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.

3 results for “disallowance”+ Section 155(19)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai753Delhi710Bangalore212Ahmedabad195Chennai165Jaipur130Kolkata86Hyderabad78Cochin69Pune52Allahabad49Chandigarh47Cuttack40Raipur38Rajkot37Surat36Calcutta36Lucknow31Indore21Nagpur17SC12Visakhapatnam7Jodhpur7Karnataka7Jabalpur6Guwahati6Amritsar5Varanasi4Telangana3Panaji3Agra1Rajasthan1Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Section 80M5Section 272Section 252Addition to Income2

COMMR.OF I.T. A.P.I HYD vs. DIAMOND HATCHERIES (P) LTD

Appeal is allowed

ITTA/68/2001HC Telangana30 Jul 2013
Section 260Section 80Section 80ASection 80M

disallowed the deduction of Rs.10,19,200/- under Section 80M of the Act claimed by the assessee and also estimated the Closing Stock as Rs.20,00,000/- after giving a benefit of Closing Stock of Rs.1,11,741/- in the assessment year 1983-84, made an addition of Rs.18,88,259/-. Aggrieved against the order of the Assessing Officer

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. K. V. Srinivasa Rao

ITTA/480/2017HC Telangana01 Aug 2017
Mr. J.S. Guleria, Deputy
For Respondent:
Section 120BSection 25Section 27Section 302

disallowed. These were put during the cross-examination of Bankey, PW 30. They are: Q. Did you state to the investigating officer that the gang rolled the dead bodies of Nathi, Saktu and Bharat Singh and scrutinized them, and did you tell him that the face of Asa Ram resembled that of the deceased Bharat Singh? Q. Did you state

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M.Venkata Krishna Mohan

ITTA/325/2005HC Telangana07 Apr 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 143(3) of the Act and the income of the appellant was determined at Rs.84,95,035/-. The assessing Officer (hereinafter „AO‟) came to the conclusion that since the payment of Rs.1 Crore was absent in the earlier license agreement and it was for use of the brand, the expenditure of Rs.1 Crore cannot be related to the business