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.

6 results for “disallowance”+ Section 234clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai863Delhi862Bangalore410Chennai213Kolkata177Ahmedabad166Jaipur115Chandigarh56Pune53Indore44Cuttack43Hyderabad40Surat40Cochin34Raipur29Lucknow21Nagpur20Karnataka18Guwahati17Visakhapatnam16Rajkot16Ranchi12Amritsar11Allahabad6Varanasi4Telangana4Jodhpur3Jabalpur3Patna3SC3Calcutta2Agra2Dehradun2Orissa1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)9Addition to Income6Section 145(3)5Section 1324Disallowance4Undisclosed Income4Section 44A3

M/S MILLENIUM CONSULTANTS& SERVICE PROVIDERS,,ALLAHABAD vs. DCIT, ALLAHABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 138/ALLD/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad30 Sept 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

234 Taxman 825/61 taxmann.com 45. 11. Learned senior counsel further submitted that the amendments of curative nature have to be applied retrospectively and hence the amendment made in 2010 to the existing provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) should be given retrospective effect from the date of insertion and in support of this contention learned senior counsel relied

M/S BALAJI AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRIES(P).LTD.,ALLAHABAD vs. JT.CIT. (0SD), ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee and Revenue for ay: 2009-10 are allowed for statistical purposes, while CO filed by assessee stand dismissed

ITA 152/ALLD/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad13 Jan 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr. Praveen Godbole, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Namita S. Pandey, CIT-
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

disallowance of Rs. 8,273/- made under the dispensary expenses as maintained by the Commissioner Income Tax (Appeal) is unjustified and incorrect in the facts and circumstances of the case, hence the same is liable to be deleted in interest of justice. 9. That in any view of the matter assessment framed and Assessing Officer's actions as partly confirmed

JCIT(OSD),, ALLAHABAD vs. M/S BALAJI AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRIES, (P) LTD., ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee and Revenue for ay: 2009-10 are allowed for statistical purposes, while CO filed by assessee stand dismissed

ITA 179/ALLD/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad13 Jan 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr. Praveen Godbole, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Namita S. Pandey, CIT-
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

disallowance of Rs. 8,273/- made under the dispensary expenses as maintained by the Commissioner Income Tax (Appeal) is unjustified and incorrect in the facts and circumstances of the case, hence the same is liable to be deleted in interest of justice. 9. That in any view of the matter assessment framed and Assessing Officer's actions as partly confirmed

M/S BALAJU AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRIES(P) LTD.,ALLAHABAD vs. JT. CIT,, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee and Revenue for ay: 2009-10 are allowed for statistical purposes, while CO filed by assessee stand dismissed

ITA 632/ALLD/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad13 Jan 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr. Praveen Godbole, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Namita S. Pandey, CIT-
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

disallowance of Rs. 8,273/- made under the dispensary expenses as maintained by the Commissioner Income Tax (Appeal) is unjustified and incorrect in the facts and circumstances of the case, hence the same is liable to be deleted in interest of justice. 9. That in any view of the matter assessment framed and Assessing Officer's actions as partly confirmed

M/S BALAJI AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRIES (P) LTD.,ALLAHABAD vs. JT,CIT,, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee and Revenue for ay: 2009-10 are allowed for statistical purposes, while CO filed by assessee stand dismissed

ITA 633/ALLD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad13 Jan 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr. Praveen Godbole, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Namita S. Pandey, CIT-
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

disallowance of Rs. 8,273/- made under the dispensary expenses as maintained by the Commissioner Income Tax (Appeal) is unjustified and incorrect in the facts and circumstances of the case, hence the same is liable to be deleted in interest of justice. 9. That in any view of the matter assessment framed and Assessing Officer's actions as partly confirmed

M/S. L.P.R. CONSTRUCTION,ALLAHABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, ALLAHABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 257/ALLD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad05 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. L.P.R. Construction V. Dcit Circle-1 15F/1A, Baghambari Gaddi, Allahabad-211001. Allahapur, Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh- 211001. Tan/Pan: Aaifm8174H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Praveen Godbole, Ca Respondent By: Shri A.K. Singh, Cit ( Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing: 13.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.07.2021 O R D E R Per Shri Vijay Pal Rao:

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Godbole, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Singh, CIT ( Sr. DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 44A

234 & 274/Alld/2010. These decisions have been upheld by jurisdiction High Court. Thus he has submitted that in view of the binding precedence the addition made by Assessing Officer is not justified the same may be deleted. 5. On the other hand, the Ld. DR has submitted that the net profit declared by assessee for the A.Y.2011-12 is not comparable