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.

21 results for “disallowance”+ Section 46Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi871Mumbai707Kolkata244Chennai224Ahmedabad173Hyderabad138Bangalore123Jaipur85Pune84Amritsar73Chandigarh59Indore56Raipur56Visakhapatnam54Surat48Cuttack43Rajkot37Lucknow29Guwahati28Allahabad24Agra21Nagpur19Panaji10Patna9Jodhpur9Dehradun8Cochin8Varanasi5Telangana4Jabalpur3Ranchi3Karnataka3SC1Calcutta1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Addition to Income20Section 14714Section 14814Section 271(1)(b)10Section 69A9Section 689Penalty9Disallowance9Section 1517Section 144B

GOPALDAS SHIVHARE,GUNA vs. ACIT CIRCLE-3, AGRA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 136/AGR/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra21 Dec 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

Section 234BSection 40ASection 40A(3)

section 40A(3) of the IT Act: S. No. Date of Particulars Amount Payment paid in cash 1. 8.8.2009 Metro Cold (11900 + 11500) 23,400/- 2. 8.8.2009 New Modern Hot & Cold 21,900/- (11900 + 10,000) Total 45,300/- I.T.A No. 136/Agra/2016 4 Again the assessee could not furnish any reply, or the concerned bills and vouchers

ACIT CIRCLE-2, GWALIOR vs. SHARMA & ASSOCIATES FIRETECH PVT LTD, GWALIOR

In the result, we do not find any error as the assessee has failed to establish the

ITA 352/AGR/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra

Showing 1–20 of 21 · Page 1 of 2

7
House Property7
Unexplained Money7
19 Aug 2019
AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaassessment Year: 2010-11

46A. Since there is no ground raised before us whereby the assessee has challenged the order of the ld. CIT(A) for rejecting the application for filing the additional document/evidence, in our view the assessee does not deserve any indulgence from this Tribunal. Accordingly, the Ground No.1 of cross objection is dismissed. Besides the above, we are of the opinionthat

DCIT EXMP.CIRCLE, BHOPAL vs. BIRLA JAN SEWA TRUST, GWALIOR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 147/AGR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra20 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(3)

disallowance because he was of the opinion that excessive payment has been made by the appellant to these persons. (ii) Payment to Dr. RavishankarDalmia- Dr. Dalmia is DM Cardiology and HOD of DMBIMR Heart Center. The gross receipts of this heart center in the financial year 2010-11 was Rs.2,39,60,000/- and the appellant has paid as salary

VINOD KUMAR GUPTA,JHANSI vs. ITO, WARD-2(3)(1), JHANSI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 388/AGR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra26 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

For Appellant: Shri Anurag Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 271(1)(b)Section 69A

Section 144B of the Act on 26.03.2022 wherein, loss from house property of Rs. 52,567/- was disallowed apart from making addition on account of unexplained money u/s 69A in respect of credits in the bank account in the sum of Rs. 28,20,500 and denying deduction under Chapter VIA to the tune of Rs. 2,50,000/-. These

VINOD KUMAR GUPTA,JHANSI vs. ITO, WARD-2(3)(1), JHANSI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 389/AGR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra26 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh**

For Appellant: Shri Anurag Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 271(1)(b)Section 69A

Section 144B of the Act on 26.03.2022 wherein, loss from house property of Rs. 52,567/- was disallowed apart from making addition on account of unexplained money u/s 69A in respect of credits in the bank account in the sum of Rs. 28,20,500 and denying deduction under Chapter VIA to the tune of Rs. 2,50,000/-. These

VINOD KUMAR GUPTA,JHANSI vs. ITO, WARD-2(3)(1), JHANSI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 390/AGR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra26 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh**

For Appellant: Shri Anurag Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 271(1)(b)Section 69A

Section 144B of the Act on 26.03.2022 wherein, loss from house property of Rs. 52,567/- was disallowed apart from making addition on account of unexplained money u/s 69A in respect of credits in the bank account in the sum of Rs. 28,20,500 and denying deduction under Chapter VIA to the tune of Rs. 2,50,000/-. These

VINOD KUMAR GUPTA,JHANSI vs. ITO, WARD-2(3)(1), JHANSI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 368/AGR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra26 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

For Appellant: Shri Anurag Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 271(1)(b)Section 69A

Section 144B of the Act on 26.03.2022 wherein, loss from house property of Rs. 52,567/- was disallowed apart from making addition on account of unexplained money u/s 69A in respect of credits in the bank account in the sum of Rs. 28,20,500 and denying deduction under Chapter VIA to the tune of Rs. 2,50,000/-. These

VINOD KUMAR GUPTA,JHANSI vs. ITO, WARD-2(3)(1), JHANSI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 367/AGR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra26 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

For Appellant: Shri Anurag Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 271(1)(b)Section 69A

Section 144B of the Act on 26.03.2022 wherein, loss from house property of Rs. 52,567/- was disallowed apart from making addition on account of unexplained money u/s 69A in respect of credits in the bank account in the sum of Rs. 28,20,500 and denying deduction under Chapter VIA to the tune of Rs. 2,50,000/-. These

VINOD KUMAR GUPTA,JHANSI vs. ITO, WARD-2(3)(1), JHANSI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 369/AGR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra26 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh**

For Appellant: Shri Anurag Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 271(1)(b)Section 69A

Section 144B of the Act on 26.03.2022 wherein, loss from house property of Rs. 52,567/- was disallowed apart from making addition on account of unexplained money u/s 69A in respect of credits in the bank account in the sum of Rs. 28,20,500 and denying deduction under Chapter VIA to the tune of Rs. 2,50,000/-. These

