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.

111 results for “disallowance”+ Section 6(1)(c)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai12,919Delhi9,998Bangalore3,856Chennai3,640Kolkata3,506Ahmedabad2,334Jaipur1,425Pune1,238Hyderabad1,120Indore676Surat657Chandigarh640Cochin527Raipur411Karnataka367Visakhapatnam364Amritsar361Rajkot360Cuttack259Lucknow254Nagpur250Panaji168Jodhpur164Agra133Guwahati127SC111Telangana101Allahabad89Calcutta83Ranchi71Dehradun70Kerala66Patna47Jabalpur46Varanasi42Punjab & Haryana18Rajasthan8Orissa7Himachal Pradesh6A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN5ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1RANJAN GOGOI PRAFULLA C. PANT1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1Uttarakhand1Gauhati1Andhra Pradesh1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1ANIL R. DAVE AMITAVA ROY L. NAGESWARA RAO1

Key Topics

Deduction56Section 80H39Section 8033Section 4029Addition to Income27Disallowance19Section 43B16Section 143(2)15Depreciation15Exemption

CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THRISSUR

C.A. No.-001143-001143 - 2011Supreme Court17 Feb 2012
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

disallowed. This amount was added back to the taxable income of the assessee, for which a demand notice and challan was accordingly issued. This order of the assessing officer dated 24th January, 2005, was challenged in appeal by the assessee on various grounds. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’], vide its order

DILIP N. SHROFF vs. JOINT COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI &ANR

The appeal is allowed

Showing 1–20 of 111 · Page 1 of 6

14
Section 143(3)11
Section 36(1)(vii)11
C.A. No.-002746-002746 - 2007
Supreme Court
18 May 2007
For Respondent: Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai & Anr

6\005It must be remembered that the proceedings under Section 28 are of a penal nature and the burden is on the Department to prove that a particular amount is a revenue receipt. It would be perfectly legitimate to say that the mere fact that the explanation of the assessee is false does not necessarily give rise to the inference

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

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)

6 “payment” is used in respect of payment of salary income to the assessee- employee and the expression “deduction” is used in respect of deduction of tax. According to the learned counsel, the very fact that Section 192(2) authorizes the assessee-employee to choose one of the several persons “making the payment” and not “making the deduction

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

6. It would be better to have a look at the relevant section which is reproduced as under: "143(1)(a) Where a return has been made under Section 139, or in response to a notice under sub-s. (1) of Section 143, - (i) If any tax or interest is found due on the basis of such return, after adjustment

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)

c. Tax on goods cannot be extended to immovable property. However, taxation on services can be raised even on using immovable properties for rendition of services. He submitted that when it comes to sales tax or VAT on goods, a consistent view taken by this Court is that the sale would include the sale of goods and not the sale

CHECKMATE SERVICES P LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I

C.A. No.-002833-002833 - 2016Supreme Court12 Oct 2022

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 2Section 2(24)(x)Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

c), clause (d), clause (e) and clause (f) which is consequential in nature. It is also proposed to omit the second proviso to the said section. These amendments will take effect from 1st April, 2004 and will, accordingly, apply in relation to the assessment year 2004-2005 and subsequent years." 42. The rationale for introduction of Section 43B was explained

RAJASTHAN STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD JAIPUR vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (ASSESSMENT)

In the result, we allow the appeal, set aside the

C.A. No.-008590-008590 - 2010Supreme Court19 Mar 2020

Bench: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI

Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 154Section 264Section 32(2)Section 617

6 forward to future years to be set off against profits and it did not in any manner affect business loss. He submits that business loss suffered by the assessee had not reduced because of the bonafide mistake committed by the appellant in calculating the depreciation. The assessee was in loss and continued to be in loss. Reduction in depreciation

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

6 I.T.R.414), the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council observed: "One of the peculiarities of most Income-tax Acts is that the word ‘assessment’ is used as meaning sometimes the computation of income, sometimes the determination of the amount of tax payable and sometimes the whole procedure laid down in the Act for imposing liability upon the taxpayer. The Indian

M/S. SOUTHERN TECHNOLOGIES LTD. vs. JOINT COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, COIMBATORE

C.A. No.-001337-001337 - 2003Supreme Court11 Jan 2010
Section 145Section 2(24)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 37Section 37(1)

6. All financial leases written on or after April 1, 2001 attract the provisioning requirements as applicable to hire purchase assets. Disclosure in the balance sheet 9. (1) Every NBFC shall separately disclose in its balance sheet the provisions made as per paragraph 8 above without netting them from the income or against the value of assets. (2) The provisions

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S WOODWARD GOVERNOR INDIA P. LTD

