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.

60 results for “disallowance”+ Section 32(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai6,845Delhi6,205Bangalore2,075Chennai1,974Kolkata1,592Ahmedabad877Hyderabad685Jaipur572Pune485Indore400Chandigarh314Surat267Rajkot250Karnataka244Raipur215Nagpur159Amritsar155Cochin151Visakhapatnam124Lucknow123Cuttack91Guwahati80SC64Allahabad63Ranchi62Telangana60Jodhpur57Panaji55Calcutta53Patna53Dehradun33Kerala28Agra19Varanasi15Jabalpur7Orissa6Punjab & Haryana5Rajasthan3A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1Himachal Pradesh1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1ANIL R. DAVE AMITAVA ROY L. NAGESWARA RAO1Tripura1Uttarakhand1J&K1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1

Key Topics

Addition to Income29Section 26026Disallowance24Section 260A22Section 143(3)20Deduction19Section 3711Depreciation10Section 2(22)(e)8Section 80

Commissioner of IncomeTax-2, vs. Mr. Mustafa Alam Khan,

Appeal is allowed

ITTA/72/2017HC Telangana29 Jun 2017

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

Section 260Section 80J

disallowed and in its place, depreciation of Rs.6,30,864/- is allowed and difference amount of Rs.18,92,500/- is added back to the income declared.” (emphasis supplied) 9 12. It is forthcoming that it has been held that the deduction is required to be made under Section 32(1

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Dr. T.Ravi Kumar,

ITTA/102/2012HC Telangana24 Jul 2013

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani & The Hon’Ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj Date : 10Th April, 2024. Appearance: Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Senior Advocate Mr. Sanjay Bhowmick, Advocate Ms. Swapna Das, Advocate … For The Appellant. Ms. Smita Das De, Advocate … For The Respondent. 1. Heard Sri J. P. Khaitan, Learned Senior Advocate Assisted By Sri Sanjay Bhowmick, Learned Counsel For The Appellant/Assessee & Ms. Smita Das De, Learned Senior Standing Counsel For The Respondent. 2. The Assessment Years Involved In The Present Appeal Are Assessment Year 1999-2000 & Assessment Year 2000-01. By Order Dated 16.08.2012, This Appeal Was Admitted On The Following Substantial Questions Of Law :-

Showing 1–20 of 60 · Page 1 of 3

8
Section 43B7
Section 12A6
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 24(1)(i)Section 32Section 43B

1) of Section 32 shall not apply. The assets in question on which the depreciation has been claimed was being used for the purpose of business or profession from earlier years and was also used during the assessment years in question and, as such, there was no question to disallow

The Commissioner of Income Tax - IV vs. M/s. Mekins Agro Product (P) Ltd.

ITTA/449/2013HC Telangana25 Sept 2013
Section 11(1)Section 29Section 32

1) Subject to the provisions of sections 60 to 63, the following income shall not be included in the total income of the previous year ofthe person in receipt ofthe income- {a) income derived from property held under trust wholly for charitable or religious purposes, to the extent to which such income is applied to such purposes in India

THE PRL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. L SURYAKANTHAM, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed

ITTA/285/2017HC Telangana08 Oct 2018

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 260Section 80JSection 92C

1)(2), BANGALORE. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, ADV.,) AND: M/S. PAGE INDUSTRIES LTD ABBAIAH REDDY INDUSTRIAL AREA JOCKEY CAMPUS, NO.6/2 & 6/4 HONGASANDRA, BEGUR HOBLI BANGALORE-560068 PAN: AABCP2K630D. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. CHYTHANYA K.K. ADV.) - - - THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SEC. 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 24.06.2016 PASSED

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

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.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 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

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-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 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, 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

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.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

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.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

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

The Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. Ascend Telecom Infrastructure Private Limited

ITTA/346/2015HC Telangana06 Apr 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 11Section 260Section 32

32 of the Income Tax Act providing for depreciation for computation of income derived from business or profession is not applicable. However, the income of the Trust is required to be computed under section 11 on commercial principles after providing for allowance for normal depreciation and deduction thereof from gross income of the Trust. Date of Judgment

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S. SOMA ENTERPRISES LTD

The appeal is disposed off accordingly

ITTA/209/2010HC Telangana16 Jul 2025

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

Section 11Section 12ASection 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 194JSection 260Section 40

32,000/- 40% of professional charges paid to doctors through bearer cheques (60% paid by A/c. payee cheques) without deducting TDS cannot be disallowed u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act as the provisions of Section 11 of the Act was applicable to the assessee? ii. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that professional fee of Rs.45