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 801Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai237Delhi171Hyderabad113Ahmedabad107Kolkata64Chennai50Pune38Bangalore37Indore22Jaipur20Chandigarh18Visakhapatnam15Rajkot13Nagpur12Surat10Patna10Raipur8Dehradun7Cuttack7Jodhpur6Lucknow5Guwahati4Cochin4Amritsar2Calcutta1Karnataka1Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 1546Section 805Section 143(1)5Section 92C3Section 80I3Deduction2Disallowance2Addition to Income2

SATIA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUKTSAR vs. DCIT/ACIT CIRCLE I, BATHINDA, BATHINDA

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

ITA 702/ASR/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar16 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Kapoor, Adv. &
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(2)Section 144C(5)Section 80Section 80GSection 80ISection 92C

Section 801A by Rs. 1,67,11,295/. That the A.O. failed to appreciate that there is a double addition of Rs 1,67,11,295/, as the AD has already made an addition in respect of the difference in sales of power and steam separately, amounting to Rs. 6,66,54,028/-. 8. That the Assessing Officer

INCOME TAX OFFICER, FEROZEPUR vs. UNIVERSAL BIOMASS ENERGY PVT LTD, GURUHARSAHAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 231/ASR/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar28 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Brajesh Kumar Singh

For Appellant: Sh. Ashray Sarna, C.A
Section 140ASection 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 80Section 801ASection 801A(4)Section 801A(7)

section 801A(7) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law allowing appeal of the assessee without verifying the fact that the assesses filed its Audit report in Form 3-CA and Form-3CD after the prescribed one date.” 3. There