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.

2 results for “disallowance”+ Section 271Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai54Mumbai43Bangalore32Jaipur27Delhi15Ahmedabad12Hyderabad9Kolkata9Cuttack7Raipur5Panaji5Pune4Rajkot4Lucknow3Agra2Amritsar2Chandigarh2Indore2Jodhpur1Jabalpur1Dehradun1SC1Surat1Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)5Section 272A2Section 1482Penalty2Disallowance2Addition to Income2

SHRI SUKHBIR SINGH BEDI,GURDASPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, GURDASPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical

ITA 122/ASR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri P.N. AroraFor Respondent: Shri Pardeep Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271A(1)(d)Section 272ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 69A

section 271A(1)(d) of the act, rather discussed the quantum addition, holding the appeal stands dismissed in casual manner by observing as under: The appellant, an individual, non filer of the return of income for the A.Y. 2017- 18 on 07/02/2018 Declaring total income of Rs.9,43,320/-. The AO passed the order

SH GAUTAM SETH,BATALA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, BATALA

In the result, the Ground Nos

ITA 108/ASR/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar04 Jul 2022AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Sh. Mrs. Rano Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Smt. Rajinder Kaur, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234BSection 250(6)Section 271Section 40A(3)Section 44A

Section 40A(3) without appreciating the fact that the provision of 40A(3) is not applicable where the Gross Profit Ratio is estimated u/ s. 44AF. 5. That the AO and CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in making an addition of Rs. 14,88,263/- u/s. 44AF without appreciating the fact that the transaction of purchase