwithstanding that no tax or interest is found due from him after making the said adjustments: Provided also that an intimation for any tax or interest due under this clause shall not be sent after the expiry of two years

SHREE CHOUDHARY TRANSPORT CO. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

C.A. No.-007865-007865 - 2009
3
Section 1432
Exemption2
Supreme Court
29 Jul 2020

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

Section 40

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 19611, for failure of the assessee- appellant to deduct the requisite tax at source2. 1 Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1961’ or simply ‘the Act’. 2 ‘Tax deducted at source’ being referred as ‘TDS’ 1 Digitally signed by DEEPAK SINGH Date: 2025.08.26 12:57:09 IST Reason: Signature

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

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 6 vs. KHYATI REALTORS PVT. LTD

The appeal is allowed, in the above terms, without order on costs

C.A. No.-005804-005804 - 2022Supreme Court25 Aug 2022

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)

disallowance on account of bad debts and interest. A further appeal was preferred to the ITAT, which allowed the assessee’s plea. The Revenue sought an appeal to the Bombay High Court under Section 260A of the IT Act. The Bombay High Court ruled that no question of law requiring a decision arose in the appeal and consequently declined

THE BANK OF RAJASTHAN LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals are dismissed

C.A. No.-003291-003294 - 2009Supreme Court16 Oct 2024

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA

Section 18Section 19Section 20Section 21

250, also   support   our   view   in   the   present   case. In UCO Bank's case, the assessee Bank claimed a set off under section 24(2) of the Income­tax Act,   1922   (section   71(1)   of   the   present   Act) against its income from interest on securities under   section   8   of   the   1922   Act   (similar   to section   28   of   the   present

COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. M/S. GENERAL INSURANCE CORPN.OF INDIA

C.A. No.-004422-004422 - 2001Supreme Court25 Sept 2006
For Respondent: M/s General Insurance Corporation
Section 143Section 260Section 81

Section 143 (3) before the CIT (Appeals). Disallowance of Rs. 1,04,28,500/- in respect of stamp duty and registration fees incurred in connection with the increase in the authorized share capital were bifurcated by the CIT (Appeals) into two categories, one relating to the increase in authorized share capital from Rs. 75 crores to Rs. 250

VODAFONE IDEA LTD(EARLIER KNOWN AS VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 26 (2)

C.A. No.-002377-002377 - 2020Supreme Court29 Apr 2020

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 143(2)Section 244ASection 92

250/-. … … … 21. Counsel for the Revenue contended that for the relevant period under consideration, the Assessing Officer has already issued notice under sub-section (2) of Section 143 within time. As per the then prevailing provision, it was thereafter not necessary CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2377 OF 2020 (@ SLP (C) NO.1169 OF 2019) VODAFONE IDEA LTD (EARLIER KNOWN AS VODAFONE MOBILE

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

RENUKA DATLA vs. COMNR. OF INCOME TAX KARNATAKA

C.A. No.-004731-004731 - 2000Supreme Court17 Dec 2002
For Respondent: CKoamrmniastsaikoane&rAonfr.Income Tax
Section 87Section 88Section 89Section 95

250/- shown in the return. ii) Unexplained investment in acquisition of jewellery Rs.23,07,809/- iii) Value of stones other than diamonds studded in jewellery Rs.1,09,419/- iv) Unexplained cash found from locker : Rs.2,50,000/- v) Interest on debentures not shown in return Rs.3,690/- vi) Unexplained amount received from Bombay: Rs.45,000/- vii) Unexplained investment in acquisition

M/S MERIDIAN INDUSTRIES LTD. vs. COMMR.OF CENTRAL EXCISE

C.A. No.-004112-004112 - 2007Supreme Court27 Oct 2015
Section 35B

Section 35B of the Act. The Commissioner of Central Excise preferred the appeal as directed by the Central Board of Excise & Customs against his own Order-in-Original No.32/2002-Commr. dated 21.06.2002 before the Tribunal. 5. The Tribunal allowed the appeal preferred by the Commissioner of Central Excise vide its decision dated 17.07.2007. Perusal of the decision indicates following thought process