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.

56 results for “disallowance”+ Section 2(22)(e)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai3,136Delhi2,483Chennai944Bangalore652Ahmedabad610Jaipur517Kolkata464Hyderabad369Indore278Pune248Raipur223Chandigarh222Surat193Rajkot158Cochin150Visakhapatnam143Nagpur119Lucknow98SC91Amritsar67Guwahati58Cuttack58Agra56Ranchi50Panaji50Jodhpur49Allahabad48Patna31Dehradun21Jabalpur20Varanasi14A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN6MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1ANIL R. DAVE AMITAVA ROY L. NAGESWARA RAO1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1RANJAN GOGOI PRAFULLA C. PANT1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)62Addition to Income43Section 153D30Section 270A26Section 37(1)25Section 6824Section 153A24Section 143(1)23Disallowance22Natural Justice

SHRI VINAY CHAURASIA,CHHATARPUR vs. P. CIT, GWALIOR

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 89/AGR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Apr 2025AY 2011-12
For Appellant: \nSh. Rajendra Sharma, Adv. – Ld. ARFor Respondent: \nDr. Arun Kumar Yadav – Ld. CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 263

disallowing expenses. The Pr. CIT invoked revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263, alleging the AO failed to examine credit entries of Rs. 50 Lacs and the differential interest income, and also failed to consider Section 2(22)(e

BUNDELKHAND GRAMOTTHAN EVAM SHAIKCHHIK VIKAS SAMITI,JHANSI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD EXEMPTION, AGRA

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

Showing 1–20 of 56 · Page 1 of 3

21
Penalty19
Section 14817
ITA 497/AGR/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Agra05 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2021-22

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 154Section 250

22. 2. At the time of hearing, it was noticed that there is a delay of one day in filing this appeal. The same is condoned in the interest of justice. 3. At the time of hearing, learned AR of the assessee submitted that the assessee is a trust and registered u/s. 12A/12AA/12AB of the Act and the assessee

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)

e-Assessment Centre, Delhi Agra (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. AO’). None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite issuance of notice on various occasions. Hence we proceed to dispose of these appeals on hearing the Ld DR and based on materials available on record. ITA Nos. 273 & 274/AGR/2024 Alnoor Exports 2. The Ground Nos. 1 to 3 raised

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

E R PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.: 1. The appeal in ITA Nos. 86 and 87/AGR/2025 for AYs 2017-18 and 2018-19, arise out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kanpur [hereinafter referred to as „ld. CIT(A)‟, in short] dated 10.01.2024 against the order of assessment passed u/s 153A

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

E R PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.: 1. The appeal in ITA Nos. 86 and 87/AGR/2025 for AYs 2017-18 and 2018-19, arise out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kanpur [hereinafter referred to as „ld. CIT(A)‟, in short] dated 10.01.2024 against the order of assessment passed u/s 153A

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

disallowance has formed the basis of imposition of penalty in the case of the person for the same or any other assessment year. (12) The penalty referred to in sub-section (1) shall be imposed, by an order in writing, by the Assessing Officer, 97[the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or] the Commissioner (Appeals), the Commissioner or the Principal Commissioner

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

disallowance has formed the basis of imposition of penalty in the case of the person for the same or any other assessment year. (12) The penalty referred to in sub-section (1) shall be imposed, by an order in writing, by the Assessing Officer, 97[the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or] the Commissioner (Appeals), the Commissioner or the Principal Commissioner

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

22,700/-. The assessment under section 143(3) was completed on 31.03.2016, assessing total income of assessee at Rs.2,59,89,010/- after rejecting assessee’s books of account u/s. 145(3) of the IT Act, 1961 and making additions on account of low net profit and disallowance of depreciation claimed on fixed assets. In first appeal preferred against

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

22,700/-. The assessment under section 143(3) was completed on 31.03.2016, assessing total income of assessee at Rs.2,59,89,010/- after rejecting assessee’s books of account u/s. 145(3) of the IT Act, 1961 and making additions on account of low net profit and disallowance of depreciation claimed on fixed assets. In first appeal preferred against

HMA AGRO INDUSTRIES LIMITED,AGRA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA, AGRA

In the result, ground no.1 raised by the Revenue is accordingly dismissed

ITA 251/AGR/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Agra04 Dec 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhhma Agro Industries Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle, 2/220, 2Nd Floor, Glory Plaza, Agra. Opp. Soor Sadan, M.G. Road, Agra – 282 002. (Pan :Aacch0450J)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 40ASection 68

22, 2022-23 & 2023-24. 2. Since the issues are common and the appeals are connected, hence the same are heard together and being disposed off by this common order. 3. First, we take up ITA No.251/Agr/2025 for AY 2018-19 filed by the assessee against the order of PCIT u/s 263 and the brief facts of the case

ACIT, CC, AGRA, AGRA vs. HMA AGRO INDUSTRIES LIMITED,, AGRA

In the result, ground no.1 raised by the Revenue is accordingly dismissed

ITA 301/AGR/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Agra04 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhhma Agro Industries Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle, 2/220, 2Nd Floor, Glory Plaza, Agra. Opp. Soor Sadan, M.G. Road, Agra – 282 002. (Pan :Aacch0450J)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 40ASection 68

