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.

4 results for “disallowance”+ Section 80P(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai896Bangalore662Pune420Cochin340Chennai280Delhi170Kolkata153Ahmedabad140Panaji131Visakhapatnam90Nagpur85Raipur80Surat79Rajkot65Jaipur63Hyderabad55Chandigarh55Lucknow45Indore43Karnataka23Amritsar18Jodhpur16Jabalpur10Varanasi10Kerala7Telangana7SC4Ranchi4Calcutta3Agra2Patna2Dehradun2Cuttack2Orissa1Guwahati1

Key Topics

Section 80P11Section 80P(4)6Section 18A3Section 233Section 80P(2)(a)3Section 2072Deduction2

THE MAVILAYI SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CALICUT

C.A. No.-007343-007350 - 2019Supreme Court12 Jan 2021

Bench: Us, The Assessing Officer Denied Their Claims For Deduction, Relying Upon Section 80P(4) Of The It Act, Holding That As Per The Audited Receipt & 2

Section 147Section 19Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

2)(a)(i) read with section 80P(4) of the IT Act. 4. However, the Department contended that the judgment in Chirakkal (supra) was rendered per incuriam by not having noticed the earlier decision of another Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in Perinthalmanna Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. ITO and Anr. (2014) 363 ITR 268 (Ker.), where

THE CITIZEN COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., REP. BY MANAGING DIRECTOR G.RANGA RAO. HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed reportable

C.A. No.-010245-010245 - 2017Supreme Court08 Aug 2017
Section 2(19)Section 80PSection 80P(4)

disallowance of deduction claimed under Section 80P of the Act is concerned, the CIT(A) rejected the claim for deduction thereby upholding the order of the Assessing Officer. While doing so, the CIT(A) 7 followed the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in the case of the appellant itself in respect of Assessment Years

UDAIPUR SAHKARI UPBOKTA THOK BHANDER LD. vs. COMMR.OF INCOME TAX

C.A. No.-004399-004399 - 2009Supreme Court16 Jul 2009
Section 14(3)(iv)Section 3Section 80P(2)(e)

disallowed the claim on the ground that the appellant-society is a wholesaler of foodgrains and it is not a mere stockist as claimed and consequently it was not entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2

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

80P of the Act, its income was not liable to tax. The Income Tax officer rejected the contention. On Appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld the assessee’s contention, in pursuance of which, a revised assessment order was made by the Income Tax Officer substantially reducing the amount of tax. The assessee claimed interest on the excess amount