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 206clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai848Delhi769Chennai206Bangalore198Kolkata159Hyderabad95Jaipur90Ahmedabad89Chandigarh59Nagpur58Raipur57Pune54Indore48Surat47Calcutta38Rajkot35Allahabad29Visakhapatnam25Telangana19Lucknow18Amritsar14Cochin14SC10Karnataka9Ranchi7Kerala6Jodhpur5Panaji4Guwahati4Dehradun3Cuttack2Patna2Rajasthan2Agra2Varanasi1Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Section 2503Section 143(1)3Section 102

JOHARIMAL HIGH SCHOOL,CUTTACK vs. ITO EXEMPTION, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 135/CTK/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack09 Mar 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: S/ S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2018-19 Joharimal High School, Joharimal High School, Vs. Ito (Exemptions), Ito (Exemptions), Ganesh Ganesh Ghat, Ghat, Po: Po: Cuttack Chandinchowk, Cuttack Chandinchowk, Cuttack Pan/Gir No. No.Aaatj 3292 R (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra & R.K.Jhunjhunwala P.K.Mishra & R.K.Jhunjhunwala, Ars Revenue By : Shri Sovesh Chandra Mohanty, Chandra Mohanty, (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 2/3/ 20 / 2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 09/ /3/2022 O R D E R Per C.M.Garg G, Jm

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, and R.K.JhunjhunwalaFor Respondent: Shri Sovesh Chandra Mohanty
Section 10Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 250

206/-, inter alia, disallowing the revenue expenditure amounting to Rs.73,10,521/-. 4. In first appeal, the CIT(A) upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer, presuming that the AO CPC while processing u/s.143(1) of the Act, must have captured the data from the Audit Report filed by the assessee itself. Ld CIT(A) observed that there

LORAMITRA RATH,KAIRAPARI KOTSAHI, TANGI vs. DCIT (CIRCLE-1(1), CUTTACK

The appeal is allowed

ITA 314/CTK/2023[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack05 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2015-16 Loramitra Loramitra Rath, Rath, Kairapari Kairapari Vs. Dcit, Circle Dcit, Circle-1(1), Kotsahi, Tangi, Cuttack Kotsahi, Tangi, Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. No.Aebpr 6065 H (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Purnendhu Bhusan Mohanty, Ca Purnendhu Bhusan Mohanty, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr

For Appellant: Shri Purnendhu Bhusan Mohanty, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr
Section 48

206 (PC); ClT vs. Sitaldas Tirathdas [1961J 41 lTR 367 (SC) and Vibhuti Glass Works vs. ClT [1989J 177 lTR 439 (SC). In the case of CIT vs. Sunil J Kinariwala [2003 J 259 ITR 10, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has, after referring to various precedents on the subject, explained the aforesaid expression in the following manner: "When