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.

54 results for “disallowance”+ Section 10(30)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai3,366Delhi3,102Chennai929Bangalore755Hyderabad680Ahmedabad671Jaipur620Kolkata488Pune368Chandigarh303Raipur260Indore245Surat221Rajkot192Amritsar147Visakhapatnam141Cochin133Nagpur125Lucknow114SC98Cuttack69Allahabad68Jodhpur67Panaji56Guwahati55Ranchi54Agra54Patna53Dehradun37Jabalpur18Varanasi11A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN4MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1ANIL R. DAVE AMITAVA ROY L. NAGESWARA RAO1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)60Section 12A50Addition to Income37Section 1135Section 153D30Section 153A26Section 37(1)25Natural Justice25Section 6822Section 270A

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA, AGRA vs. ALNOOR EXPORTS, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 274/AGR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra03 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain, CIT DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

10,025/- ( Rs. 1,66,07,634 + Rs. 25,02,391/-) u/s 40(a)(i) of the Act. However, the ITA Nos. 273 & 274/AGR/2024 Alnoor Exports contentions of the assessee were duly appreciated by the ld CIT(A) and disallowance only to the extent of Rs. 1,81,423/- was confirmed by the ld CIT(A) and the remaining

NEETA AGARWAL,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 2(1)(2), AGRA, AGRA

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

Showing 1–20 of 54 · Page 1 of 3

22
Disallowance17
Bogus Purchases17
ITA 213/AGR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra04 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh(Through Virtual Hearing) Neeta Agarwal, Vs. Income Tax Officer, E-23, New Agra, Agra Ward-2(1)(2), Agra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaxpa0936E Assessee By : Shri Amit Goyal, Adv Shri Nitin Goyal, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/12/2025

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goyal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 234BSection 271(1)Section 68Section 69C

disallowance of exemption of Rs. 95,20,372 being the long term capital gain arising on transfer of shares Capital Trade Link Ltd. Under section 10(38) of I.T.Act, 1961. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in enhancing the income

ABC PAPER PRODUCTS,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(1)(1) AGRA, AGRA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 146/AGR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra24 Jun 2025AY 2018-19
Section 10(37)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)

disallowed the claim for reason that no notification\nwas issued by the Central Government in terms of section 105(3) of the Act. Therefore, only\nissue remained for our consideration is whether any notification as provided in section\n105(3) is issued by the Central Government to this effect or not.\n16.3. Section 96 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 provides

MONIKA RATHORE,GWALIOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1, MORENA

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

ITA 290/AGR/2024[MONIKA RATHORE]Status: DisposedITAT Agra06 Feb 2025

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2023-24

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 90

30, 2024 (DIN: CPC/2324/A2/418115720, Demand Reference Number: 2024202337247266003T), wherein the Foreign Tax Credit of Rs. 10,95,293 claimed under Section 90/90A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, has been denied. This denial is erroneous and contrary to the provisions of the Act. 3. That appellant has duly complied with the provisions of Section 90/90A of the Income

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),AGRA, AGRA vs. EMCO EXPORTS, AGRA

In the result, revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 415/AGR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Agra15 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 195Section 250Section 40Section 9

30, 1995 the CBDT has clarified that the tax deductor can take into consideration the effect of DTAA in respect of payment of royalties and technical fees while deducting TAS. It may also be noted that Section 195(1) is in identical terms with Section 18(3B) of the 1922 Act. In CIT Vs. Cooper Engineering

VECTUS INDUSTRIES LTD.,GWALIOR vs. DCIT/ACIT 1(1), GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6/AGR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra06 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Shailender Shrivastava, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

10. On merits, we find that the Learned AO had merely disallowed a particular claim of deduction under section 80IC of the Act on certain items. Hence there cannot be any levy of penalty on disallowance of a claim of deduction. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance

VECTUS INDUSTRIES LTD.,,GWALIOR vs. DCIT/ACIT 1(1), GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8/AGR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra06 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Shailender Shrivastava, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

