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.

99 results for “disallowance”+ Demonetizationclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi221Chennai156Mumbai118Bangalore99Jaipur91Hyderabad80Kolkata69Ahmedabad50Surat40Visakhapatnam37Lucknow35Pune35Panaji32Chandigarh32Rajkot31Agra23Jodhpur18Cuttack18Indore13Patna12Amritsar10Dehradun10Raipur10Allahabad6Nagpur5Cochin4Jabalpur4Varanasi3Calcutta2Ranchi2Karnataka2Guwahati1

Key Topics

Section 80P(2)(a)94Addition to Income81Section 69A67Section 6867Cash Deposit66Demonetization66Section 26358Section 80P51Disallowance48Deduction

SHRI. KISHORE KANDIKERE,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 1(2), BANGALORE

In the result the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes and the stay petitions are dismissed

ITA 99/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuit(It)A No. 99/Bang/2023 & Sp No. 09/Bang/2023 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Kishore Kandikere Vs. The Income Tax Officer - 1(2) 6Th Floor, Divyasree Chambers (International Taxation) Off Langford Road, Shantinagar Bmtc Building, 80 Ft Road Bengaluru 560025 6Th Block, Koramangala Pan – Alqpk6495G Bengaluru 560095 (Appellant) (Respondent) It(It)A No. 100/Bang/2023 & Sp No. 10/Bang/2023 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Rekha Channabasappa Kandikere Vs. The Income Tax Officer - 1(2) 6Th Floor, Divyasree Chambers (International Taxation) Off Langford Road, Shantinagar Bmtc Building, 80 Ft Road Bengaluru 560025 6Th Block, Koramangala Pan – Alqpk6495G Bengaluru 560095 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ravishankar S.V., Advocate Revenue By: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing: 20.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.03.2023 O R D E R Per: Laxmi Prasad Sahu, A.M. These Appeals Have Been Filed By Two Different Assessee’S Against Separate Orders Passed By The Cit(A)-12, Bengaluru Vide Din No. Itba/Apl/M/250/ 2022-23/1043375089(1) & Itba/Apl/M/250/ 2022-23/1043374813(1)

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar S.V., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 250Section 69

disallowing the deposits during the demonetization period since the restrictions if any were imposed by the Central Government while exercising

Showing 1–20 of 99 · Page 1 of 5

41
Section 25037
Section 143(3)33

SMT. REKHA CHANNABASAPPA KANDIKERE,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 1(2), BANGALORE

In the result the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes and the stay petitions are dismissed

ITA 100/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuit(It)A No. 99/Bang/2023 & Sp No. 09/Bang/2023 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Kishore Kandikere Vs. The Income Tax Officer - 1(2) 6Th Floor, Divyasree Chambers (International Taxation) Off Langford Road, Shantinagar Bmtc Building, 80 Ft Road Bengaluru 560025 6Th Block, Koramangala Pan – Alqpk6495G Bengaluru 560095 (Appellant) (Respondent) It(It)A No. 100/Bang/2023 & Sp No. 10/Bang/2023 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Rekha Channabasappa Kandikere Vs. The Income Tax Officer - 1(2) 6Th Floor, Divyasree Chambers (International Taxation) Off Langford Road, Shantinagar Bmtc Building, 80 Ft Road Bengaluru 560025 6Th Block, Koramangala Pan – Alqpk6495G Bengaluru 560095 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ravishankar S.V., Advocate Revenue By: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing: 20.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.03.2023 O R D E R Per: Laxmi Prasad Sahu, A.M. These Appeals Have Been Filed By Two Different Assessee’S Against Separate Orders Passed By The Cit(A)-12, Bengaluru Vide Din No. Itba/Apl/M/250/ 2022-23/1043375089(1) & Itba/Apl/M/250/ 2022-23/1043374813(1)

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar S.V., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 250Section 69

disallowing the deposits during the demonetization period since the restrictions if any were imposed by the Central Government while exercising

SRITHERUMALLESHWARA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY ,CHITRADURGA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , CHITRADURGA

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 187/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144ASection 69ASection 80P(2)(a)

disallowing the cash deposits during the demonetization period. The AO did not ask further details. If he had any doubt

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD1(1) HUBBALLI, HUBBALLI vs. SHRI CHATRAPATI SHIVAJI VIVODODDESHAGALA SAHAKARI NIYAMITA , HALIYAL,

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes and the cross objection by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 929/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Vinay Kulkarni, CAFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, JCIT DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 68Section 69Section 69ASection 80P(2)(a)

disallowed. Upon comparing the cash deposit made during demonetization period with deposits made in prior years held that the cash

TONASAGERI GOUDA MALLIKARJUNA ,KUDLIGI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, BALLARI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1556/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18 Tonasageri Gouda Mallikarjuna, The Deputy Commissioner Of D. No. 104, Ward No. 1, Income Tax, Ashwamedha Wines, Circle-1, Vs. Kudligi – 583 135 Ballari Pan: Aqdpm7773M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Siva Prasad Reddy, ITP
Section 133Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 44ASection 69A

demonetization. The learned assessing officer has computed the disallowance in a typical manner. The assessing officer has considered the cash

SHRI SHIVASHAKTI SOUHARDA PATTINA SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMIT,MELLIGERI TOWERS, BAGALKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 BAGALKOT, AAYAKAR BHAVAN

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 452/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Siddesh N Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Murali Mohan M, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 143(2)Section 156Section 234ASection 270ASection 271ASection 68Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

disallowed. Further, it was noticed that during the demonetization period as per the gazette notification No.2652 dated 08.11.2016 that the Specified

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, BAGALKOT, AAYAKAR BHAVAN vs. SHRI SHIVASHAKTI SOUHARDA PATTINA SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMIT, .

