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.

9 results for “disallowance”+ Section 153Dclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi470Mumbai136Bangalore84Chennai72Chandigarh66Cochin62Amritsar46Allahabad37Jaipur33Agra24Nagpur17Lucknow17Raipur15Hyderabad11Ahmedabad9Indore8Patna5Jodhpur4Visakhapatnam3Kolkata2Pune2

Key Topics

Section 26322Section 153C16Section 153D14Section 1546Disallowance6Addition to Income6Section 143(1)5Section 2505Section 143(2)4Section 142(1)

TECHNODOT ENGINEERS PVT. LTD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 93/AHD/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokari.T(Ss).A. Nos.147&148/Ahd/2019 (A.Ys.: 2005-06 & 2006-07) Smt. Neelu Sanjay Gupta, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of L/H. Of Late Shri Sanjay Gupta Income Tax, B-202, Dhananjay Tower, Central Circle-2(2), Anand Nagar Road, Satellite, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380015 [Pan No.Adypg0351K] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) I.T(Ss).A. Nos.21 To 23/Ahd/2020 & 15/Ahd/2022 & Ita No. 93/Ahd/2020) (A.Ys.: 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2006-07 & 2010-11 To 2011-12) M/S. Technodot Engineers Ltd., Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of C/O. Cambay Hotel & Resorts, Income Tax, Plot No. 22, 23, 24 Gidc, Central Circle-2(2), Sector-25, Gandhinagar-382010 Ahmedabad [Pan No.Aabct5392A] (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Adv. & Shri ParimalFor Respondent: Shri R. N. Dsouza, CIT-DR & Shri Rignesh K
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A
4
Survey u/s 133A4
Revision u/s 2634
Section 271(1)(b)

Section 80G, amounting to Rs. 15,000/-. This disallowance was made because the necessary supporting documents for claiming the deduction were either insufficient or not provided. Moreover, unrecorded interest income of Rs. 4,402/- was added to the income, as it had not been accounted for in the original return filed by the assessee. Finally, a disallowance of depreciation

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. JOHN ENERGY LTD.,, MEHSANA

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

ITA 911/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

153D of the Act has been filed or not becomes immaterial. 6. The Ld. DR submitted that the order under challenge before the CIT(A) as well as before the ITAT is emerging from Assessment Order passed under Section 143(3) of the Act and the question of no incriminating material found will not be the criteria for quashing

M/S. JOHN ENERGY LTD.,,MEHSANA vs. THE ACIT., MEHSANA CIRCLE,, MEHSANA

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

ITA 711/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

153D of the Act has been filed or not becomes immaterial. 6. The Ld. DR submitted that the order under challenge before the CIT(A) as well as before the ITAT is emerging from Assessment Order passed under Section 143(3) of the Act and the question of no incriminating material found will not be the criteria for quashing

SAFAL CONSTRUCTIONS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT(CENTRAL), AHMEDABAD

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1138/AHD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Ms.Nupur Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-DR
Section 131Section 133ASection 153CSection 153DSection 263

section 153D accorded on 29.09.2022. In both assessment years, the Assessing Officer made only limited disallowances on account of education

SAFAL CONSTRUCTIONS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT(CENTRAL), AHMEDABAD

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1137/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Ms.Nupur Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-DR
Section 131Section 133ASection 153CSection 153DSection 263

section 153D accorded on 29.09.2022. In both assessment years, the Assessing Officer made only limited disallowances on account of education

ACIT CC 2(3) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. AISHA DHIRAJ GOGIA, AHMEDABAD

In the result: 50. To summarize the final outcome:

ITA 1673/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha["ी संजय गग", "ाियक सद" एवं "ी नरे" साद िस!ा, लेखा सद" के सम#।]

Disallowance of exemption claimed on Long Term Capital Gains under section 10(38) of the Act, treating the underlying shares as "penny stocks"; and (iv) Addition on account of alleged on-money received on the sale of property in the Earth Erita project. These additions were made based on material allegedly found during the search action, including digital data like

KESAR BUILDCON PRIVATE LIMITED,BANASKANTHA vs. THE PCIT, AHMEDABAD-3, AHMEDABAD

Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by the PCIT and restore the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer. The appeal of the assessee is thus allowed

ITA 790/AHD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2021-2028 Kesar Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. The Ld.Pr.Cit 1St Floor Shri Kesar Cold Vs. Ahmedabad-3 Storage Plot No.B-2 To 9, Rev Survey No.85/2 Paiki Near Hotel Jyoti Vil Banaskantha. Pan : Aabck 4923 E (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Hem Chhajed, Ar Assessee By : Shri Rignesh Das, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03/09/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/09/2025

For Appellant: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 263Section 269S

disallowance. 2.4 Subsequently, on examination of assessment records, the PCIT, Ahmedabad-3, invoked revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act by issuing a show cause notice to the assessee on 18.03.2025. The PCIT observed that during the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer had failed to examine certain issues which rendered the assessment order both erroneous and prejudicial

MEHAAN ENTERPRISE,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PCIT, CENTRAL, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 789/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice- & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri M S Chhajed, ARFor Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 153CSection 153DSection 263Section 68

Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”], for the Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The Order passed u/s 263 of the Act by the Ld. PCIT is in against law, equity & justice. 2. The Ld. PCIT has erred in law assuming jurisdiction

GHCL LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1643/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Prem Prakash Meena, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 153CSection 153DSection 154Section 250

Section 250 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short], for Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds:- “1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the order passed by learned AO u/s 154 of the Act for not allowing