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.

46 results for “disallowance”+ Reopening of Assessmentclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai5,052Delhi2,054Chennai1,225Kolkata717Bangalore674Ahmedabad472Jaipur357Pune249Hyderabad240Chandigarh194Surat173Rajkot158Raipur141Indore129Cochin113Visakhapatnam83Lucknow81Nagpur67Amritsar67Guwahati59Agra46Cuttack41Allahabad34Jodhpur31Patna30Calcutta21Ranchi19Karnataka18Dehradun16Panaji13SC13Telangana8Jabalpur8Kerala7Punjab & Haryana5Orissa3Varanasi2Himachal Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 12A53Section 14750Section 14848Section 1140Addition to Income37Section 143(3)32Disallowance19Reassessment19Section 6818Section 263

HARDAYAL MILK PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,SHIKOHABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), FIROZABAD, FIROZABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee are allowed

ITA 344/AGR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68

disallowance of depreciation claimed on fixed assets. In first appeal preferred against the above said assessment order dated 31.03.2016, learned CIT(A) vide order dated 25.06.2025 affirmed the rejection of accounts and sustained the addition made by AO on account of low profit rate. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal in ITA No.342/Agr/2025 before the ITAT, which has been partly allowed

Showing 1–20 of 46 · Page 1 of 3

17
Section 14414
Deduction13

HARDAYAL MILK PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,SHIKOHABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), FIROZABAD, FIROZABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee are allowed

ITA 343/AGR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68

disallowance of depreciation claimed on fixed assets. In first appeal preferred against the above said assessment order dated 31.03.2016, learned CIT(A) vide order dated 25.06.2025 affirmed the rejection of accounts and sustained the addition made by AO on account of low profit rate. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal in ITA No.342/Agr/2025 before the ITAT, which has been partly allowed

SH. YUGAL KISHOR AGARWAL,AGRA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 4(3)(1), ETAH

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3/AGR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra15 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 57

Assessing officer was not having any jurisdiction on the appellant. 4) That the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi has erred in law and on facts in sustaining the disallowance of expenses of Rs 12,15,413/- 5) That the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi has erred in law and on facts in sustaining the disallowance of loss

HYDRISE FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED,NOIDA, UTTAR PRADESH, INDIA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA, AGRA, UTTAR PRADESH, INDIA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 86/AGR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra04 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh(Through Virtual Hearing)

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain, CIT DR
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

reopening and whether the reason to belief of Assessing Officer is founded on an information which has been received by the Assessing Officer after completion of assessment and that can be a sound foundation for exercising power under Section 147 read with Section 148 of the Act. Hence, this decision also cannot be equated with the approval as amended under

HYDRISE FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED,UTTAR PRADESH, INDIA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA, AGRA, UTTAR PRADESH, INDIA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 87/AGR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra04 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh(Through Virtual Hearing)

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain, CIT DR
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

reopening and whether the reason to belief of Assessing Officer is founded on an information which has been received by the Assessing Officer after completion of assessment and that can be a sound foundation for exercising power under Section 147 read with Section 148 of the Act. Hence, this decision also cannot be equated with the approval as amended under

SHYAMA SHYAM INFRADEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,AGRA vs. ITO 2(1)(2), AGRA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 503/AGR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra23 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshshyama Shyam Vs. Ito, Infradevelopers Pvt Ltd, Ward-2(1)(2), Khasra No. 961, Bhahistabad, Agra Sikandra, Agra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aatcs9899R Assessee By : Shri Gaurav Agarwal, Ca Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 21/01/2026 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148

reopening the assessment. For the purpose of disallowance of expenditure incurred towards bricks and labour payments, the ld Assessing Officer

JOURA CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING SOCIETY LIMITED ,MORENA, MADHYA PRADESH vs. ITO, MORENA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 237/AGR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra19 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2018-19 Joura Co-Operative Marketing Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Society Limited Ward-1, Morena The Joura Dist Morena Dist. Morena Pan :Aabaj1828K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri S. N. Agarwal, Ca Department By Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026 Order

Section 144Section 148Section 151Section 68

reopened on the basis of cash deposits made during the year. He brought to our notice page 10 of the assessment order and submitted that the Assessing Officer proceeded to estimate 5% of the cash deposit and further submitted that he has 4 | P a g e estimated the income of 5% on the total cash deposit made

JILA SAHAKARI KENDRIYA BANK MARYADIT,RAJENDRA PARK TIKAMGARH vs. ACIT, GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 27/AGR/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Agra02 Apr 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2009-10]

Section 144Section 148

reopened the assessment on the ground that for AY 2009-10, the assessee had carried forward excessive losses to the extent of Rs.6,78,84,879/- with the potential tax effect of Rs.2,03,56,464/-. The details of carry forward losses are mentioned at page no.2 and 3 of the assessment order. The Assessing Officer disallowed

M/S AGRA PRODUCTS PVT.LTD.,GAUTAM BUDDHA NAGAR vs. DEPUTY C.I.T CIRCLE -2(1)(1), AGRA

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 121/AGR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.121/Agr/2019 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S Agra Products Pvt. Ltd. Dcit-Circle-2(1)(1), बनाम/ Plot No. 99, Phase-Ii, Nsez, Noida, Agra Vs. Gautum Bhuddha Nagar, U.P. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aadca-3621-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Pankaj Gargh (Advocate) – Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Shailendra Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.04.2025

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Gargh (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Shailendra Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

disallowance of expense for Rs.1 Lacs. However, the assessment was reopened, apparently, at the behest of audit objection and notice

