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.

10 results for “disallowance”+ Section 73(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,832Delhi1,374Chennai417Bangalore379Ahmedabad359Hyderabad307Jaipur293Kolkata239Indore158Chandigarh157Pune148Cochin112Surat108Raipur99Visakhapatnam68Lucknow64Rajkot58Nagpur46Ranchi45Amritsar41Allahabad37Jodhpur35Guwahati31Patna27Cuttack25SC22Dehradun19Agra10Panaji10Jabalpur7Varanasi2

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)10Section 143(3)6Section 2746Addition to Income6Disallowance5Section 684Penalty4Section 271(1)3Section 1473Section 69A

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)

disallowance of various other expenses amounting to Rs.50,000/- and addition of Rs.97,31,000/- u/s. 56(2)(vii) of the Act. Based on the above additions, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings and imposed penalty of Rs.83,45,158/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The aforesaid additions made by the Assessing Officer stood confirmed by learned

3
Section 1483
Natural Justice3

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

73 taxmann.com 241, the appeal against which was dismissed by the Supreme Court of India in SLP No. 11485 of 2016 by order dated 5th August, 2016. 22. On this issue again this Court is unable to find any error having been committed by the ITAT. No substantial question of law arises. 23. The appeals are accordingly dismissed

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

73 taxmann.com 241, the appeal against which was dismissed by the Supreme Court of India in SLP No. 11485 of 2016 by order dated 5th August, 2016. 22. On this issue again this Court is unable to find any error having been committed by the ITAT. No substantial question of law arises. 23. The appeals are accordingly dismissed

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

73 taxmann.com 241, the appeal against which was dismissed by the Supreme Court of India in SLP No. 11485 of 2016 by order dated 5th August, 2016. 22. On this issue again this Court is unable to find any error having been committed by the ITAT. No substantial question of law arises. 23. The appeals are accordingly dismissed

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)

1) dated 30.12.2022, in proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). 2. Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused. P a g e | 2 M/s Blue Lotus Developers 3. Learned counsel submits at the outset that the assessee does not wish to press for its former substantive

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

73 of paper book) and sale bills (page no. 74 to 82 of paper book). On perusal of purchase bills, it has been found that various purchases of grains were made in cash. The appellant vide this office letter date 24.11.2021 was asked to submit the explanation that why such purchases should not be disallowed as per the provisions

BHARTI BANSAL,AGRA vs. DCIT-1, AGRA

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

ITA 304/AGR/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra27 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 44A

73,972/- being interest earned by the assessee from JSPL by including the same separately as income under the head ‘income from other sources’ 4. Aggrieved, the assessee filed first appeal with the ld. CIT(Appeals). Learned CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assesseewith respect to chargeability of profit of 8% byrejecting the contentions

ANUPAM MITTAL,AGRA vs. ITO WARD 2(1)(1), AGRA, AGRA

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

ITA 233/AGR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra18 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2018-19]

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

1. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (NFAC) has erred in law and on facts in sustaining the additions amounting to Rs. 71,08,000/- made u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of alleged unexplained unsecured loan (including addition of Rs.2,40,000/- made on account of disallowance of payment of interest) without properly appreciating

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AGRA vs. CHITAVALSAH JUTE MILLS LIMITED, NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 99/AGR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra04 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh(Through Virtual Hearing) Acit, Vs. Chitavalasah Jute Mills Ltd, Range-1, 73-74, 201, Sheetala House, Faridabad Nehru Place, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccc6834D Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 15/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/12/2025

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain, CIT DR
Section 144Section 271D

73-74, 201, Sheetala House, Faridabad Nehru Place, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AACCC6834D Assessee by : None Revenue by: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain, CIT DR Date of Hearing 15/09/2025 Date of pronouncement 04/12/2025 O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.: 1. The appeal in ITA No. 99/AGR/2025 for AY 2012-13, arises out of the order

SHUSHIL KUMAR GAUTAM,GABHANA ALIGARH vs. ASSESSING OFFICER 4(1)(1), ALIGARH

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

ITA 4/AGR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra18 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2015-16]

Section 115BSection 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 28Section 30Section 44ASection 69A

section 28 of the Act. The Assessing Officer further held that since the assessee did not maintain any books of accounts, the assessee is not considered to claim any deduction u/s 30 to 38 of the Act, which the assessee also failed to establish. 3.2. The Assessing Officer further noted that there was a specific information that the assessee