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.

10 results for “disallowance”+ Section 153Dclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi560Mumbai194Bangalore115Chennai76Amritsar74Chandigarh66Cochin60Jaipur46Allahabad37Agra25Raipur20Hyderabad19Nagpur17Lucknow16Pune15Cuttack10Ahmedabad9Indore9Kolkata6Patna5Dehradun5Surat5Jodhpur4Karnataka4Visakhapatnam3Rajkot1Guwahati1

Key Topics

Section 153D24Section 271(1)(c)14Addition to Income10Section 2717Section 271A7Penalty7Disallowance7Section 2343Section 153A3Section 143(3)

KOTHAKOTA RAMA RAO,RAYAGADA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee i

ITA 20/CTK/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Aug 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ (तऱाशियाां और अशिग्रहण)सं./Ita No.132/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada Pan No. : Aeppk 1600 P & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita Nos.19&20/Ctk/2019 & Ita No.386/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada Pan No. : Aeppk 1600 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15/07/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 11.09.2018 & 29.08.2018 For Assessment Years 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017. 2. Since, Similar Issues Have Been Raised In All The Appeals, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, We Shall Decide The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y.2013-2014 In It(Ss)A No.132/Ctk/2018 After Taking Into Consideration The Grounds & Facts Mentioned

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CITDR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D
3
Undisclosed Income3
Limitation/Time-bar3
Section 234

153D of the Act nowhere about service of order has been mentioned. The case laws relied on by the ld. AR of the assessee in the case of Dilip Constructions Pvt. Ltd.(supra) is not applicable in the present facts of the case. Accordingly, we dismiss the legal grounds taken by the assessee. 30 IT(SS)A No.132/CTK/2018 ITA Nos.19

KOTHAKOTA RAMA RAO,RAYAGADA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee i

ITA 386/CTK/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Aug 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ (तऱाशियाां और अशिग्रहण)सं./Ita No.132/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada Pan No. : Aeppk 1600 P & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita Nos.19&20/Ctk/2019 & Ita No.386/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada Pan No. : Aeppk 1600 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15/07/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 11.09.2018 & 29.08.2018 For Assessment Years 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017. 2. Since, Similar Issues Have Been Raised In All The Appeals, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, We Shall Decide The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y.2013-2014 In It(Ss)A No.132/Ctk/2018 After Taking Into Consideration The Grounds & Facts Mentioned

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CITDR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234

153D of the Act nowhere about service of order has been mentioned. The case laws relied on by the ld. AR of the assessee in the case of Dilip Constructions Pvt. Ltd.(supra) is not applicable in the present facts of the case. Accordingly, we dismiss the legal grounds taken by the assessee. 30 IT(SS)A No.132/CTK/2018 ITA Nos.19

KOTHAKOTA RAMA RAO,RAYAGADA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee i

ITA 19/CTK/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Aug 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ (तऱाशियाां और अशिग्रहण)सं./Ita No.132/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada Pan No. : Aeppk 1600 P & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita Nos.19&20/Ctk/2019 & Ita No.386/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada Pan No. : Aeppk 1600 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15/07/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 11.09.2018 & 29.08.2018 For Assessment Years 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017. 2. Since, Similar Issues Have Been Raised In All The Appeals, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, We Shall Decide The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y.2013-2014 In It(Ss)A No.132/Ctk/2018 After Taking Into Consideration The Grounds & Facts Mentioned

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CITDR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234

153D of the Act nowhere about service of order has been mentioned. The case laws relied on by the ld. AR of the assessee in the case of Dilip Constructions Pvt. Ltd.(supra) is not applicable in the present facts of the case. Accordingly, we dismiss the legal grounds taken by the assessee. 30 IT(SS)A No.132/CTK/2018 ITA Nos.19

SERAJUDDIN & CO,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 227/CTK/2020[2006-07]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack17 Aug 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita Nos.224 To 230/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2020 Assessment Year Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2009 04 To 2009-2010

For Appellant: None (written submission filed)For Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT
Section 153DSection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

section 153D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 vide consolidated order dated 21.01.2022. Vide paragraph 45 of the said decision dated 21.01.2022 , it was held by this Hon'ble Bench as under: “45. Since by the earlier part of this order, we have held that the assessment orders are void and bad in law and consequently, the assessment orders have

SERAJUDDING & CO,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 229/CTK/2020[2008--09]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack17 Aug 2022

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita Nos.224 To 230/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2020 Assessment Year Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2009 04 To 2009-2010

For Appellant: None (written submission filed)For Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT
Section 153DSection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

section 153D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 vide consolidated order dated 21.01.2022. Vide paragraph 45 of the said decision dated 21.01.2022 , it was held by this Hon'ble Bench as under: “45. Since by the earlier part of this order, we have held that the assessment orders are void and bad in law and consequently, the assessment orders have

SERAJUDDIN & CO,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 225/CTK/2020[2004-05]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack17 Aug 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita Nos.224 To 230/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2020 Assessment Year Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2009 04 To 2009-2010

For Appellant: None (written submission filed)For Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT
Section 153DSection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

section 153D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 vide consolidated order dated 21.01.2022. Vide paragraph 45 of the said decision dated 21.01.2022 , it was held by this Hon'ble Bench as under: “45. Since by the earlier part of this order, we have held that the assessment orders are void and bad in law and consequently, the assessment orders have

SERAJUDDIN & CO,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 224/CTK/2020[2003-04]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack17 Aug 2022AY 2003-04

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita Nos.224 To 230/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2020 Assessment Year Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2009 04 To 2009-2010

For Appellant: None (written submission filed)For Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT
Section 153DSection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

section 153D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 vide consolidated order dated 21.01.2022. Vide paragraph 45 of the said decision dated 21.01.2022 , it was held by this Hon'ble Bench as under: “45. Since by the earlier part of this order, we have held that the assessment orders are void and bad in law and consequently, the assessment orders have

SERAJUDDIN & CO,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 228/CTK/2020[2007-08]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack17 Aug 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita Nos.224 To 230/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2020 Assessment Year Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2009 04 To 2009-2010

For Appellant: None (written submission filed)For Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT
Section 153DSection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

section 153D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 vide consolidated order dated 21.01.2022. Vide paragraph 45 of the said decision dated 21.01.2022 , it was held by this Hon'ble Bench as under: “45. Since by the earlier part of this order, we have held that the assessment orders are void and bad in law and consequently, the assessment orders have

SERAJUDDIN & CO,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 230/CTK/2020[2009-10]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack17 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita Nos.224 To 230/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2020 Assessment Year Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2009 04 To 2009-2010

For Appellant: None (written submission filed)For Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT
Section 153DSection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

section 153D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 vide consolidated order dated 21.01.2022. Vide paragraph 45 of the said decision dated 21.01.2022 , it was held by this Hon'ble Bench as under: “45. Since by the earlier part of this order, we have held that the assessment orders are void and bad in law and consequently, the assessment orders have

SERAJUDDIN & CO,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 226/CTK/2020[2005-06]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack17 Aug 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita Nos.224 To 230/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2020 Assessment Year Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2009 04 To 2009-2010

For Appellant: None (written submission filed)For Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT
Section 153DSection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

section 153D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 vide consolidated order dated 21.01.2022. Vide paragraph 45 of the said decision dated 21.01.2022 , it was held by this Hon'ble Bench as under: “45. Since by the earlier part of this order, we have held that the assessment orders are void and bad in law and consequently, the assessment orders have