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.

42 results for “disallowance”+ Section 75clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai4,522Delhi3,854Bangalore1,536Chennai1,175Kolkata1,100Ahmedabad943Hyderabad525Jaipur502Indore354Chandigarh304Pune297Cochin282Surat255Raipur145Rajkot138Karnataka133Nagpur118Lucknow116Cuttack102Amritsar98Visakhapatnam71Allahabad66Guwahati57Ranchi56Jodhpur48Agra43Calcutta43Telangana42Patna26Panaji21SC20Dehradun19Varanasi15Jabalpur9Kerala6Punjab & Haryana5Himachal Pradesh2Rajasthan2A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Orissa1RANJAN GOGOI PRAFULLA C. PANT1Tripura1

Key Topics

Addition to Income26Disallowance23Section 260A19Section 143(3)19Section 26015Section 14711Section 14810Section 14A8Section 2(22)(e)8

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

Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. In this context, our attention was drawn to the following parts of the order passed by the CIT(A): “5.4…The above facts show that appellant has made Long Term Investment of Rs.119,75,81,172/- by taking the loan of Rs.119,00,00,000/- on which it has paid interest of Rs.5

Commissioner of Income Tax-III, vs. M/s Sree Rayalaseema Green Energy Limited,

ITTA/439/2013HC Telangana19 Sept 2013
Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)

Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the second issue relates to disallowance of provision for current liabilities of Rs.2,51,96,577/-. 2. At the outset, we notice the casual and insouciant approach adopted by the Assessing Officer, who had made additions of Rs.6,75

Showing 1–20 of 42 · Page 1 of 3

Deduction8
Section 686
Depreciation5

The Commissioner of Income Tax - Central vs. M/s. Himagiri Biotech Pvt. Ltd.,

ITTA/526/2013HC Telangana30 Oct 2013
Section 36

Section 36 (1) (iii) regarding advance of borrowed funds, to its sister concern?; (2) Did the ITAT fall into error in holding that the sum of `25,04,385/- brought to tax by the AO on the interest free deposit of ` 1,75,50,000/- was not sustainable?; (3) Is the ITAT’s order- that the assessee’s revised

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 :-

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 24(1)(i)Section 32Section 43B

75 ΤΑΧΜΑΝ 30 (Bom). So, in view of all aforesaid facts and case laws relied by the appellant; I am of the view that Assessing Officer was not correct in denying 50% depreciation to the appellant he is directed to allow the full claim of the appellant.” 7. Aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A), the revenue filed

The Commissioner of Income Tax [Central] vs. M/s.GVPR Engineers Ltd

The appeal is dismissed

ITTA/546/2013HC Telangana04 Apr 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

For Appellant: Mr Rahul Chaudhary with Mr Raghvendra Singh andFor Respondent: Mr Ved Jain with Mr Pranjal Srivastava
Section 260A

Sections 36(l)(iii), 37(1) and 57(iii) of the said Act. 5. Being aggrieved by the said disallowance of the total sum of ₹ 10,79,75

The Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax-1 vs. M/s. New River Software System Pvt Ltd.,

The appeals are dismissed

ITTA/599/2015HC Telangana30 Jun 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 132Section 153ASection 260Section 68

Section 68 of the Act for Assessment Years (AYs) 2002-03, 2003-04, 2005-06 and 2007-08. These amounts, being primarily towards monies received from various companies as well as disallowances of expenditure, were debited to the profit & loss account for AYs 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2005-06. For AY 2007-08 disallowance of interest of `75

The Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. Adaptec [India] Ltd

The appeals are dismissed

ITTA/547/2013HC Telangana01 Nov 2013
Section 132Section 153ASection 260Section 68

Section 68 of the Act for Assessment Years (AYs) 2002-03, 2003-04, 2005-06 and 2007-08. These amounts, being primarily towards monies received from various companies as well as disallowances of expenditure, were debited to the profit & loss account for AYs 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2005-06. For AY 2007-08 disallowance of interest of `75

PRL COMMR OF INCOME TAX, TIRUPATI, CHITTOOR DIST vs. V DWARAKANATH REDDY, CHITTOOR

The appeals are hereby dismissed

ITTA/161/2016HC Telangana27 Sept 2018

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 260A

Section 2(15). The Tribunal, therefore, rightly directed the Assessing Officer to delete disallowance of exemption. 74. It cannot possibly be suggested that the Government of Punjab formed the trusts under the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 because it wanted to carry on the business as colonizers or developers under the mask of the category “objects of general public utility

Andhra PRadesh Pradesh Fibres Limited vs. Assistant commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, the order passed by the

