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.

7 results for “disallowance”+ Section 438clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai591Delhi427Bangalore148Kolkata113Chennai107Ahmedabad78Agra64Jaipur59Pune51Raipur38Hyderabad37Chandigarh27Allahabad23Indore20Surat17Cochin14Cuttack12Lucknow10Calcutta9Amritsar9Telangana7Jodhpur6Karnataka5Panaji5Rajkot4SC4Nagpur4Guwahati4Visakhapatnam2Kerala2Orissa2Jabalpur1Patna1Varanasi1Ranchi1

Key Topics

Section 80P(2)(a)8Section 260A6Business Income5Exemption5Deduction5Section 464Section 2603Section 2633Section 252Section 12A

M/S AVANTHI BUSINESS MACHINES LTD., HYDERABAD. vs. DCIT [ASSTS] CIRCLE -1 [1] HYDERABAD.

Appeal is disposed of

ITTA/375/2006HC Telangana07 Jun 2023

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

For Appellant: SRl. A.V. A SIVA KARTIKEYA FORFor Respondent: SRI J V PRASAD (SC FOR INCOME TAX)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 1aSection 260Section 260ASection 35DSection 37Section 43B

disallowing the said amount was . fully justilied and accordingly dismissed the appeal on this ground. 7. In further appeal before the Tribunal, it was held that there was no inlirmity in the view taken by the frrst appellate authority. ) 8. In Brooke Bond India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Taxr. Suprt-'me Court hacl held that expenses incurred in issue

2
Section 80C2
Disallowance2

The Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) vs. G Pulla Reddy Chritable Trust

In the result, the orders passed by the Commissioner of

ITTA/192/2015HC Telangana08 Oct 2015

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

Section 143(2)Section 154Section 260Section 260ASection 263Section 50CSection 80C

438/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 30.08.2010. The Assessing Officer by an order dated 15.12.2011 after making enquiries concluded the assessment by bringing to charge the income arising from sale of properties as income from business as it was found that the assessee

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. The Andhra Bank Employees Co.Operative Bank Limited

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

ITTA/243/2007HC Telangana07 Jun 2011

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

Section 260ASection 46Section 80P(2)(a)

disallowed the claim taking a view that the income from the Bonds could not be treated to be income attributable to the banking business within the meaning of Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the IT Act. The assessee’s appeal failed but the appellate Tribunal allowed the claim. Before the Punjab and Haryana High Court the question was whether

Commissioner of Income Tax-II, vs. M/S The A.P.Mahesh Coop. Urban Bank Ltd,

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

ITTA/718/2006HC Telangana07 Jun 2011

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

Section 260ASection 46Section 80P(2)(a)

disallowed the claim taking a view that the income from the Bonds could not be treated to be income attributable to the banking business within the meaning of Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the IT Act. The assessee’s appeal failed but the appellate Tribunal allowed the claim. Before the Punjab and Haryana High Court the question was whether

Commissioner of Income Tax -II vs. The Agrasen Coop. Urban Bank Ltd.,

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

ITTA/711/2006HC Telangana07 Jun 2011

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

Section 260ASection 46Section 80P(2)(a)

disallowed the claim taking a view that the income from the Bonds could not be treated to be income attributable to the banking business within the meaning of Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the IT Act. The assessee’s appeal failed but the appellate Tribunal allowed the claim. Before the Punjab and Haryana High Court the question was whether

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, HYDERABAD vs. M/s. The A.P.Vardhaman(Mahila)Cooperative Urban

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

ITTA/715/2006HC Telangana07 Jun 2011

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

Section 260ASection 46Section 80P(2)(a)

disallowed the claim taking a view that the income from the Bonds could not be treated to be income attributable to the banking business within the meaning of Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the IT Act. The assessee’s appeal failed but the appellate Tribunal allowed the claim. Before the Punjab and Haryana High Court the question was whether

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)

438/-. This reasoned finding of CIT(A) needs no interference from our side. We uphold the same. “ 17. The Appellate Tribunal took the view that the assessee company could be said to be carrying on the charitable activities, as the main purpose of the assessee company is to preserve the environment. The fact that the assessee company is duly registered