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 517/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Siddesh N Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Murali Mohan M, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 143(2)Section 156Section 234ASection 270ASection 271ASection 68Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

disallowed. Further, it was noticed that during the demonetization period as per the gazette notification No.2652 dated 08.11.2016 that the Specified

AASTHA MINIMET INDIA LTD,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 731/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari (Accountant Member), Shri Soundararajan K. (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: ----- None -----For Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 14ASection 250

demonetization period treated as unexplained cash credits and disallowance made u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8Dsince both the assessment order and the appellate

NANJAPPA UMASHANKER,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 799/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Prathik P., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Revenue
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 69A

disallowance u/s. 69A in respect of such cash deposit made during the period of demonetization could be sustained and ordered

SRI SRI VAISHNAVI PATTINA SOUHARDHA SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMITHA,GANGAVATHI vs. ITO WARD 1, KOPPAL, KOPPAL

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1115/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18 Sri Sri Vaishnavi Pattina Souharda Sahakari Vs. Ito, Sangha Niyamita, Ward – 1, Shop No.9 T.A.P.C.M.S Complex, Koppal. C.B.S Gunj Gangavathi Dt- Koppal 583227,Karnataka. Pan : Aalas 9104 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Deepak, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ashwin D Gowda, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 28.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2025

For Appellant: Shri. Deepak, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ashwin D Gowda, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 194A(3)(v)Section 40Section 68Section 80PSection 80P(2)

disallowed under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Further, it was noted that during the demonetization period, the assessee

BRAHMAN PATTIN SANGH NIYAMIT JAMKHANDI,JAMAKHANDI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1, BIJAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 35/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri.Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel
Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(c)

disallowed of Rs.4,02,789/-. He further noted that there was a cash deposited during the demonetization of Rs.35,91,500/- for the period

ARIF HUSSAIN,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1274/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri V. Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R
Section 144Section 250Section 270ASection 27CSection 69A

disallowed Rs.17,67,466/- being 8% of income from business deposited as cash alleged made prior to demonetization period. Therefore

JANATA TRADERS,GADAG vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HUBLI

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

ITA 401/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Girija, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69A

demonetization period. Assessment u/s 143(3) was completed at the income at Rs.10,55,220/- by making addition of Rs.57,100/-towards disallowance

CHIRAG AGENCIES,DAVANGERE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, DAVANAGERE

In the result, appeal of the assesse is allowed

ITA 1683/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Neha Sahay, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 143(3)Section 68

demonetized currency to the pharmaceutical sectors during the demonitized period but the assessee does not fall under this category since the assessee is in wholesale business and total disallowance

VANISHREE HOLABSU SHETTAR,GULEDGUDD vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HUBLI

In the result, the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 270/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Srinivas T. Bidari, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 263

demonetization period. The assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) of the Act assessing the total income at Rs.18,21,581/- after disallowing

M/S. N S HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1965/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. N. S. Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 1103, 20Th Cross, 14Th Main Road, Ward – 5(1)(1), 3Rd Sector, Hsr Layout, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 034. Pan : Aaccn 6187 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Jharna B. Harilal, Ca. Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian S, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2024 O R D E R Per Laxmi Prasad Sahuthis Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) [Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1067691254(1)] Dated 16.08.2024. 2. Briefly Stated, The Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Return Of Income On 07.11.2016 Declaring A Loss Of Rs.28,04,226/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & Statutory Notices Were Issued To The Assessee. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, Assessee At The First Instance Did Not Respond To The Ao’S Notice But Later Responded Page 2 Of 4

For Appellant: Smt. Jharna B. Harilal, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 43B

disallowance under section 43B of the Act, amounting to Rs.38,99,097/- and cash deposits amounting to Rs.33,50,000/- during the demonetization

SHRI. PARSHWANATHASWAMY SAHAKARA SANGHA NIYAMITHA, ,HOSADURDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, DAVANAGERE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1263/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Kashinath Kalmath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 115BSection 80P(2)(a)

demonetized currency notes of Rs.1000 and 500. The assessee has opening balance of Rs.6,26,679 as on 9.11.2016. Accordingly the AO after discussing the guidelines/instructions issued in this regard disallowed

OM SAI CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOUHARDA SAHAKARI NIYAMIT,GADAG vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HUBLI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 454/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Susan Dolores George CIT(OSD)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80P

demonetization period, large deduction claimed u/s. 80P and interest income from investments. The assessee furnished the details called for on the basis of which the AO completed the assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act by disallowing

SHANTHA RAVINDRA ,MYSURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), MYSORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1655/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahur Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shantha Ravindra, Vs. Ito, No.2998, Krs Road, Yadavagiri, Ward – 1(3). Mysuru – 57020. Pan : Bfjpr 6898 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. C. Ramesh, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel For Department. Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.10.2024

For Appellant: Shri. C. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 234ASection 250Section 69A

demonetization period. Therefore, the CIT(A) upheld the addition of Rs.12,64,000/- (Rs.15,00,000 – Rs.2,50,000) under section 69A of the Act on account of cash deposit. The reasoning of the CIT(A) to confirm the disallowance

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING FEDERATION LTD,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 308/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Thamba Mahendra, D.R
Section 250Section 68Section 80P(2)(a)

disallowed and addition made u/s 68 of the Act. 2. It is the case of the assessee that various records were placed before the ld. AO but he has not considered the same and the deposits made during the demonetization