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.

62 results for “disallowance”+ Section 31(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai7,501Delhi6,277Bangalore2,196Chennai1,952Kolkata1,906Ahmedabad1,536Jaipur843Hyderabad822Pune596Indore482Chandigarh403Surat372Raipur294Rajkot286Cochin270Amritsar208Visakhapatnam188Nagpur185Karnataka179Lucknow151Cuttack143Agra125Allahabad88Guwahati83Panaji79Ranchi72Jodhpur71Telangana62Calcutta57SC56Patna50Dehradun45Kerala26Jabalpur23Varanasi22Punjab & Haryana6Orissa4Rajasthan4Himachal Pradesh3A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1Tripura1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1ANIL R. DAVE AMITAVA ROY L. NAGESWARA RAO1

Key Topics

Section 26030Section 260A28Addition to Income28Disallowance25Section 143(3)22Deduction16Section 378Section 808Section 37(1)7Section 68

CHENNAKESAVA PHARMACEUTICALS VIJAYAWADA vs. THE COMI.OF INCOMETAX VIJ.

In the result, all the appeals are allowed setting aside the common

ITTA/31/2000HC Telangana27 Aug 2012

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

For Appellant: :Sri AV KrishnaFor Respondent: Sri J.V.Prasad
Section 133Section 143Section 260Section 271

disallowed and that itself cannot be a ground for levying a penalty. He relied on Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd.[1] a n d Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. SAS Pharmaceuticals[2]. 2. For the levy of penalty under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act, the assessing officer has to form his own opinion

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

Showing 1–20 of 62 · Page 1 of 4

6
Section 36(1)(ii)6
Exemption5

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

disallowances of expenditure is arbitrary and excessive. We further hold that sales, which are admittedly unverifiable should be estimated at eight times of purchase price and net profit should be estimated at 1% of such estimated sales or declared sales whichever is more clear of all deductions and allowances, and if the profit so estimated is less than the profit

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

disallowances of expenditure is arbitrary and excessive. We further hold that sales, which are admittedly unverifiable should be estimated at eight times of purchase price and net profit should be estimated at 1% of such estimated sales or declared sales whichever is more clear of all deductions and allowances, and if the profit so estimated is less than the profit

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

disallowances of expenditure is arbitrary and excessive. We further hold that sales, which are admittedly unverifiable should be estimated at eight times of purchase price and net profit should be estimated at 1% of such estimated sales or declared sales whichever is more clear of all deductions and allowances, and if the profit so estimated is less than the profit

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

disallowances of expenditure is arbitrary and excessive. We further hold that sales, which are admittedly unverifiable should be estimated at eight times of purchase price and net profit should be estimated at 1% of such estimated sales or declared sales whichever is more clear of all deductions and allowances, and if the profit so estimated is less than the profit

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

disallowances of expenditure is arbitrary and excessive. We further hold that sales, which are admittedly unverifiable should be estimated at eight times of purchase price and net profit should be estimated at 1% of such estimated sales or declared sales whichever is more clear of all deductions and allowances, and if the profit so estimated is less than the profit

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

disallowances of expenditure is arbitrary and excessive. We further hold that sales, which are admittedly unverifiable should be estimated at eight times of purchase price and net profit should be estimated at 1% of such estimated sales or declared sales whichever is more clear of all deductions and allowances, and if the profit so estimated is less than the profit

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

disallowances of expenditure is arbitrary and excessive. We further hold that sales, which are admittedly unverifiable should be estimated at eight times of purchase price and net profit should be estimated at 1% of such estimated sales or declared sales whichever is more clear of all deductions and allowances, and if the profit so estimated is less than the profit

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

disallowances of expenditure is arbitrary and excessive. We further hold that sales, which are admittedly unverifiable should be estimated at eight times of purchase price and net profit should be estimated at 1% of such estimated sales or declared sales whichever is more clear of all deductions and allowances, and if the profit so estimated is less than the profit

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

disallowances of expenditure is arbitrary and excessive. We further hold that sales, which are admittedly unverifiable should be estimated at eight times of purchase price and net profit should be estimated at 1% of such estimated sales or declared sales whichever is more clear of all deductions and allowances, and if the profit so estimated is less than the profit

