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 143(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai16,679Delhi11,123Kolkata4,561Bangalore3,675Chennai3,380Ahmedabad1,918Pune1,554Jaipur1,261Hyderabad1,213Indore864Surat847Chandigarh699Rajkot515Cochin497Raipur481Visakhapatnam461Nagpur381Amritsar366Lucknow343Karnataka318Panaji217Agra191Jodhpur178Cuttack159Guwahati154Patna146Ranchi106Dehradun103Telangana96Calcutta90Allahabad89Jabalpur71Varanasi53SC44Kerala27Punjab & Haryana20Orissa8Himachal Pradesh6Rajasthan3Andhra Pradesh2Uttarakhand2Gauhati2Bombay1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Tripura1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)3Section 2602

SRI MAHESH GURRAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

ITTA/20/2024HC Andhra Pradesh22 Aug 2024

Bench: G.NARENDAR,KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA

For Respondent: SRI VIJAY KUMAR PUNNA (STANDING
Section 12ASection 138Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 151Section 23Section 260

143(3) of the Act, assessing the total income of the Appellant at Rs.1,11,69,494/- and raising demand of tax payable at Rs.44,71,940/-, pending disposal of the appeal. :SRI MUDUNURU YESHWANTH VARMA Counsel for the Appellant Counsel for the Respondent : SRI VIJAY KUMAR PUNNA (STANDING COUNSEL FOR INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT) The Court made the following JUDGMENT

M/S MERIDIAN PROMOTERS (P) lTD., vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the Appeal is allowed and the order, dated 26

ITTA/157/2019HC Andhra Pradesh17 Oct 2019

Bench: The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) In Ita.No.0782/Cc-2,Vizag/Cit(A)-

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 260A

143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [‘the Act’, for short] was first issued. Subsequently, notice under Section 142(1) of the Act was issued. Ultimately, the respondent had disallowed Rs.37,23,478/- inter alia for the reason that the appellant had not produced sufficient information and/or the information produced by the appellant is not acceptable. When the appellant