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.

5 results for “disallowance”+ Section 195clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,492Mumbai1,472Chennai612Bangalore543Kolkata287Jaipur165Ahmedabad160Hyderabad90Pune87Chandigarh83Karnataka52Raipur49Rajkot48Surat46Calcutta41Lucknow34Visakhapatnam31Indore27Nagpur24Cochin16Guwahati15Patna12SC10Dehradun9Agra8Cuttack8Panaji7Telangana6Amritsar5Jodhpur5Allahabad4Jabalpur3Orissa2Ranchi2Punjab & Haryana1Rajasthan1Kerala1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1

Key Topics

Section 35A20Section 143(3)9Section 1489Section 250(6)3Addition to Income3Section 2502Section 682House Property2Deduction2Set Off of Losses

INCOME TAX OFFICER, FEROZEPUR vs. MS.JATIN AGRO, FORT ROAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 104/ASR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 103 & 104/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18 Ito, Ward-3(1), Vs. M/S Jatin Agro Fort Road, Ferozepur. 152-P, Ferozepur. [Pan:-Aarpm5393F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Sh. Ashray Sarna, Ca Appellant By Respondent By Sh. Sunil Gautam, Cit. Dr

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 35A

disallowed by the AO. 6.1. It is true that, the Appellant has formed the AOP and participated in the tender for construction of warehouse, hence, the intention/object with which the AOP was formed was to do business. The term business is defined under section 2(13) of the Act, which talks about adventure or concern in the nature of trade

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1),FEROZEPUR, FEROZEPUR vs. MS.JATIN AGRO, FORT ROAD

2
Reopening of Assessment2

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 103/ASR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 103 & 104/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18 Ito, Ward-3(1), Vs. M/S Jatin Agro Fort Road, Ferozepur. 152-P, Ferozepur. [Pan:-Aarpm5393F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Sh. Ashray Sarna, Ca Appellant By Respondent By Sh. Sunil Gautam, Cit. Dr

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 35A

disallowed by the AO. 6.1. It is true that, the Appellant has formed the AOP and participated in the tender for construction of warehouse, hence, the intention/object with which the AOP was formed was to do business. The term business is defined under section 2(13) of the Act, which talks about adventure or concern in the nature of trade

INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 1 (2), BATHINDA vs. MESERS SHREE BHAGWATI COTTON TRADERS ,, BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 479/ASR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar13 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250(6)Section 68

195 without appreciating that the order was directly and squarely applicable to the facts of the case. (ii) The CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the alleged purchases were from a not existing entity and hence were bogus and were held as such correctly by the AO. I.T.A. No. 479/Asr/2018 4 &I.T.A. No. 480/Asr/2018 (iii) The CIT(A) erred

MESERS SHREE BHAGWATI COTTON TRADERS,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 1 (2), BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 480/ASR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar13 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250(6)Section 68

195 without appreciating that the order was directly and squarely applicable to the facts of the case. (ii) The CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the alleged purchases were from a not existing entity and hence were bogus and were held as such correctly by the AO. I.T.A. No. 479/Asr/2018 4 &I.T.A. No. 480/Asr/2018 (iii) The CIT(A) erred

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, FARIDKOT, BSNL BUILDING vs. M/S VOHRA SOLVEX PVT. LTD, SADIQ ROAD

In the result, C.O. filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 588/ASR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar29 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, A.R
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250(6)Section 69C

195 (SC) in which the Hon’ble Apex Court has dismissed the SLP of the assessee against the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court where it has been held 100% of bogus purchase should be added to the total income of the assessee. He further submitted that it has been admitted by 8 I.T.A. No. 588/Asr/2024 & Ors Vohra