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.

4 results for “disallowance”+ Section 36(1)(viia)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai337Chennai160Delhi139Bangalore131Kolkata55Pune31Cochin28Hyderabad26Surat19Karnataka16Jaipur14Nagpur14Rajkot11Chandigarh11Ahmedabad10Cuttack10Patna9Jodhpur8Indore7Guwahati7Amritsar7Kerala7Visakhapatnam4SC4Telangana4Lucknow3Agra2Ranchi1

Key Topics

Section 36(1)(viia)6Section 260A3Section 14A3Disallowance3Section 115J2Section 36(1)2Deduction2

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

In the result, the appeal (ITA/70/2011) is allowed to the extent indicated

ITTA/70/2011HC Telangana18 Apr 2011

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 20Th March, 2023 Appearance : Mr. C. Bhaskaran, Adv. Ms. Swapna Das, Adv. …For The Appellant. Mr. Aryak Dutt, Adv. …For The Respondent.. The Court : - This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act (The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Dated September 30, 2009 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “B” Bench, Kolkata In Ita No.2486/Kol/2007 For The Assessment Year 2003-2004. The Appeal Was Admitted On 18.03.2011 On The Following Substantial Questions Of Law:- “1. Whether The Tribunal Below, While Interpreting Section 36(1)(Viia)(A) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961, Committed Substantial Error Of Law In Holding That Deduction Under The First Proviso Was Alternative To That Under Sub-Clause (A) & That No Deduction Under The First Proviso Was Allowable If Deduction Had Been Allowed Under Sub-Clause (A) Thereby Rejecting The Appellant’S

Section 115JSection 14ASection 260ASection 36(1)(viia)

36(1)(viia)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, committed substantial error of law in holding that deduction under the first proviso was alternative to that under sub-clause (a) and that no deduction under the first proviso was allowable if deduction had been allowed under sub-clause (a) thereby rejecting the appellant’s 2 claim for deduction

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s.Midwest Granites Private Limited

Appeal stands dismissed accordingly

ITTA/362/2018HC Telangana16 Aug 2018

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

Section 115JSection 14ASection 194HSection 2(17)Section 260Section 260ASection 36(1)Section 40

disallowances made under Section 36(1) (viia) and also (viii) by relying upon its earlier orders passed for the assessment

The Commissioner of income Tax-II vs. M/s.Ideal Industrial Explosives Ltd

ITTA/100/2010HC Telangana01 Mar 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

For Appellant: M/S. CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD., THRISSURFor Respondent: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TRICHUR

1) which reads: “(g) the amount or amounts set aside as provision for diminution in the value of any asset” is not disallowance of Rs.8,61,53,052/- towards provision for bad debts made under section 36(ii) (viia

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

ITTA/244/2011HC Telangana27 Jun 2011

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

Section 11Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 271(1)(c)

disallowed by the Assessing Officer and after verifying the relevant records. Thus, a finding was recorded that the assessee Shivani Gupta 2024.01.19 12:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document ITA No.244 of 2011 and ITA No.512 of 2017 4 2024:PHHC:004741-DB had not furnished any inaccurate particulars and the Assessing Officer as well