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”+ Search & Seizureclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,585Delhi2,364Chennai580Bangalore568Hyderabad481Kolkata320Jaipur305Surat170Chandigarh115Pune115Indore104Ahmedabad103Cochin91Rajkot83Nagpur66Amritsar65Visakhapatnam60Allahabad50Guwahati44Lucknow43Raipur37Karnataka31Patna27Jodhpur26Telangana25Ranchi23Cuttack18Agra16Dehradun13Kerala10Panaji6SC6Calcutta5Gauhati2Punjab & Haryana2Varanasi2Orissa2Rajasthan1Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 153A5Addition to Income5Section 260A4Section 54F4Section 271(1)(c)4Search & Seizure4Section 143(3)2Section 69C2Section 132(4)2Section 271

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (IT & TP) vs. M/S. DONGFANG ELECTRIC CORPORATION

ITAT/66/2018HC Calcutta09 Jul 2021

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 139Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

seizure operations and impounding of documents, the respondent/assessee declared an 4 undisclosed income of Rs.13,16,25,370/- which was added to the income disclosed in the returns apart from certain other additions.In the assessment order the assessing officer mentioned that penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, 1961 has been initiated and show cause notice under

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL-1, KOLKATA vs. MONOJ KUMAR JAIN & SONS(HUF)

2
Survey u/s 133A2
Penalty2

The appeal is allowed and the order passed by the

ITAT/131/2017HC Calcutta15 Dec 2021

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

For Appellant: MR. Smarajit Roy Chowdhury, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. J. P. Khiatan, Sr. Adv
Section 132Section 143Section 153CSection 260ASection 271

seizure operations, it would not tantamount to concealment of income liable to penalty under section 271[1][c] of the Act. Further, the assessee contended that the penalty notice was bad in law on the ground that the Assessing Officer has not recorded satisfaction. The Assessing Officer conceded the said submission and by an order dated 29.6.2010 rejected the same

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 2 KOLKATA vs. SRI RAHUL SARAF

The appeal stands disposed of on the ground of low tax effect

ITAT/218/2024HC Calcutta20 Sept 2024

Bench: : The Hon'Ble The Chief Justice T.S Sivagnanam -A N D- Hon'Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : September 20, 2024. Appearance : Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. Ms. Doyel Dey, Adv. …For Appellant. Mr. Soumitra Chowdhury, Adv. Mr. Avra Mazumder, Adv. Mr. Pranabesh Sarkar, Adv. Mr. Suman Bhowmik, Adv. Mr. Samrat Das, Adv. Ms. Elina Dey, Adv. Mr. Sourendra Nath Banerjee, Adv. …For Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 260ASection 54F

seizure of the statement in respect of Ballygunj House which was stated to have been under Construction as on 31.03.2011 ? ii) Whether the Learned Tribunal has committed substantial error in law in affirming the decision of the CIT(A) in deleting the addition made on account of short term Capital Gain and disallowance of claim and deduction under Section

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 2 KOLKATA vs. M/S JAJODIA FINANCE LIMITED

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed

ITAT/2/2025HC Calcutta22 Jul 2025

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Chief Justice T.S Sivagnanam

Section 143(1)Section 254Section 255Section 260A

search and seizure operation was carried out in the premises of KLJ Group and consequential survey had taken place in the office of the assessee at Kolkata. The director of the assessee Rajesh 4 Kumar Surana had given a statement on oath where he admitted that the assessee company’s entry operator had involved in giving bogus entry for purchase

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5 KOLKATA vs. ADVANCE ENGINEERING CORPORATION

In the result, the appeal is allowed and the

ITAT/266/2024HC Calcutta09 Jun 2025

Bench: : The Hon'Ble The Chief Justice T.S Sivagnanam -A N D- Hon'Ble Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) Date : 9Th June, 2025.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 260ASection 69C

search and seizure operation conducted against the bogus bill provider Shri Sanjiw Kumar Singh as well as the seized documents which were found along concomitantly with the statements of various related parties which clearly establishes the doubt to arrive at a 2 conclusion that the respondent assessee had availed accommodation entries in the form of bogus purchases which thereby gives