C.A. No.-002206-002206 - 2009Supreme Court08 Apr 2009
Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 37(1)Section 43(1)

C) No. 593/08] – REVENUE ACCOUNT CASE: 5. The assessee filed its Return of Income on 28.1.1998 for the assessment year 1998-99 on a total income of Rs. 1,10,28,190.00. That return was processed under Section 143(1)(a) on 23.3.1999. On 16.8.1999 a notice under Section 143(2) was issued to the assessee stating that

SHARP BUSINESS SYSTEM THR. FINANCE DIRECTOR MR. YOSHIHISA MIZUNO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III N.D

The appeals are hereby disposed of in terms of

C.A. No.-004072-004072 - 2014Supreme Court19 Dec 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA

Section 32(1)(ii)

C) No. 719/2020, another issue involved is the treatment of interest on borrowed funds invested by the assessee in its sister concern and also provided as interest free advances to the sister concern and its directors; whether such interest is an allowable business expenditure? 6. Before we proceed to answer the above questions, it would be appropriate to have

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. RAJESH JHAVERI STOCK BROKERS PVT.LTD

The appeal is allowed without

C.A. No.-002830-002830 - 2007Supreme Court23 May 2007
For Respondent: Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd
Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)

section 143(1)(a) allowed the Department to make certain adjustments in the income or loss declared in the return. They were as follows: (a) an arithmetical error in the return, accounts and http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10 documents accompanying it were to be rectified; (b) any loss carried forward, deduction, allowance or relief which

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MAHENDRA MILLS

The appeal is dismissed

C.A. No.-005394-005394 - 1994Supreme Court15 Mar 2000
For Respondent: MAHENDRA MILLS
Section 32Section 34Section 72Section 73

C" [(1991) 192 ITR 700 (Guj.)] the assessee withdrew the claim of depreciation in http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 21 the revised return. Income-tax Officer nevertheless allowed depreciation, which was claimed in the original return. The Court noticed from the provisions of section 32(1) of the said Act that the deduction in respect

JEYAR CONSULTANT & INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,MADRAS

C.A. No.-008912-008912 - 2003Supreme Court01 Apr 2015
Section 80H

6 of 24 Page 7 JUDGMENT permissible. According to him, while forming this opinion the High Court looked into sub-section (1) of Section 80HHC alone as is clear from the order of the High Court, and did not take into consideration provisions of sub-section (3) thereof. His submission was that no doubt, this Court in the case

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

6 This category includes C.A. Nos. 10115-10117/2013, C.A. Nos. 6386-6387/2016, C.A. Nos. 8954-8955/2018, SLP(C) No. 37580/2016, SLP(C) No. 28867/2016, SLP(C) No. 28868/2016, C.A. No. 10673/2016, SLP(C) No. 29571/2016, C.A. No. 10674/2016, SLP(C) No. 36782/2016. 10 amount of Rs. 1,03,54,784 that it had not deducted

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 3 vs. ABHISAR BUILDWELL P. LTD

C.A. No.-006580-006580 - 2021Supreme Court24 Apr 2023

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH

Section 153ASection 2(45)Section 4Section 5

6. It is the case on behalf of the Revenue that once upon the search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A, the assessment has to be done under Section 153A of the Act, 1961 and the AO thereafter has the jurisdiction to pass assessment orders and to assess the ‘total income’ taking into consideration other material, though

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)

C. Bhansali on 06.03.2007 was in the ordinary course of its business. 8. It was contended that since the builder/borrower defaulted in repaying the amount, the respondent assessee decided to write off the same as a bad debt under 3 (2012) 3 SCC 784. 5 Section 36(1)(vii) read with Section 36(2) of the Act. It was contended

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (IT)-I, MUMBAI vs. M/S. AMERICAN EXPRESS BANK LTD

C.A. No.-008291-008291 - 2015Supreme Court15 Dec 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA

Section 28Section 37(1)Section 44C

1), it would not be permitted if it exceeds the ceiling limit set under Section 44C. To decide otherwise would be to overlook the non-obstante nature of Section 44C. 46. It is prudent to closely examine & understand the meaning attributed to the term ‘head office expenditure’ under Section 44C. This is because, in the context of the question before

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BANGALORE

The appeal is allowed

C.A. No.-009720-009720 - 2014Supreme Court25 Sept 2023

Bench: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA

Section 10(15)Section 148Section 245CSection 245C(1)Section 271Section 32Section 80M

6. On a close reading of the provisions extracted hereinabove, it emerges that under Section 245H(1) if the Settlement Commission is satisfied that any assessee who makes the application for settlement 26 under Section 245C, has co-operated with the Settlement Commission in the proceedings before it and has made a full and true disclosure of its income