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.

14 results for “disallowance”+ Section 23Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi76Mumbai41Kolkata41Chennai19Telangana14Hyderabad7Jaipur6Jodhpur6Indore5Bangalore5Pune4Ahmedabad3Ranchi2Panaji2Varanasi2Karnataka1SC1Nagpur1Raipur1

Key Topics

Section 260A14Section 143(3)14Disallowance14Addition to Income14

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s.B.Satyanarayana AND Others

In the result, for the above reasons, we set aside the orders

ITTA/240/2003HC Telangana21 Jun 2011

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

Section 143(3)Section 260A

disallowing the expenditure claimed to the extent of 50%. S ri Y.Ratnakar and Sri A.V.Krishna Koundinya made submissions for the assesses. They would contend that estimation of 40% of the purchase price as gross profit is unreasonable, arbitrary and without any basis. The Tribunal was, therefore, correct in estimating the sales turnover at eight (8) times of the purchase price

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s Y.Ramakrishna and Others

In the result, for the above reasons, we set aside the orders

ITTA/169/2003HC Telangana21 Jun 2011

V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

Bench:
Section 143(3)Section 260A

disallowing the expenditure claimed to the extent of 50%. S ri Y.Ratnakar and Sri A.V.Krishna Koundinya made submissions for the assesses. They would contend that estimation of 40% of the purchase price as gross profit is unreasonable, arbitrary and without any basis. The Tribunal was, therefore, correct in estimating the sales turnover at eight (8) times of the purchase price

Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajahmundry. vs. m/s Ganesh Arrack Contractors,

In the result, for the above reasons, we set aside the orders

ITTA/305/2003HC Telangana21 Jun 2011

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

Section 143(3)Section 260A

disallowing the expenditure claimed to the extent of 50%. S ri Y.Ratnakar and Sri A.V.Krishna Koundinya made submissions for the assesses. They would contend that estimation of 40% of the purchase price as gross profit is unreasonable, arbitrary and without any basis. The Tribunal was, therefore, correct in estimating the sales turnover at eight (8) times of the purchase price

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s GRK Prasad AND others

In the result, for the above reasons, we set aside the orders

ITTA/302/2003HC Telangana21 Jun 2011

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

Section 143(3)Section 260A

disallowing the expenditure claimed to the extent of 50%. S ri Y.Ratnakar and Sri A.V.Krishna Koundinya made submissions for the assesses. They would contend that estimation of 40% of the purchase price as gross profit is unreasonable, arbitrary and without any basis. The Tribunal was, therefore, correct in estimating the sales turnover at eight (8) times of the purchase price

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. m/S.M.Ventakteswara Rao AND Others

In the result, for the above reasons, we set aside the orders

ITTA/126/2003HC Telangana21 Jun 2011

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

Section 143(3)Section 260A

disallowing the expenditure claimed to the extent of 50%. S ri Y.Ratnakar and Sri A.V.Krishna Koundinya made submissions for the assesses. They would contend that estimation of 40% of the purchase price as gross profit is unreasonable, arbitrary and without any basis. The Tribunal was, therefore, correct in estimating the sales turnover at eight (8) times of the purchase price

The Commissioner of income tax, vs. M/s.Y.Ramulu and Others

In the result, for the above reasons, we set aside the orders

ITTA/197/2003HC Telangana21 Jun 2011

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

Section 143(3)Section 260A

disallowing the expenditure claimed to the extent of 50%. S ri Y.Ratnakar and Sri A.V.Krishna Koundinya made submissions for the assesses. They would contend that estimation of 40% of the purchase price as gross profit is unreasonable, arbitrary and without any basis. The Tribunal was, therefore, correct in estimating the sales turnover at eight (8) times of the purchase price

COMMR.OF I.T. RKAJAHMUNDRY vs. T.RAMI REDDY AND ORS

In the result, for the above reasons, we set aside the orders

ITTA/77/2003HC Telangana21 Jun 2011

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

Section 143(3)Section 260A

disallowing the expenditure claimed to the extent of 50%. S ri Y.Ratnakar and Sri A.V.Krishna Koundinya made submissions for the assesses. They would contend that estimation of 40% of the purchase price as gross profit is unreasonable, arbitrary and without any basis. The Tribunal was, therefore, correct in estimating the sales turnover at eight (8) times of the purchase price