ITTA/370/2011HC Telangana15 Nov 2011

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,SANJAY KUMAR

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153(3)Section 154Section 260Section 260ASection 80I

Section 80I of the Act to the extent of Rs.1,17,18,570/- was disallowed. Similarly, the provision for leave encashment as well as claim for bonus to the tune of Rs.4,36,546/- as well as Rs.19,75

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

disallowing the claim for deduction under Section 80JJAA of the Act in respect of permanent employees solely on the ground that they were employed for less than 300 days during the relevant previous years despite the fact that they had been employed for periods much longer than 300 days?” Re. substantial questions

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s.Kakinada Co-operative Town Bank Limited

Appeals stands disposed of in the

ITTA/571/2011HC Telangana28 Feb 2012

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

Section 80

disallowing relied upon 4 judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. N.C. Budhiraja & Company : (1993) 204 ITR 412 (SC); Cambay Electric Supply Industrial Company Limited Vs. CIT: (1978) 113 ITR 84 (SC), and CIT Vs. Sterling Foods : (1999) 237 ITR 579 (SC) and held that it is income earned on sale of import entitlements

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV vs. M/S QUALITY CARE INDIA LTD

ITTA/261/2015HC Telangana13 Jul 2016

Bench: A.SHANKAR NARAYANA,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

For Appellant: Mr. J.V. PrasadFor Respondent: The Senior Standing Counsel
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 260A

75,000/- was identified to the assets acquired, which had been capatilized. Therefore, after the total payment of interest to the tune of Rs.6,99,76,000/-, a balance of Rs.2,26,01,000/- had been charged to P & L account as an extraordinary item. 6. After reopening, the Assessing Officer passed an order on 26.12.2011. The assessee filed

M/S.VISWARUPA BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS(P)LTD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-3

The appeal is dismissed

ITTA/152/2005HC Telangana22 Nov 2017

Bench: This Court As Arising From The Impugned Order Of The Itat Read As Under:

Section 133ASection 142Section 158BSection 69

75,215/- The returns of Ram Ratan Bank, HUF and Bhagawat Devi Banka for AY 2001-02 were also examined and the cash balance with the two of them worked out Rs.10,48,231/-. Since this was not disclosed before IT authorities, Section 69A of the IT Act was invoked only as regards this amount and the disallowance

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

disallowance. We feel the assessee should be allowed to write back the depreciation for this year and even for previous and then allow the same to be carried forward for application for subsequent years. It is for the assessee to write back depreciation and if Hi >- V II done the Assessing Officer will modify the assessment determining higher income

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

disallowed. These were put during the cross-examination of Bankey, PW 30. They are: Q. Did you state to the investigating officer that the gang rolled the dead bodies of Nathi, Saktu and Bharat Singh and scrutinized them, and did you tell him that the face of Asa Ram resembled that of the deceased Bharat Singh? Q. Did you state

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

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer and in allowing the amortization of expenses. Consequently, Ground No.B (1 to 6) of the Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2008-09 and Ground No.C for Assessment Year 2009-10 are dismissed.” 17. In our opinion, the matter is squarely covered by a decision of the cognate Bench of this Court

The Director of Income Tax, (Exemptions) vs. Royal Education Society

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

ITTA/392/2016HC Telangana20 Oct 2016

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 260Section 260A

disallowance of contribution 6 under various heads and held that such contributions are allowable expenses. However, the tribunal did not grant relief with regard to the additional claim of loss made by the assessee on account of sale of securities on the ground that the aforesaid additional claim was not made in original assessment proceeding. Thus, the appeal was partly

Commissioner of Income Tax-1 vs. The Associated Taners

The appeal is dismissed

ITTA/271/2005HC Telangana14 Mar 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 2(22)(e)Section 43BSection 45

Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. Question No.3 10. On this issue we notice that three amounts were sought to be disallowed by the AO. The first item pertains to expenditure incurred by the assessee for the construction of a hotel in Sri Nagar. In appeal the CIT noticed that the assessee had conceded to a ratio of 75

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

disallowing amendment is well structured and therefore, it should be left with impunity. Let us examine these rival contentions. 11.2 The vehement submission of Sri.S.S.Naganand that the 1st defendant lost the challenge to the trial court’s order rejecting Amendment Application, going by the record, is partly true. Defendant’s W.P.Nos.4956- 4959/2012 (GM-CPC) challenging said order along with

The Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s. K.C.P.Limited

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed

ITTA/433/2011HC Telangana13 Mar 2012
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 260

disallowed. The assessee thereupon preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who by an order dated 22.07.2010 dismissed the appeal preferred by the assessee. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by an order dated 15.07.2011, inter alia held that reopening of the assessment under Section 147 read with Section