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”+ Section 161(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai956Delhi853Kolkata252Chennai242Bangalore241Ahmedabad213Jaipur198Pune138Hyderabad114Cochin91Indore76Chandigarh61Raipur55Surat52Panaji45Nagpur31Lucknow28Visakhapatnam24Allahabad21Amritsar13Rajkot11Karnataka11Agra10SC9Patna8Dehradun6Guwahati6Calcutta6Cuttack5Telangana4Jodhpur3Kerala3Ranchi3A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Rajasthan1Punjab & Haryana1Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 54F9Section 1475Section 1485Section 143(3)4Section 543Section 2633Disallowance3Section 14A2Section 2502Natural Justice

M/S. SANKALP,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 415/CTK/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack19 Oct 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2015-16 Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Bibek Mohanty, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR
Section 14(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)

1 | 12 ITA No.4 15/CTK/201 8 Assessm ent Y ear : 2 01 5-1 6 ITA No.2 37/CTK/201 9 Assessm ent Y ear : 2 01 6-1 7 Rule 8D of I.T.Rules, 1962 of Rs.14,00,616/- for the assessment year 2015- 16 and Rs.20,82,640/- for the assessment year 2016-17. 3. Since facts are identical

2
Deduction2

M G MOHANTY,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 402/CTK/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack26 Nov 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalआयकर अपील संसंसंसं/Ita No.402/Ctk/2024 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-2009) वष" M G Mohanty, Vs Dcit, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar 5A, Forest Park, Odisha Pan No. :Aaffm 2127 H (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" (""यथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) ""यथ" .. िनधा"रती क" िनधा"रती क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Assessee By िनधा"रती िनधा"रती क" क" ओर ओर : Sh B.K.Mahapatra & Sh. A.K.Sabat, Cas राज"व राज"व क" राज"व राज"व क" क" ओर क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Revenue By ओर : Dr. Abani Kanta Nayak, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/11/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26/11/2024 आदेश आदेश / O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 01.08.2024, Passed In Appeal No.Cit(A), Bhubaneswar-1/10098/2016-17 Vide Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1067224134(1) For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. The Assessee Has Challenged The Appellate Order On The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- 1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac [In Short "Cit (Appeals)") Dated 01.08.2024 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act. 1961 [In Short "I.T.Act/ "Act] In Dismissing The Appeal Is Against The Principles Of Natural Justice, Contrary To Facts, Unjustified, Arbitrary, Erroneous, Bad, Both In The Eye Of Law & On Facts & Legally Untenable.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

161 taxmann.com 811 (Allahabad) (iii) Sesa Sterlite Ltd. vs ACIT, Circle 1(1), Panaji [2019] 107 taxmann.com 388 (Bombay) 6. Ld. AR also placed reliance on the following case laws :- 1. Bikash Deb vs DCIT Circle-2(1), ITAT, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack (ITA Nos. 357 & 388/CTK/2019) 2. Balaji Mines and Minerals Pvt. Ltd and Othes vs ACIT & Others

ITO, WARD-3(2), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR vs. GAYA SANTARA, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the appeal

ITA 468/CTK/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Jul 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year :2008-09

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agarwalla, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR
Section 148Section 54Section 54F

section 54F by Finance No.(2) Act, 2014 w.e.f. 1.4.2015, with regard to word “a” a residential house would include multiple flats/residential units, thus where under the development agreement assessee was entitled to receive certain built-up area, which got translated into five flats, exemption u/s.54F in respect of all five flats in a multi-storey construction would be available

ASHOK BRICKS INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BELPAHAR R S vs. ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , ROURKELA CIRCLE

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

ITA 182/CTK/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack26 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(viib)

disallowance for such default and on the issue of share premium received. On verification of details submitted by the assessee, the Ld. AO noticed that the assessee company had issued shares to its shareholders at a premium of Rs.454/- per share. The assessee was asked to produce various details. Since the assessee did not furnish the required details despite having

P RAMA RAO,NAWARANGPUR vs. ITO, JEYPORE WARD, JEYPORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 389/CTK/2004[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack01 Feb 2022AY 1993-94

Bench: Shri P.M.Jagtap & Shri C.M.Garg(Through : Video Conferencing) P.Rama Rao, Vs Cit, Bhubaneswar Prop. Of M/S Om Traders, At-Pathana Street, Po-Nawarangpur, Dist-Nawarangpur-764059 Pan No. : (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri Jagamohan Pattanaik, Adv. : राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 04/01/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Cit, Bhubaneswar U/S.263 Of The Act, Dated 31.03.2004. 2. We Have Heard The Arguments Of Both The Sides & Perused The Relevant Record Of The Tribunal Including The Paper Book Filed By The Assessee Spread Over 77 Pages Along With The Written Submissions Filed On 03.01.2022. 3. Replying To The Above, Ld. Cit-Dr Also Filed Written Submissions & Copies Of The Case Laws/Judgments/Orders In Support Of The Stand Of The Revenue.

For Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CITDR
Section 246Section 251Section 254Section 263

161, in context with an order of remand passed by the High Court under order 41 Rule 23 of the CPC, observed as under: "The High Court should not ordinarily remand a case under "order 41 Rule 23 CPC to the Lower Court merely because it considers that the reasoning of the lower court, in some respects, was wrong. Such