10. On merits, we find that the Learned AO had merely disallowed a particular claim of deduction under section 80IC of the Act on certain items. Hence there cannot be any levy of penalty on disallowance of a claim of deduction. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance

VECTUS INDUSTRIES LTD.,,GWALIOR vs. DCIT/ACIT 1(1) , GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7/AGR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra06 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Shailender Shrivastava, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

10. On merits, we find that the Learned AO had merely disallowed a particular claim of deduction under section 80IC of the Act on certain items. Hence there cannot be any levy of penalty on disallowance of a claim of deduction. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance

SATISH PRAKASH AGARWAL,AGRA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2)(1), AGRA, AGRA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 113/AGR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra07 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 since the unsecured loans were utilized for making investment in the partnership firm from where income in the form of interest and remuneration was earned and offered for tax in the income-tax return. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1, MORENA vs. SHRI AGRASEN LOGISTICS, JOTAI ROAD, PORSA,

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 108/AGR/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Agra24 Jun 2025AY 2022-23
Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68

disallowed interest claimed/paid in relation\nto those credits in assessment year under consideration or even in subsequent assessment\nyears, and tax at source had been deducted out of interest paid/credited to creditors,\nTribunal was justified in deleting addition made - Held, yes - Whether as there was no\nsubstance in appeal and no substantial question of law arose, appeal was liable

MAYA SHIKSHAN PASHISHAN SANSTHAN,HATHRAS vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD-4(3)(4), HATHRAS

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 235/AGR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 143(1)Section 249(2)Section 250

disallowed and tax was imposed on the entire gross receipts vide order dated 31.01.2020 u/s. 143(1) of the Act. 3. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before learned CIT(Appeals), who dismissed assessee’s first appeal in limine, being beyond the period of limitation as provided u/s. 249(2) of the Act. 4. This second appeal has been filed

MR. TASAVVER HUSAIN,FARRUKHABAD vs. ACIT, FARRUKHABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 95/AGR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra19 May 2025AY 2017-18

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

Section 270A

30% of the tax payable on the underreported income and the other default attracting penalty at the rate of 200% of the tax payable on such income.While subsection (1) to (7) of section 270A deal with underreporting of income, sub section (8) & (9) deal with underreporting as a consequence of misreporting.This is evident from a bare perusal of the provisions

MR. TASAVVER HUSAIN,FARRUKHABAD vs. ACIT , FARRUKHABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 96/AGR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra19 May 2025AY 2017-18

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

Section 270A

30% of the tax payable on the underreported income and the other default attracting penalty at the rate of 200% of the tax payable on such income.While subsection (1) to (7) of section 270A deal with underreporting of income, sub section (8) & (9) deal with underreporting as a consequence of misreporting.This is evident from a bare perusal of the provisions

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 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

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 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 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

DEEPAK POPTANI,AGRA vs. J.A.O CIRCLE 1(1)(1), AGRA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 42/AGR/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Agra26 Nov 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2019-20

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 254(2)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 43B

10, Kailash Vs. Assessing Officer, Vihar, Bye Pass Road, Agra. Circle 1(1)(1), Agra. PAN : AAXPP0723C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Naveen Gargh, Advocate Department by Sh. Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. DR Date of hearing 15.10.2025 Date of pronouncement 26.11.2025 ORDER PER : SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal was originally preferred by assessee against the impugned order dated

S G COMMERCIAL,JHANSI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AGRA

Appeals stand allowed

ITA 364/AGR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.364/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.365/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.368/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.370/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19; Smc Bench) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.366/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 6. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.367/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 7. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.369/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 8. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.371/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Acit (Central Circle) M/Ss G Commercial बनाम/ Vs. 452/2A, Cp Mission Compound Agra Jhansi Up 284003

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain – Ld. CIT DR
Section 132Section 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 271DSection 40A(3)Section 68

disallowance of cash expenditure u/s 40A(3) for Rs.47.39 Lacs under the head of land purchase, site development expense, interest expenses and misc. expenses. The Ld. AO did not make separate addition of on-money allegedly received by the assessee since the same was incorporated by the auditor in re-casted financial statements. The Ld. AO also noted that