ALAUDDIN,AGRA vs. ITO, WARD 1(1)(1), AGRA, AGRA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 241/AGR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra20 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 2(14)Section 250Section 54

disallowed the balance claim of Rs.28,04,546/- made by the assessee with respect to purchase of second new property No. 19/1, situated at Tila Ajmeri Ghati Mamu Bhanja, Agra consisting of 4 shops and one room, treating it as a commercial property and added the same to the total income 4 | P a g e of the assessee, vide

AVNEESH KUMAR CHATURVEDI,AGRA vs. I.T.O-2(2), AGRA

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 386/AGR/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Agra25 Jul 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us[Assessment Year: 2008-09]

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)

reopening the assessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, even when there was no failure on part of appellant to disclose fully and truly all material facts. 2) That the authorities below have erred in law and on facts by confirming addition amounting to Rs.3,61,123/- between the amount shown in audit report and payment

SHUSHIL KUMAR GAUTAM,GABHANA ALIGARH vs. ASSESSING OFFICER 4(1)(1), ALIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4/AGR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra18 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2015-16]

Section 115BSection 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 28Section 30Section 44ASection 69A

reopened u/s 147 of the act. 2. Because the assessment order was wrongly passed u/s 144 of the act. 3. Because the Ld CIT(A) has erred in stating that no compliance was made to any of the notices issued by him. He has erred in not giving reasonable opportunity to the appellant. 4. Because addition

SAGAR DWELLINGS P LTD,NEAR SUN TEMPLE GWALIOR vs. ACIT, FACELESS

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 373/AGR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra16 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

reopen the case of assessee u/s. 147 after recording the following reasons : “The assessee had filed its return of income for assessment year 2014-15 on 26/09/2014, showing loss of Rs. 1,07,09,823/-. Detailed investigations were carried out by the department in respect of bank account number 0545102000005296 with IDBI Bank, Thorat Place, Naya Bazar, Gwalior, which

SOMANI CHARITABLE TRUST,GWALIOR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, GWALIOR

The appeals of the assessee stand allowed in above terms

ITA 223/AGR/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Agra16 Apr 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: :Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 11Section 119(2)(b)Section 12Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 250(6)

disallowing expenditure u/s. 11 & 12 ofthe Act is upheld particularly because of the fact that as per section 119(2)(b) of theAct the CIT(A) is not authorized to admit application or claim of exemption which saysthat “ the Board may, if it considers it desirable or expedient so to do for avoidinggenuine hardship in any case or class

SOMANI CHARITABLE TRUST,GWALIOR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, GWALIOR

The appeals of the assessee stand allowed in above terms

ITA 219/AGR/2024[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Agra16 Apr 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: :Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 11Section 119(2)(b)Section 12Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 250(6)

disallowing expenditure u/s. 11 & 12 ofthe Act is upheld particularly because of the fact that as per section 119(2)(b) of theAct the CIT(A) is not authorized to admit application or claim of exemption which saysthat “ the Board may, if it considers it desirable or expedient so to do for avoidinggenuine hardship in any case or class

SOMANI CHARITABLE TRUST,GWALIOR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, , GWALIOR

The appeals of the assessee stand allowed in above terms

ITA 221/AGR/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Agra16 Apr 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: :Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 11Section 119(2)(b)Section 12Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 250(6)

disallowing expenditure u/s. 11 & 12 ofthe Act is upheld particularly because of the fact that as per section 119(2)(b) of theAct the CIT(A) is not authorized to admit application or claim of exemption which saysthat “ the Board may, if it considers it desirable or expedient so to do for avoidinggenuine hardship in any case or class

SOMANI CHARITABLE TRUST,GWALIOR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, GWALIOR

The appeals of the assessee stand allowed in above terms

ITA 220/AGR/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Agra16 Apr 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: :Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 11Section 119(2)(b)Section 12Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 250(6)

disallowing expenditure u/s. 11 & 12 ofthe Act is upheld particularly because of the fact that as per section 119(2)(b) of theAct the CIT(A) is not authorized to admit application or claim of exemption which saysthat “ the Board may, if it considers it desirable or expedient so to do for avoidinggenuine hardship in any case or class

SOMANI CHARITABLE TRUST,GWALIOR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, GWALIOR

The appeals of the assessee stand allowed in above terms

ITA 222/AGR/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Agra16 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: :Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 11Section 119(2)(b)Section 12Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 250(6)

disallowing expenditure u/s. 11 & 12 ofthe Act is upheld particularly because of the fact that as per section 119(2)(b) of theAct the CIT(A) is not authorized to admit application or claim of exemption which saysthat “ the Board may, if it considers it desirable or expedient so to do for avoidinggenuine hardship in any case or class

SURESH CHANDRA SADH,NEW DELHI vs. CIRCLE 4(1)(1),, ALIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 178/AGR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra30 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2016-17]

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 68

disallowed the Long Term Capital Gains of Rs.80,17,339/- and made addition of the said amount u/s 68 of the Act. In this regard, the factual finding of the Assessing Officer in para 8 to 12 of the assessment order is reproduced as under:- “8. The assessee originally invested in 2,50,000 shares of M/s Fidelo Power

PUNEET KUMAR GUPTA,KAMLA NAGAR AGRA vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SANJAY PLACE AGRA

Appeal is allowed

ITA 158/AGR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Agra10 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalpuneet Kumar Gupta Vs. Dcit, D/579/4 , Kamla Nagar, Sanjay Palace Agra, Uttar Pradesh Uttar Pradesh 282005 282002 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No:Abhpg4032A Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Nitin Goyal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sukesh Kumar Jain, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

reopening itself. This is for the precise reason as that the Assessing Officer had set into motion section 148/147 proceeding against the assessee after recording reason that his section 68 unexplained cash credit amounting to Rs.82.21 crores had escaped assessment whereas the consequential assessment framed on 28.12.2018 ended up in making various disallowance