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 36(1)(xvii)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai109Delhi89Chennai38Jaipur22Guwahati21Pune18Bangalore16Surat13Raipur12Hyderabad11Jodhpur10Nagpur9Kolkata7SC6Indore5Visakhapatnam4Chandigarh4Lucknow3Patna1Rajkot1Ahmedabad1Varanasi1Agra1

Key Topics

TDS4Section 18A3Section 233Deduction3Section 442Section 2072Section 402Survey u/s 133A2

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,NEW DELHI vs. M/S ELI LILLY & COMPANY (INDIA) P.LTD

C.A. No.-005114-005114 - 2007Supreme Court25 Mar 2009
Section 133ASection 192(1)Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(ii)

36 accrues directly or indirectly under five circumstances mentioned therein. To give an example of as to how the 1961 Act is an integrated Code we may state that Section 9(1) explains the meaning of the words “deemed to accrue or arise in India” in Section 5(2)(b). Section 9(1)(i) performs two functions: I. It deems

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

ENGINEERING ANALYSIS CENTRE OF EXCELLENCE PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

C.A. No.-008733-008734 - 2018Supreme Court02 Mar 2021

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

1. GRANT OF LICENSE: This EULA grants you the following rights: a. Systems Software - You may install and use one copy of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT on a single computer, including a workstation, terminal, or other digital electronic device (“COMPUTER”). You may permit a maximum of five (5) COMPUTERS to connect to the single COMPUTER running the SOFTWARE PRODUCT solely

SHREE CHOUDHARY TRANSPORT CO. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

C.A. No.-007865-007865 - 2009Supreme Court29 Jul 2020

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

Section 40

XVII of the Act on the subject “Collection and Recovery of Tax”; and specific provisions are made in the Act to ensure that the requirements of Section 194C are met and complied with, while also providing for the consequences of default. As noticed, Section 200 specifically provides for the duties of the person deducting tax to deposit and submit

NATIONAL PETROLEUM CONSTRUCTION COMPANY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(2) INTERNATIONAL TAXATION NEW DELHI

Appeal is hereby allowed to the extent

C.A. No.-004964-004964 - 2022Supreme Court29 Jul 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE

Section 143(1)Section 197

XVII of Section 197 of the IT Act, the procedure for determination has been prescribed to the assessing officer on which satisfaction may be recorded by him.  12. It is further required to say that for assessment under Section 143, the assessment of total income or loss may be computed   by   the   assessing   officer   in   a   return   filed

C0MMNR. OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI vs. ORIENTAL FIRE & GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD

C.A. No.-002741-002741 - 2007Supreme Court18 May 2007

Bench: The Controller Of Insurance.

For Respondent: Oriental Fire & General Insurance Co. Ltd
Section 256Section 44

disallowing certain expenditure was set aside by orders dated 09.02.1979 and 09.09.1980. 4. Both the orders were questioned by the Revenue before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short, ’the Tribunal). By reason of an order dated 30.11.1981, the Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was not correct in refusing to accede to the deductions under the aforementioned heads claimed