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 250clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai4,775Delhi2,623Kolkata1,575Bangalore1,208Ahmedabad966Chennai932Pune660Jaipur638Chandigarh466Hyderabad464Cochin392Amritsar307Indore290Surat277Rajkot214Raipur209Visakhapatnam201Nagpur153Panaji150Lucknow138Guwahati128Patna123Cuttack92Allahabad65Jodhpur58Agra54Ranchi47Jabalpur40Dehradun38Calcutta35Karnataka18Varanasi11SC10Telangana8Punjab & Haryana3Rajasthan2Kerala2Gauhati1Himachal Pradesh1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 12A59Section 1143Addition to Income41Section 25033Section 143(3)23Disallowance23Section 14822Section 14721Deduction21Section 144

M/S. VENUS AUTO FIROZABAD,FIROZABAD vs. ACIT-2 RANGE-5, FIROZABAD

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 64/AGR/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra19 Dec 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenavenus Auto Vs..Dcit-Range-5, Bye Pass Road, Firozabad. Firozabad. Panno.Aacfv2616H (Assessee) (Revenue)

Section 2Section 234BSection 36

250/-, directed the Assessing Officer to recompute the disallowance by giving benefit to the assessee of Rs. 39,45,705/-, being interest free advance available with it and of another Rs. 4 lacs advanced to one Venus Satiate Vehicle Service Pvt. Ltd. which advance has been believed to be made for business purposes.” The assessee’s appeal before

HARI OM AGARWAL,KOLARAS vs. ITO SHIVPURI, ASHOK NAGAR

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

Showing 1–20 of 54 · Page 1 of 3

14
Section 143(2)14
Cash Deposit14
ITA 91/AGR/2024[2017-18]Status: Disposed
ITAT Agra
17 Jan 2025
AY 2017-18

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 37

Section 250 of the Income Tax Act. 8. That the AO has erred on facts and in law while making the addition by disallowing

PEHAL,CHHATARPUR vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), GWALIOR

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

ITA 46/AGR/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra09 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjay Parekh, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

disallowed. Assessee did not comply with the notice(s), which led to denial of deduction u/s. 11 of the Act by the Assessing Officer to the tune of Rs.5,83,244/- claimed by the assessee vide re-assessment order dated 27.03.2015 framed by the Assessing Officer u/s. 144/147 of the 1961 Act. 5. Assessee filed first appeal with

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

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2020-21, wherein learned CIT(A) has allowed assessee’s first appeal for statistical purposes, deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. 2. Briefly stating, the appellant assessee is a partnership firm and was engaged in the business of manufacturing and export

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

250 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") in appeal arising out of the intimation issued under section 143(1) by the CPC, Bengaluru on 28.02.2025, for the assessment year 2024-25. 2. Facts of the Case 2.1 The assessee, an individual resident of India, had originally filed her return of income under section

M/S R.K. BAJPAI,AURAIYA vs. CIT -1, AGRA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 154/AGR/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Agra16 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenam/S R.K. Bajpai, Vs..Dcit,Circle-1, Dibiyapur, Auraiya. Agra. Panno.Aaffr8521G (Assessee) (Revenue)

Section 194CSection 263Section 40Section 40a

disallowance under section, 40a(ia) the Income Tax Act, 1961 of a sum of Rs.4,92,250/- debited towards rent

TOMAR AND BROTHERS,ETAWAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(5), ETAWAH

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 202/AGR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra24 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: :Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 250(6)Section 40

250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). 2. Ground No. 1, 2 & 3 raised by the assessee relate to the addition of Rs.21,12,576/- confirmed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) pertaining to expenses incurred by the assessee in respect of purchase of material, labourexpenses, repair and maintenance, establishment, selling and administrative expenses

RAVINDRA KUMAR RAI,JHANSI vs. ITO , CHAHATARPUR

In the result, all these appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 686/AGR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra04 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 250(6)

disallowance of remuneration paid to the partners and other expenditure in the assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13. 2. At the outset, the ld. AR submitted that the ld. CIT(A) in paragraph No. 5 & 6 of the impugned orders, referring to the orders in the case of CIT vs. B.N. Bhattahargee ITA No. 686/Agra/2018, 13 & 14/Agra/2020

