Search: disallowance | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

145 results for “disallowance”+ Section 5clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai7,957 Delhi7,677 Chennai2,336 Ahmedabad1,742 Bangalore1,735 Kolkata1,686 Pune1,304 Hyderabad1,255 Jaipur1,145 Cochin730 Indore664 Chandigarh655 Surat655 Raipur488 Visakhapatnam465 Rajkot438 Nagpur367 Lucknow320 Amritsar288 Cuttack243 SC213 Jodhpur203 Panaji187 Patna167 Ranchi158 Guwahati157 Agra145 Dehradun118 Allahabad90 Jabalpur83 Varanasi27 A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN7 RANJAN GOGOI PRAFULLA C. PANT1 H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1 MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1 A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1 ANIL R. DAVE AMITAVA ROY L. NAGESWARA RAO1 ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1 D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1

Key Topics

Addition to Income81 Section 143(3)66 Disallowance56 Section 14743 Section 14840 Section 143(1)39 Section 270A31 Section 6831 Section 25029 Section 154

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

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

ITA 273/AGR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra03 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: \nShri Sukesh Kumar Jain, CIT DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

5,91,506/-. The Id AO proceeded to disallow the same as violative of provisions of Section 40A(3) of the Act and disallowed

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

Showing 1–20 of 145 · Page 1 of 8

...

26

Natural Justice21

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

Section 195Section 250Section 40Section 9

5 and 9. This reasoning flows from the words “sum chargeable under the provisions of the Act” in Section 195(1). The fact that the Revenue has not obtained any information per se cannot be a ground to construe Section 195 widely so as to require deduction of TAS even in a case where an amount paid is not chargeable

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)

5,91,506/-. The ld AO proceeded to disallow the same as violative of provisions of Section 40A(3) of the Act and disallowed

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)

5 appellant should have deducted the tax at source as per provisions of section 191C of the income tax act at the time crediting the said payments to the account of Contractees, which it has failed to do. Thus the appellant is treated as appellant in defaults amounting to Rs.7,50,231/-for not deducting TDS under section 194C

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

disallowance of rebate by the CPC appears to be a result of a programming change in the utility logic post- January 2025 and is not supported by any statutory amendment or binding judicial precedent. The rejection of the assessee's claim under section 87A on technical grounds without affording a prior opportunity is also violative of the proviso to section

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

section.” 8. Both the authorities below had noted several expenses incurred by the assessee to be without TDS and in absence of any cooperation from the assessee in this regard, disallowance of these expenses were made u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act amounting in all to Rs.9,53,000/-. The expenses which attracted impugned disallowance are as under : Expenses

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

5% of the purchase and labour expenditure on the basis of adhoc disallowance for the simple reason that the assessee has not filed any details. With regard to ground No. 8, he submitted that the Assessing Officer has disallowed 15% of the administrative expenses. He submitted that the assessee is a labour contractor and has completed the project and declared

BRIJESH PODDAR M/S KRISHAN KANHAIYA TEXTILES,HATHARS vs. ITO WARD 4(3)(4), HATHRAS

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 528/AGR/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Agra03 Feb 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshshri Brijesh Poddar (Prop), Vs. Ito, M/S. Krishna Kanhiya Ward-4(3)(4), Poddar Textile, Hanuman Hathras Gali, Hathras, Up (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Azgpp1350B Assessee By : Shri Pankaj Gargh, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 03/02/2026

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Gargh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 57

5,74,560 was disallowed by the learned AO under Section 57 of the Act while completing the assessment on 12-03-2025. This

KOTHIWAL ICE AND COLD STORAGE .P.LTD,ETAH vs. NFAC , NEW DELHI

Appeals is allowed

ITA 211/AGR/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Agra06 Feb 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Vs. Nfac, Kothiwal Ice & Storage Pvt. Ltd., Delhi Sadabad Road, Jaleshar, Etah, Uttar Pradesh Pan :Aacck1353P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Sh. Shailender Shrivastava, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06.02.2025 Order

Section 143(3)Section 40ASection 40A(3)

section 40A (3) disallowance of Rs.65,79,902/- thereby holding the assessee to have made cash payments of Revenue’s expenditure to U.P. Dakshinanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam. Learned lower authorities hold that the assessee could not prove its case in tune with all the relevant clauses accepting such cash expenditure payments under Rule 6DD of the Income Tax Rules