VINOD KUMAR GUPTA,JHANSI vs. ITO, WARD-2(3)(1), JHANSI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 391/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra26 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh**

For Appellant: Shri Anurag Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 271(1)(b)Section 69A

Section 144B of the Act on 26.03.2022 wherein, loss from house property of Rs. 52,567/- was disallowed apart from making addition on account of unexplained money u/s 69A in respect of credits in the bank account in the sum of Rs. 28,20,500 and denying deduction under Chapter VIA to the tune of Rs. 2,50,000/-. These

MANISH MAHESHWARI,GWALIOR vs. JCIT RANGE-2, GWALIOR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 308/AGR/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra26 Sept 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Him Though Specific Request Was Made To Admit The Same. Ground No. 2 (I) Because The Ld. Cit(A) Has Wrongly, Illegally & Arbitrarily Confirmed Theaddition Of Rs. 67,530/- Made By The Assessing Officer U/S 40A(3) Of The Income Tax Act. (Ii) Because The Ld. Cit(A) Has Legally Erred In Rejecting The Appellant'Sspecificsubmissionand The Unavoidable Circumstances Under Which The Payment Wasmade. Ground No. 3 (I) Because The Ld. Cit(A) Has Wrongly, Illegally & Arbitrarily Confirmed An Addition Of Rs. 1,11,038/- Made By The Assessing Officer By Disallowing The Claim Of Interest Paid Holding The Same To Be Not Allowable U/S 57(Iii) Of The Income Tax Act.”

Section 133Section 40A(3)Section 57Section 68

disallowing the claim of interest paid holding the same to be not allowable u/s 57(iii) of the Income Tax Act.” 2. Apropos Ground No.1, the assessee has objected the addition of Rs.2.00 lakhs made u/s 68 of the Act on account of unsecured loan. 3. The Assessing Officer has observed in Para 3.5 of the assessment orderas under

DY C.I.T.-3, MATHURA vs. M/S KOSHDA BUILDCON PVT. LTD., MATHURA

In the result, this appeal filed by the Revenue stands allowed for

ITA 315/AGR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra27 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma[Assessment Year: 2014-15]

Section 143(3)

section 32. Thus, under the facts and circumstances of this case, no addition in respect of these expenses totaling Rs. 2, 10,05,436/- can be legally made. • The remaining disallowed expenses total Rs. 3,07,55,984/- , out of which Rs.2,81,61,680/- are categorized under the head of Finance Charges while the rest are marketing expenses

MADHURI JAISWAL,GWALIOR, MADHYA PRADESH vs. DCIT/ACIT 3(1), GWL, GWALIOR, MADHYAPRADESH

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 217/AGR/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Agra15 Jan 2026AY 2017-2018

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

Section 143(2)Section 68

section 68 cannot be applied in respect of income from a source which has already been taxed which would amount to double taxation, Gross Receipt from business has been accepted by assessing officer during the course of assessment, never rejected the books of account as well as no any expenses were disallowed of PL. account whereas case was selected

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

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

M/S NAVADA EDUCATIONAL TRUST,AGRA vs. ITO 4(3), AGRA

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

ITA 296/AGR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Agra21 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

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

Section 12A

section 12AA of the Act by Ld. CIT -2, Agra on 05.02.2014 w.e.f. from 01.04.2013. Since for the year under consideration I.T.A Nos. 296 & 264/Agra/2016 3 registration u/s 12AA of the IT Act was not available to the Assessee Society, the AO assessed the assessee’s net surplus of income over expenditure of Rs.42,94,078/-. The AO had also

SMT. NEETA SHARMA,AGRA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-2, AGRA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 299/AGR/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Agra19 Aug 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaassessment Year: 2007-08

Section 234ASection 40A(2)(b)Section 40A(3)Section 46A

46A of the I.T. Rules on one hand and taking its authenticity as not established-oil other hand, and in the peculiar facts of ;r opportunity of being heard not given by the A.O. 2. Because in any view, the addition made and confirmed by Id. CIT(A) of Rs.10,70,553/- out of total addition of Rs.85

A.C.I.T.-2, AGRA vs. SMT. NEETA SHARMA PROP., AGRA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 286/AGR/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Agra19 Aug 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaassessment Year: 2007-08

Section 234ASection 40A(2)(b)Section 40A(3)Section 46A

46A of the I.T. Rules on one hand and taking its authenticity as not established-oil other hand, and in the peculiar facts of ;r opportunity of being heard not given by the A.O. 2. Because in any view, the addition made and confirmed by Id. CIT(A) of Rs.10,70,553/- out of total addition of Rs.85

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

section 292C of the Act, the diary is to be attributed to as belonging to the assessee and addition to be confirmed in the hands of the assessee.Theaddition of ₹16,70,000/- made in the hands of the assessee is therefore directed to be deleted . 11. Ground of appeal No. 1 is accordingly allowed. 12. Ground of appeal

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

section 292C of the Act, the diary is to be attributed to as belonging to the assessee and addition to be confirmed in the hands of the assessee.Theaddition of ₹16,70,000/- made in the hands of the assessee is therefore directed to be deleted . 11. Ground of appeal No. 1 is accordingly allowed. 12. Ground of appeal

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

In the result, both the appeals ITA No

ITA 384/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

disallowed Rs.2,00,000/- u/s. 80C & 80D of the Act. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271AAC(1) of the Act were also initiated against the assessee. 4. Aggrieved, assessee preferred first appeal before Ld. CIT(Appeals). Learned CIT(Appeals) found that the appellant assessee is a salaried person and was working as Executive Engineer of EDD-II, Ghazipur(PVVNL