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Ms. B.krishna Murthy AND Others

In the result, for the above reasons, we set aside the orders

ITTA/294/2003HC Telangana21 Jun 2011

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

Section 143(3)Section 260A

disallowing the expenditure claimed to the extent of 50%. S ri Y.Ratnakar and Sri A.V.Krishna Koundinya made submissions for the assesses. They would contend that estimation of 40% of the purchase price as gross profit is unreasonable, arbitrary and without any basis. The Tribunal was, therefore, correct in estimating the sales turnover at eight (8) times of the purchase price

COMMISSIONER OFINCOEMETAX vs. M/S. V.SATYANARAYANA AND OTHERS

In the result, for the above reasons, we set aside the orders

ITTA/170/2003HC Telangana21 Jun 2011

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

Section 143(3)Section 260A

disallowing the expenditure claimed to the extent of 50%. S ri Y.Ratnakar and Sri A.V.Krishna Koundinya made submissions for the assesses. They would contend that estimation of 40% of the purchase price as gross profit is unreasonable, arbitrary and without any basis. The Tribunal was, therefore, correct in estimating the sales turnover at eight (8) times of the purchase price

The Commissioner of Income tax vs. M/s.V.Satyanrayana AND Others

In the result, for the above reasons, we set aside the orders

ITTA/227/2003HC Telangana21 Jun 2011

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

Section 143(3)Section 260A

disallowing the expenditure claimed to the extent of 50%. S ri Y.Ratnakar and Sri A.V.Krishna Koundinya made submissions for the assesses. They would contend that estimation of 40% of the purchase price as gross profit is unreasonable, arbitrary and without any basis. The Tribunal was, therefore, correct in estimating the sales turnover at eight (8) times of the purchase price

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. M/S G.R.K.PRASAD AND OTHERS

In the result, for the above reasons, we set aside the orders

ITTA/333/2003HC Telangana21 Jun 2011

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

Section 143(3)Section 260A

disallowing the expenditure claimed to the extent of 50%. S ri Y.Ratnakar and Sri A.V.Krishna Koundinya made submissions for the assesses. They would contend that estimation of 40% of the purchase price as gross profit is unreasonable, arbitrary and without any basis. The Tribunal was, therefore, correct in estimating the sales turnover at eight (8) times of the purchase price

COMMISSISONER OF I.T. RAJAHMUNDRY vs. M/S.Y RAMAKRISHNA AND OTHERS

In the result, for the above reasons, we set aside the orders

ITTA/141/2003HC Telangana21 Jun 2011

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

Section 143(3)Section 260A

disallowing the expenditure claimed to the extent of 50%. S ri Y.Ratnakar and Sri A.V.Krishna Koundinya made submissions for the assesses. They would contend that estimation of 40% of the purchase price as gross profit is unreasonable, arbitrary and without any basis. The Tribunal was, therefore, correct in estimating the sales turnover at eight (8) times of the purchase price

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s.G.V.Krishna Reddy AND Others

In the result, for the above reasons, we set aside the orders

ITTA/151/2003HC Telangana21 Jun 2011

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

Section 143(3)Section 260A

disallowing the expenditure claimed to the extent of 50%. S ri Y.Ratnakar and Sri A.V.Krishna Koundinya made submissions for the assesses. They would contend that estimation of 40% of the purchase price as gross profit is unreasonable, arbitrary and without any basis. The Tribunal was, therefore, correct in estimating the sales turnover at eight (8) times of the purchase price

The commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s.M.Narayana Choudary and Others

In the result, for the above reasons, we set aside the orders

ITTA/208/2003HC Telangana21 Jun 2011

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

Section 143(3)Section 260A

disallowing the expenditure claimed to the extent of 50%. S ri Y.Ratnakar and Sri A.V.Krishna Koundinya made submissions for the assesses. They would contend that estimation of 40% of the purchase price as gross profit is unreasonable, arbitrary and without any basis. The Tribunal was, therefore, correct in estimating the sales turnover at eight (8) times of the purchase price