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.

9 results for “disallowance”+ Section 56(2)(x)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,094Delhi1,094Bangalore337Chennai286Kolkata223Jaipur172Ahmedabad172Chandigarh108Hyderabad101Nagpur74Agra69Pune67Raipur63Surat53Lucknow41Guwahati39Calcutta36Indore35Cochin35Rajkot34Cuttack30Jodhpur19Karnataka16Amritsar11Visakhapatnam11Telangana9Allahabad8SC7Varanasi6Kerala5Patna5Panaji4Dehradun4Himachal Pradesh3Jabalpur2Ranchi2Punjab & Haryana1Orissa1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 14A6Section 2605Section 375Deduction5Section 37(1)4Section 254Set Off of Losses4Section 272Section 12A2Addition to Income

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)

X. If upon a winding up or the dissolution of the Company, there are remains after the satisfaction of all the debts and liabilities, any property whatsoever, the same shall not be distributed amongst the members of the Company but, shall be given or transferred to such other Company having objects similar to the objects of this Company

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. M/s.Kalyani Wines

2

In the result, I find this appeal bereft of merit and accordingly,

ITTA/6/2010HC Telangana14 Mar 2016

Bench: Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Robin Phukan

Section 11Section 37

x) It is also well settled principle of law that an objection/plea not taken/raised before the arbitrator nor pleaded before the Arbitrator cannot be allowed to be raised for the first time before the Court and said objection being categorically put forward by the appellant in his objection filed by application preferred by the appellant to the respondent under Section

M/s.Tata Teleservices Limited vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax

ITTA/163/2018HC Telangana03 Sept 2024

Bench: SUJOY PAUL,NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

Section 14A

2% of above as per Rule 8D 1197581172 X 0.5% 5987905 5987905 Total disallowance [ Aggregate of (i), (ii) &(iii) ] 5,65,64,291 Therefore, an amount of Rs 5,65,64,291/- have to be disallowed u/s 14A read with Rule 8D of I.T.Rules, 1962 and added to the total income of the assessee. However, total expenses debited

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. K. V. Srinivasa Rao

ITTA/480/2017HC Telangana01 Aug 2017
For Respondent: Mr. J.S. Guleria, Deputy
Section 120BSection 25Section 27Section 302

2. “Did you state to the investigating officer about the presence of the gas lantern?” 44. Learned Sessions Judge disallowed the questions holding that omission does not amount to contradiction and cannot be put under section 161 of Cr.P.C. He held: “Therefore, if there is no contradiction between his evidence in court and his recorded statement in the diary

The Commisioner of Income TAx-1 vs. Divya Shakti Granites Ltd.,

ITTA/178/2015HC Telangana04 Apr 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 96

56 YEARS, R/AT NO.659, 5TH CROSS, 3RD BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560 034. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S S NAGANAND., SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI. VIJAYKUMAR DESAI., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI.M R RAJAGOPAL., SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI.B M SHIVAJI., ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS RFA CROB IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 22(2) OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.01.2015 PASSED

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)

56 of 2008, 57 of 2008, 54 of 2009 and 20 of 2011 Reserved on: 21.12.2024 Date of decision : 31.12.2024. H.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. ...Appellant. Versus Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax &another ...Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1Yes

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)

56 of 2008, 57 of 2008, 54 of 2009 and 20 of 2011 Reserved on: 21.12.2024 Date of decision : 31.12.2024. H.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. ...Appellant. Versus Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax &another ...Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1Yes

Commissioner of income tax, vs. M/s. R.K. Palace,

ITTA/57/2008HC Telangana14 Mar 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 260Section 37Section 37(1)

56 of 2008, 57 of 2008, 54 of 2009 and 20 of 2011 Reserved on: 21.12.2024 Date of decision : 31.12.2024. H.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. ...Appellant. Versus Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax &another ...Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1Yes

Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. Agricultural Market Committee

ITTA/20/2011HC Telangana30 Mar 2011

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

Section 260Section 37Section 37(1)

56 of 2008, 57 of 2008, 54 of 2009 and 20 of 2011 Reserved on: 21.12.2024 Date of decision : 31.12.2024. H.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. ...Appellant. Versus Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax &another ...Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1Yes