22, 2022-23 & 2023-24. 2. Since the issues are common and the appeals are connected, hence the same are heard together and being disposed off by this common order. 3. First, we take up ITA No.251/Agr/2025 for AY 2018-19 filed by the assessee against the order of PCIT u/s 263 and the brief facts of the case

ACIT, CC, AGRA, AGRA vs. HMA AGRO INDUSTRIES LIMITED,, AGRA

In the result, ground no.1 raised by the Revenue is accordingly dismissed

ITA 303/AGR/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Agra04 Dec 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhhma Agro Industries Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle, 2/220, 2Nd Floor, Glory Plaza, Agra. Opp. Soor Sadan, M.G. Road, Agra – 282 002. (Pan :Aacch0450J)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 40ASection 68

22, 2022-23 & 2023-24. 2. Since the issues are common and the appeals are connected, hence the same are heard together and being disposed off by this common order. 3. First, we take up ITA No.251/Agr/2025 for AY 2018-19 filed by the assessee against the order of PCIT u/s 263 and the brief facts of the case

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

E R PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.: 1. The appeal in ITA Nos. 06, 07 & 08/AGR/2023 for AYs 2012-13, 2017- 18 & 2018-19, arises out of the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as „ld. NFAC‟, in short] dated 22.11.2022 against the order of assessment passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income

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

E R PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.: 1. The appeal in ITA Nos. 06, 07 & 08/AGR/2023 for AYs 2012-13, 2017- 18 & 2018-19, arises out of the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as „ld. NFAC‟, in short] dated 22.11.2022 against the order of assessment passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income

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

E R PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.: 1. The appeal in ITA Nos. 06, 07 & 08/AGR/2023 for AYs 2012-13, 2017- 18 & 2018-19, arises out of the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as „ld. NFAC‟, in short] dated 22.11.2022 against the order of assessment passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income

SH SANJAY BANSAL ,MORENA vs. A.C.I.T (CENTRAL), GWALIOR

In the result, assessee's appeal is dismissed

ITA 31/AGR/2022[2012 - 13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 Apr 2025

Bench: learned CIT(Appeals) who has very exhaustively passed the impugned order in 60 pages and considered all the submissions of the assessee in the tabulated form and otherwise, which need not to be repeated again for the sake of brevity. However, learned CIT(Appeals) partly allowed assessee's appeal confirming the addition only to the extent of Rs.71,44,045/- as against addition of Rs.91,06,669/-. 4. Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal on the following grounds : "1.Because in any view, th

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69

22,200/-. Assessee stated to be the proprietor of M/s. Bharat Veg. Oils Trade Co. It was also stressed that the assessee operated account No. 9028201000000170 in Bank of India in the name of M/s. G.S. Trading Co., proprietor of which was stated to be the assessee. Aforesaid account and its receipts were not mentioned by the assessee

PRAMOD KUMAR DUBEY,GWALIOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,1(3), GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 314/AGR/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Agra03 Sept 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: BEFORE, SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Manuj Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 111ASection 112ASection 112A(6)Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 87A

E R The appeal in ITA No.314/AGR/2025 for AY 2024-25, arises out of the ld. 1. Addl./JCIT(A)-2, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. Addl. CIT(A)’, in short] in Appeal No.ADDL/JCIT(A)-2, DELHI/10016/2023-24 dated 21.04.2025 against the order of assessment passed u/s 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred

M/S SHIVA PRESERVATION (P) LTD,ETAWAH vs. ITO,W-2(2)(5), ETAWAH

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 165/AGR/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra10 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalita No. 165/Agr./2022 (Assessment Year 2014-15)

For Appellant: Sh. Anurag Sinha, advFor Respondent: Sh.Shalendra Shrivastava, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

e | 2 M/s Shiva Preservation P. Ltd. Section 68 unexplained cash credit addition of Rs.4.25 lacs keeping in view the smallness thereof. Rejected accordingly. 4. The second substantive issue between the parties herein regarding correctness of addition of Rs.63,22,365/- made by both the ld. lower authorities on the ground that the assessee had sold 15% of the potato

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

In the result, the appeal preferred by the assessee is partly

ITA 342/AGR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 143(2)Section 145(3)

22,700/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS. Accordingly, notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire were issued and served on the assessee. In response, the assessee submitted relevant information. The assessee is engaged in the business of processing of milk and manufacturing of milk products etc. The manufacturing

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AGRA vs. ADITYA PANDEY, AGRA

In the result, both the appeals ITA No

ITA 383/AGR/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Agra08 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 271ASection 69ASection 80C

22,850/-. Statutory notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued to the assessee. However, the assessee remained un-responded and finally after issuing show cause notice u/s. 144 dated 27.02.2024, learned Assessing Officer completed the best judgment 2 | P a g e ITA No. 383 & 384/Agr/2025 assessment u/s. 144 of the Act and added Rs.13