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

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

Section 143(3)Section 260A

disallowances of expenditure is arbitrary and excessive. We further hold that sales, which are admittedly unverifiable should be estimated at eight times of purchase price and net profit should be estimated at 1% of such estimated sales or declared sales whichever is more clear of all deductions and allowances, and if the profit so estimated is less than the profit

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

disallowances of expenditure is arbitrary and excessive. We further hold that sales, which are admittedly unverifiable should be estimated at eight times of purchase price and net profit should be estimated at 1% of such estimated sales or declared sales whichever is more clear of all deductions and allowances, and if the profit so estimated is less than the profit

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

disallowances of expenditure is arbitrary and excessive. We further hold that sales, which are admittedly unverifiable should be estimated at eight times of purchase price and net profit should be estimated at 1% of such estimated sales or declared sales whichever is more clear of all deductions and allowances, and if the profit so estimated is less than the profit

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

disallowances of expenditure is arbitrary and excessive. We further hold that sales, which are admittedly unverifiable should be estimated at eight times of purchase price and net profit should be estimated at 1% of such estimated sales or declared sales whichever is more clear of all deductions and allowances, and if the profit so estimated is less than the profit

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

disallowances of expenditure is arbitrary and excessive. We further hold that sales, which are admittedly unverifiable should be estimated at eight times of purchase price and net profit should be estimated at 1% of such estimated sales or declared sales whichever is more clear of all deductions and allowances, and if the profit so estimated is less than the profit

The Commissioner of Income Tax I vs. M/s. Bhagiradha Chemicals AND Industries Ltd.,

The appeal is disposed of

ITTA/447/2013HC Telangana25 Sept 2013
Section 115JSection 263Section 36(1)(ii)Section 80

disallowed under Section 36(1)(ii) of the Act. Secondly, the assessee had booked majority of the expenses against the unit carrying out trading operations and thereby had inflated profits of the manufacturing unit exempt under Section 80-IC. Expenses booked for the eligible unit under section 80-IC were only Rs.12,31

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2 vs. M/s Indur Green Power Private Limited

In the result, all the appeals fail and are hereby

ITTA/627/2015HC Telangana02 Jun 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 2(15)Section 25Section 260Section 80G(5)

Section 2(15) of the Act?. 44. We are dealing with a taxing statute. The intention of the legislature in a taxation statute is to be gathered from the language of the provisions particularly where the language is plain and unambiguous. In a Taxing Act, it is not possible to assume any intention or the governing purpose of the statute

The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. Nekkanti Sea Foods Limited

The appeal is dismissed without any order as to costs

ITTA/160/2012HC Telangana12 Feb 2025

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

Section 115JSection 260A

disallowed the claim by treating the entire expense as incurred on capital account. Even depreciation was not allowed. 5. The CIT (Appeals) affirmed the aforesaid findings given by the Assessing Officer. 6. In the second appeal before the tribunal, it has been held that the expenditure incurred was a revenue expense and should be allowed. ITA 160/2012 Page

AD-AGE OUTDOOR ADVERTISING P LTD., HYDERABAD. vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONEER OF INCOME TAX, HYDERABAD.

ITTA/54/2009HC Telangana22 Apr 2021

Bench: T.VINOD KUMAR,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

Section 260Section 37Section 37(1)

disallowing the deduction of Rs. 45,00,000/-, the CIT(A)recorded the following reasons:- a) As; there was no specific provision under Section 36 of the Act relating to contribution to leave encashment fund, the amount of Rs. 45,00,000/- paid into the said fund by the assessee had no statutory recognition. b) There was no ascertained liability

The Commissioner of Incoe Tax III, vs. Raj Breeders and Hatcheries (PVT) Liited,

ITTA/37/2007HC Telangana23 Mar 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 260Section 37Section 37(1)

disallowing the deduction of Rs. 45,00,000/-, the CIT(A)recorded the following reasons:- a) As; there was no specific provision under Section 36 of the Act relating to contribution to leave encashment fund, the amount of Rs. 45,00,000/- paid into the said fund by the assessee had no statutory recognition. b) There was no ascertained liability