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.

12 results for “disallowance”+ Section 132(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai3,257Delhi2,876Bangalore926Chennai737Hyderabad501Kolkata434Jaipur422Ahmedabad332Surat222Chandigarh183Pune157Indore148Amritsar140Rajkot115Cochin93Raipur90Nagpur89Visakhapatnam72Karnataka64Allahabad60Lucknow60Guwahati52Calcutta39Patna39Agra38Cuttack30Jodhpur27Ranchi18Kerala16SC15Dehradun12Telangana12Panaji10Varanasi5Rajasthan2Gauhati2H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Jabalpur1Orissa1

Key Topics

Section 1329Section 2608Section 153A6Section 1476Section 686Addition to Income6Section 80P(2)(a)5Section 54F5Search & Seizure5

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. M/s.Pact Securities AND Financial Services Ltd

ITTA/291/2003HC Telangana05 Feb 2015

Bench: The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), The Assessees Had Called In Question The Orders Of Assessing Officer (For Short ‘The A.O.’), Who, While Completing The Assessment For The Relevant Assessment Years Disallowed The Deduction Of The “Lease Equalization” Charges From The Lease Rental Income. The Disallowed Amounts By The Cit (Appeals) In These Appeals Are Of Rs.48,56,224/-, Rs,44,18,245/- & Rs.13,16,123/-.

Section 142Section 143Section 143(2)Section 260A

Section 142 (1) and 143 (2) were issued, in response to which, Chartered Accountant of the assessee appeared before the A.O. and furnished details called for. The assessment was then completed and the A.O. disallowed the lease equalization charges of Rs.48,56,224/- from the lease rental charges for the assessment year 1998-99. 3.1 During the assessment year

THE PRINCIPAL COMMR OF INCOME TAX-II vs. L.G.TRINADHA RAO

Disallowance5
Section 260A4
Deduction4

The appeal is allowed and the order passed by the

ITTA/131/2017HC Telangana08 Oct 2018

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

For Appellant: MR. Smarajit Roy Chowdhury, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. J. P. Khiatan, Sr. Adv
Section 132Section 143Section 153CSection 260ASection 271

132 of the Act was conducted in Jain Group of cases on 18.3.2008 and on subsequent dates the respondent/assessee, one of the assessee of this Group. The residential premises of the karta of the assessee was also subjected to search and seizure operation. The other intricate factual details may not be required to be considered and it will suffice

Commissioner of Income Tax -II vs. M/S Sri Ramanjaneya Poultry Farm Pvt., Ltd.,

ITTA/713/2006HC Telangana03 Dec 2013

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

Section 293

132(5) of the Act to the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner under Section (11) thereof which remedy she did not avail. Considering the whole gravamen of the plaintiff in the suit and the law on the subject, we are of the opinion that the Subordinate Judge and the High Court were not correct in rejecting the contention of the Revenue

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV vs. M/S QUALITY CARE INDIA LTD

ITTA/261/2015HC Telangana13 Jul 2016

Bench: A.SHANKAR NARAYANA,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

For Appellant: Mr. J.V. PrasadFor Respondent: The Senior Standing Counsel
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 260A

132, as a consequence of which, proceedings were initiated under Section 153A. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) r/w Section 153A. After completion of the assessment, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment under Section 147 by issuing a notice under Section 148, on 31.03.2011. 5. The reason for reopening of the assessment was that while initiating proceedings under

The Commissioner of Income Tax(Central) vs. M/s.Madhu Enterprises

ITTA/127/2025HC Telangana12 Feb 2025

Bench: The Learned

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 260ASection 54F

132 of the Act on persons constituting the FIITJEE Group. The Assessee was also one of the persons searched. Thereafter, the AO issued a notice dated 13.08.2013 under Section 153A of the Act and during the ensuing proceedings, examined the claim of the Assessee for deduction under Section 54F of the Act. 6. The AO passed an assessment order dated

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) vs. BHAVANASI ANJANEYULU

Appeals are allowed in part

ITTA/468/2018HC Telangana26 Sept 2018

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

Section 260

1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in deleting the disallowance made by the assessing officer on account of speed money claimed as labour charges in the books of accounts? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right

Commissioner of Income Tax-V, vs. Sri S.Venkat Reddy, (PAN ALAPS4009A)

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby

ITTA/501/2013HC Telangana24 Oct 2013
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 260Section 41(1)

1) of the Act, provident fund payments and disallowance under Section 14A of the Act. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who by an order dated 03.07.2006 partly allowed the appeal preferred by the assessee. The assessee as well as the revenue approached the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal by filing appeals. The Tribunal

The Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax-1 vs. M/s. New River Software System Pvt Ltd.,

The appeals are dismissed

ITTA/599/2015HC Telangana30 Jun 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 132Section 153ASection 260Section 68

disallowance of interest of `75,47,897/- on unsecured loans was added under Section 68 of the Act and an amount of `1,51,200/- which was expended on the foreign guests was added. 3. Apropos the appeals filed in 2015, a similar reassessment order was passed pursuant to the search proceedings under Section 132

The Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. Adaptec [India] Ltd

The appeals are dismissed

ITTA/547/2013HC Telangana01 Nov 2013
Section 132Section 153ASection 260Section 68

disallowance of interest of `75,47,897/- on unsecured loans was added under Section 68 of the Act and an amount of `1,51,200/- which was expended on the foreign guests was added. 3. Apropos the appeals filed in 2015, a similar reassessment order was passed pursuant to the search proceedings under Section 132

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s.K.Seetha Ramaiah AND Others

The appeal stands dismissed

ITTA/106/2003HC Telangana21 Jun 2011

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 158BSection 3

disallowed by the A.O. and confirmed by CIT(A) and whether the finding in respect of the above additions is perverse? 3. “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT was right and justified in holding that Rs. 16 Lac had flown back from unexplained lease payments and whether the finding in respect of the above

The Commissioner of Income tax vs. M/s. Nirmala Constructions

The appeal stands dismissed

ITTA/305/2005HC Telangana21 Mar 2016

Bench: Cit(A) After The Amendment U/S. 80P(2)(A)(Iii) Of The Act? Iv) Whether, In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The

Section 154Section 80Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(iv)

disallowance. He further submits that the interest income has been earned from short-term deposits with Co-operative Banks and Co-operative Societies and is fully exempted u/s 80P(2)(d). The CTT(A), in the subsequent assessment year, i.e., assessment year 1993-94, has allowed the same. The reliance was also placed upon the judgement of Hon'ble Punjab

THE ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI K.C.K.A.GUPTA

The Appeal is dismissed

ITTA/251/2005HC Telangana03 Jan 2018

Bench: C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,T.AMARNATH GOUD

For Appellant: Mr.J.V.PrasadFor Respondent: Mr.C.P.Ramaswami
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 263

132(4) of the Act. Subsequently, he has enhanced it to Rs.1,43,21,000/-, which was later scaled down to Rs.1,41,02,000/- for the entire group. The Assessing Officer (AO), in the block assessment proceedings for the block period 01-04-1987 to 24-10-1997, accepted the returns filed by the assessee. Subsequently, the internal Audit