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 195(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,491Mumbai1,470Chennai612Bangalore543Kolkata287Jaipur167Ahmedabad160Hyderabad89Pune87Chandigarh83Karnataka52Raipur49Rajkot48Surat46Calcutta41Lucknow34Visakhapatnam31Indore29Nagpur24Cochin16Guwahati15Patna12SC10Agra8Dehradun8Cuttack8Allahabad8Panaji7Telangana6Amritsar5Jodhpur5Jabalpur4Ranchi2Orissa2ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Kerala1Rajasthan1Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Section 2609Section 2639Deduction6Section 405Section 104Section 260A3Section 1953Disallowance3Section 195(1)2

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions0 vs. Kalinga Cultural Trust

In the result, we do not find any

ITTA/580/2016HC Telangana28 Nov 2016

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

Section 10Section 260Section 260A

disallowed the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 10B of the Act. 5. The Assessing Officer inter alia held that assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 10B of the Act only after verification and the contention of the assessee that old machinery from FFIPL was transferred to it only in April 2007 does not deserve acceptance

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-5 vs. M/s. VBC Industries Limited

In the result, we do not find any

ITTA/559/2015HC Telangana
16 Feb 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 10Section 260Section 260A

disallowed the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 10B of the Act. 5. The Assessing Officer inter alia held that assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 10B of the Act only after verification and the contention of the assessee that old machinery from FFIPL was transferred to it only in April 2007 does not deserve acceptance

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-2, vs. M/s Trinity Advanced Software Labs Private Limited,

In the result, we do not find any merit in the appeal

ITTA/421/2015HC Telangana01 Jun 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 195Section 260Section 40

2. This appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) has been filed by the revenue. The subject matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment Year 2006-07. The appeal was admitted by a Bench of this Court on the following substantial questions of law: "a) Whether

The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV, Hyderabad. vs. Prithvi Information Solutions P Ltd.,

ITTA/113/2013HC Telangana26 Jun 2013
Section 143(3)Section 195(1)Section 263Section 40

2 of 3 accordingly directed the AO to make the assessment de novo other than the issue of disallowance of expenditure of Rs.1344,63,25,000/- under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. According to the CIT, the aforementioned sum claimed as expenditure towards import value of machinery, spares and raw materials and charged to the P&L account

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. M/s. Nav Bharat Enterprises Limited

ITTA/169/2013HC Telangana02 Jul 2013
Section 10ASection 10A(3)Section 195Section 260Section 260ASection 40

2) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the tribunal is right in law in allowing the assessee's claim 3 of depreciation of Rs.17.06,58,039/- on software imported even though the assessing authority had rightly disallowed the expenditure under section 40(a)(i) of IT Act as the assessee had failed to comply with the provisions

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. M/s. Surya Laxmi Cotton Mills Ltd.,

ITTA/557/2010HC Telangana21 Mar 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 263Section 265

disallowing p same was exa 2004 and to and were dele assessment y albeit on acco 2013 again h deduction vid 5. H issue for asse this Court ha assessee as no 6. I view and the of law are ac the expenditu is upheld and 7. N 8. A 16.07.2024. rajesh 1. Whe 2