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.

5 results for “disallowance”+ Section 36(1)(xvii)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi398Mumbai238Bangalore133Chennai86Nagpur60Kolkata58Jaipur49Ahmedabad41Pune40Hyderabad26Cuttack25Indore23Guwahati21Chandigarh18Telangana17Raipur14Surat13Jodhpur10Amritsar7Cochin7SC6Agra5Visakhapatnam4Lucknow3Allahabad3Varanasi3Patna1Rajasthan1Ranchi1Panaji1

Key Topics

Section 696Section 2715Section 194C3Section 271(1)(c)3Addition to Income3Section 201(1)2

SMT. SARLA DEVI,ALIGARH vs. ITO WARD 1(1), ALIGARH

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 70/AGR/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Agra17 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69Section 69C

xvii) “Uttam Value Steels Ltd. vs. ACIT”, ITA No.3622 to 3625/Mum/2016. (xviii) “Muninaga Reddy Vs. ACIT”, 396 ITR 398 (Karn). (xix) “Orbit Enterprises Vs. ITO”, ITA Nos. 1596 & 1597/Mum/2014, Order dated 01.09.2017. 9. Per contra, the ld. DR has relied on: “CIT vs. S.V. Angidi Chettiar”, 44 ITR 739 (SC). (a) “Sanjay Kumar & Ajay Kumar vs. ITO, Agra”, ITA Nos.53

SH. SACHIN ARORA,MATHURA vs. I.T.O.-3(4), MATHURA

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

ITA 118/AGR/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Agra19 Dec 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

xvii) “Uttam Value Steels Ltd. vs. ACIT”, ITA No.3622 to 3625/Mum/2016. (xviii) “Muninaga Reddy Vs. ACIT”, 396 ITR 398 (Karn). (xix) “Orbit Enterprises Vs. ITO”, ITA Nos. 1596 & 1597/Mum/2014, Order dated 01.09.2017. 9. Per contra, the ld. DR has relied on: “CIT vs. S.V. Angidi Chettiar”, 44 ITR 739 (SC). (a) “Sanjay Kumar & Ajay Kumar vs. ITO, Agra”, ITA Nos.53

SMT. GARIMA MEHTA,GWALIOR vs. I.T.O., WARD-1(2), GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 343/AGR/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Agra11 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 10ASection 69

disallowed the assessee’s claim u/s 10A on the basis that the 21. assessee did not fulfill the conditions contained in section 10A. It was observed that the business premises of the assessee was not situated either in a Software Technology Park, or in a Special Category Zone, as required by the provisions of section 10A(1) (A); that

GRAM VIKAS KALYAN SANSTHAN,MATHURA vs. I.T.O. (TDS), AGRA

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

ITA 30/AGR/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhgram Vikas Kalyan Sansthan, Vs. Income Tax Officer (Tds), Nagla Aklha, Sonkh – Goverdhan Road, Agra. Mathura – 281 123 (Uttar Pradesh). (Pan : Aaatg3272E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajan Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri Shalenndra Shrivastava, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.10.2025 Date Of Order : 28.10.2025

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shalenndra Shrivastava, Sr. DR
Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)

XVII-B. With the above submission, he submitted that Ronit Developers Pvt. Ltd. has already declared the abovesaid income in their return of income, however the Assessing Officer failed to verify whether the assessee is in default u/s 201/201(1A) of the Act for the amount of Rs.7,50,231/- as per the details submitted before Assessing Officer. He prayed

AGRA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,AGRA vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1, AGRA

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 216/AGR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Agra17 May 2021AY 2011-12
Section 124Section 142Section 153

36,19,196/- while giving effect of the order of ITA No.216/Agr/2016, 183/Agr/2014,439/Agr/2015 & ITA No. 177/Agr/2014 12 CIT(A) u/s 251. The direction as well as addition in wholly illegal which may kindly be directed to be deleted. 31. Because the appellant craves leave to alter/ modify grounds before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.” “(1