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

disallowed the deduction under section 80IC of the Act as excessively claimed in the sum of Rs 5,65,487/-. Pursuant

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

disallowed the deduction under section 80IC of the Act as excessively claimed in the sum of Rs 5,65,487/-. Pursuant

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

disallowed the deduction under section 80IC of the Act as excessively claimed in the sum of Rs 5,65,487/-. Pursuant

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

section 12A(2) of the Act, in respect of disallowing exemption u/s. 11 of Rs.583240/-. 3 5. That, the appellant

RAM KUMAR SHIVHARE,SHIVPURI vs. DCIT ACIT 3(1) GWALIOR, GWALOR

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 135/AGR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra03 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Vs. Dcit/Acit-3(1), Sh. Ram Kumar Shivhare, Wonder Bike Auto Sales Gwaliar Shivpuri, Ab Road, Shivpuri, Madhya Pradesh Pan :Adkps8008H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Rajendra Sharma, Adv. Department By Sh. Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 03.02.2025 Order

Section 143(3)Section 43BSection 68

section 68/69 of the Act once not credited or invested in the relevant previous year. We thus see no merit in the impugned former additions of Rs.7,13,000/- which stands deleted in very terms. The assessee’s succeeds in his instant former twin substantive grounds. 4. Next comes the estimated disallowance of assessee’s various heads of expenditure, totaling

AL HAMD AGRO FOOD PRODUCTS PVT LTD,ALIGARH vs. DC/ACIT, ALIGARH

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 63/AGR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Agra15 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

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

Section 143(2)Section 250(6)Section 40

disallowance of the payment as deduction because TDS was not deducted. Therefore, the consequence of non-deduction of TDS when the payment is to a non-resident has an adverse consequence to the payer. Since it is mandatory in terms of Section 40 (a) (i) for the payer to deduct TDS from the payment to the non-resident, the latter

SHASHANK TRIPATHI,BHIND vs. ITO, GWALIOR

Appeal is allowed

ITA 99/AGR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra17 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: : Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 144Section 69C

section 69C unexplained expenditure disallowance amounting to Rs.10,25,44,500/- forming subject matter of adjudication before us. 5. It is in this

SH. YUGAL KISHOR AGARWAL,AGRA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 4(3)(1), ETAH

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3/AGR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra15 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 57

5) That the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi has erred in law and on facts in sustaining the disallowance of loss of Rs 56,407/- The appellant craves leave to add, alter or vary the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income

SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT JAMNER,GUNA vs. ITO, GUNA

Appeal is allowed

ITA 48/AGR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra05 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Ms. Prarthana Jalan, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Shailendra Shrivastava, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 80ASection 80P

disallowance. This is for the precise reason that section 80AC has undergone the statutory amendment to this effect that the concerned assessee to file the return on or before the due date prescribed u/s 139(1) vide the Finance Act, 2018 w.e.f. 01.04.2018 whereas we are in assessment year 2018-19. There is no indication coming from the Revenue side

M/S BLUE LOTUS DEVELOPERS ,GWALIOR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 2(1), GWALIOR

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 26/AGR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Agra10 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalm/S Blue Lotus Developers Vs. Cit(A)/Nfac, 101, The Empire, 33, City Delhi Center, Gwalior M.P.-474011 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aaifb4692D Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Rajendra Sharma, advFor Respondent: Sh. Shalender Shrivastava, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

section 40A(3) disallowance of Rs.22.24 lacs on the ground that the assessee had made cash payments for purchasing land from Shri Gabbar Singh. The Revenue’s case in light of the lower authorities findings is that neither the assessee has shown business exigency in making cash payments nor it’s case is covered under Rule 6DD of the Income

SHRI RAM PRASAD SOCIAL FOUNDATION,BHIND vs. TIO WARD-2(1), GWALIOR

Appeal is allowed

ITA 771/AGR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra13 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: : Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 40

section 40(a)(ia) disallowance in the assessee’s hands on the ground that it had not complied with the TDS deduction provisions whilst making specific payments to the recipients concerned. 4. It is in this factual backdrop that our attention is invited to para 3 of the assessment order that the assessee had stated all along to have collected