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

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "Act"] for the Assessment Year [A.Y] 2012-13, wherein learned CIT(A) has partly allowed assessee's appeal. ITA No. 31/Agr/ 2022 Brief facts relating to appeal state that assessee filed his return of 2. income for A.Y. 2012-13 declaring total income of Rs.4,22,200/-. Assessee stated

PRAGATI SINGH,GWALIOR vs. CIT, AAYKAR BHAVAN GWALIOR

Appeal of the assessee is allowed in the above terms

ITA 174/AGR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Agra02 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: : Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year:2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 201(1)Section 250(6)Section 40

250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). 2. Grounds raised by the assessee are as under : 1. On the facts and circumstances of the Case The learned C.I.T.(A) erred in confirming disallowance of Rs.2,74,978 under section

M/S A K TRANSPORT AGENCY,FARRUKHABAD vs. CIT APPEAL, ALIGARH

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 328/AGR/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra30 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 154Section 40A

250." I.T.A No. 328/Agra/2016 3 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2010-11) In the present case also, there is no change in the facts or circumstances and the entire material was available before the Assessing Officer during the course of proceedings u/s M3(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. In the landmark judgment of the supreme court in T.S. Balaram

TAHIR KHAN,JHANSI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3)(1), JHANSI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 468/AGR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra15 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 292BSection 56(2)(vii)

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2014-15, wherein learned CIT(A)has dismissed assessee first appeal, confirming the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, vide penalty order dated 16.03.2019. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged

RAKESH KUMAR SHARMA,ETAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(3)(1),, ETAH

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 239/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra15 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 250Section 250oSection 68

250 of the Act is bad in law and on facts and deserves to be quashed. 2. BECAUSE, the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the addition of 1,00,00,000/- made by the AO under section 68 of the Act on account of cash deposit during the demonetization period without due consideration of the fact that

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

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

ZILA SAHKARI KENDRIYA BANK MARYADIT,GUNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GUNA, GUNA

In the result, the both the appeals ITA No

ITA 347/AGR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Agra27 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

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

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(viia)

section 250 of the Act, wherein Ld. CIT(A) has partly allowed/dismissed assessee’sappeals respectively. 2. At the very outset, it is noticed that both the appeals are time-barred by 39-40 days respectively. Delay condonation applications on behalf of Smt. RoshaniRaghuvanshi, staff member of the appellant are on record. The cause for the delay shown, is that

ZILA SAHKARI KENDRIYA BANK MARYADIT,GUNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GUNA, GUNA

In the result, the both the appeals ITA No

ITA 348/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra27 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

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

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(viia)

section 250 of the Act, wherein Ld. CIT(A) has partly allowed/dismissed assessee’sappeals respectively. 2. At the very outset, it is noticed that both the appeals are time-barred by 39-40 days respectively. Delay condonation applications on behalf of Smt. RoshaniRaghuvanshi, staff member of the appellant are on record. The cause for the delay shown, is that

SNEHA PANDEY,ETAWAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 2(2)(5) ETAWAH, ETAWAH

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 138/AGR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Agra30 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for the assessment year 2020-21, wherein learned CIT(Appeals) has dismissed assessee's first appeal, confirming the addition of Rs.26,99,500/- being the difference between the fair market value of property sold of Rs.55,99,500/- and declared sale consideration thereof amounting to Rs.29

SH. SRIDHAR PANDEY,AURAIYA vs. A.C.I.T.-2, AGRA

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 494/AGR/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Agra24 Apr 2025AY 2005-06

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

Section 132Section 153ASection 250

250 (6) of the Income Tax Act 1961( hereinafter referred to as”Act”) dated 31.03.2012 pertaining to assessment year (A.Y) 2005-06 and 2002-03 respectively. 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any application filed seeking adjournment. Since it’s a very old appeal, filed in 2012,it was proceeded to be adjudicated exparte on the basis

SHRI SRIDHAR PANDEY S/O,AURAIYA vs. A.C.I.T.-2, AGRA

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 495/AGR/2012[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Agra24 Apr 2025AY 2002-03

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

Section 132Section 153ASection 250

250 (6) of the Income Tax Act 1961( hereinafter referred to as”Act”) dated 31.03.2012 pertaining to assessment year (A.Y) 2005-06 and 2002-03 respectively. 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any application filed seeking adjournment. Since it’s a very old appeal, filed in 2012,it was proceeded to be adjudicated exparte on the basis