Search: disallowance | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

31 results for “disallowance”+ Section 256clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai843 Delhi767 Bangalore214 Ahmedabad212 Kolkata201 Jaipur200 Chennai199 Pune81 Cochin81 Surat64 Hyderabad59 Indore58 Raipur52 Chandigarh48 Lucknow34 Cuttack31 Visakhapatnam28 Nagpur25 Rajkot24 Telangana21 SC20 Guwahati14 Allahabad13 Calcutta13 Agra12 Karnataka9 Amritsar8 Varanasi6 Patna6 Jodhpur3 Jabalpur3 Panaji2 Ranchi2 A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2 Dehradun2 Punjab & Haryana1 Rajasthan1 RANJAN GOGOI PRAFULLA C. PANT1

Key Topics

Section 26319 Section 143(3)17 Addition to Income15 Section 80I12 Section 10(38)12 Deduction12 Disallowance12 Capital Gains12 Long Term Capital Gains12

ACIT, BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. NEELACHAL GRAMYA BANK, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue and cross objection

ITA 58/CTK/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack12 Jul 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri B.K.Mohapatra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kunal Singh, DR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 22Section 36Section 44ASection 80PSection 80P(4)

Showing 1–20 of 31 · Page 1 of 2

disallowance of Rs.l 1,70,84,000/- u/s.36(l)(vii) of the Act be fully deleted. Ground Nos.1 & 2: 22. Without prejudice to the paras 1 to 20 above: C.O. No. 13/CT K/ 2015 Asse ssment Year:20 08- 09 a. As already stated the assessee, during the scrutiny assessment proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Act, has produced its books

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. HIMANSU MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

ITA 45/CTK/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack21 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

For Appellant: Shri S.C Mohanty, Sr. DR

disallowance. Now, unlike section 132(4) which treats the statements recorded during a search operation as 'evidence' in any proceeding under the ~ Act, 1961, section 133A, while authorizing recording statements by the survey officer, does not give the same status of 'evidence' to such recorded statements. It is therefore open to the assessee to explain this 'statement

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. SITANSU SEKHAR MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

ITA 38/CTK/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack21 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

For Appellant: Shri S.C Mohanty, Sr. DR

disallowance. Now, unlike section 132(4) which treats the statements recorded during a search operation as 'evidence' in any proceeding under the ~ Act, 1961, section 133A, while authorizing recording statements by the survey officer, does not give the same status of 'evidence' to such recorded statements. It is therefore open to the assessee to explain this 'statement

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. ANUPAMA MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

ITA 40/CTK/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack21 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

For Appellant: Shri S.C Mohanty, Sr. DR

disallowance. Now, unlike section 132(4) which treats the statements recorded during a search operation as 'evidence' in any proceeding under the ~ Act, 1961, section 133A, while authorizing recording statements by the survey officer, does not give the same status of 'evidence' to such recorded statements. It is therefore open to the assessee to explain this 'statement

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. ANUPAMA MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

ITA 41/CTK/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack21 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

For Appellant: Shri S.C Mohanty, Sr. DR

disallowance. Now, unlike section 132(4) which treats the statements recorded during a search operation as 'evidence' in any proceeding under the ~ Act, 1961, section 133A, while authorizing recording statements by the survey officer, does not give the same status of 'evidence' to such recorded statements. It is therefore open to the assessee to explain this 'statement

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. DEEPANSU MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

ITA 42/CTK/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack21 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

For Appellant: Shri S.C Mohanty, Sr. DR

disallowance. Now, unlike section 132(4) which treats the statements recorded during a search operation as 'evidence' in any proceeding under the ~ Act, 1961, section 133A, while authorizing recording statements by the survey officer, does not give the same status of 'evidence' to such recorded statements. It is therefore open to the assessee to explain this 'statement

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. DEEPANSU MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

ITA 43/CTK/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack21 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

For Appellant: Shri S.C Mohanty, Sr. DR

disallowance. Now, unlike section 132(4) which treats the statements recorded during a search operation as 'evidence' in any proceeding under the ~ Act, 1961, section 133A, while authorizing recording statements by the survey officer, does not give the same status of 'evidence' to such recorded statements. It is therefore open to the assessee to explain this 'statement

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. HIMANSU MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

ITA 44/CTK/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack21 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

For Appellant: Shri S.C Mohanty, Sr. DR

disallowance. Now, unlike section 132(4) which treats the statements recorded during a search operation as 'evidence' in any proceeding under the ~ Act, 1961, section 133A, while authorizing recording statements by the survey officer, does not give the same status of 'evidence' to such recorded statements. It is therefore open to the assessee to explain this 'statement

ITO, BHADRAK WARD , BHADRAK vs. PARBATI MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

ITA 49/CTK/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

For Appellant: Shri S.C Mohanty, Sr. DR

disallowance. Now, unlike section 132(4) which treats the statements recorded during a search operation as 'evidence' in any proceeding under the ~ Act, 1961, section 133A, while authorizing recording statements by the survey officer, does not give the same status of 'evidence' to such recorded statements. It is therefore open to the assessee to explain this 'statement

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. MAMATA MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

ITA 47/CTK/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

For Appellant: Shri S.C Mohanty, Sr. DR

disallowance. Now, unlike section 132(4) which treats the statements recorded during a search operation as 'evidence' in any proceeding under the ~ Act, 1961, section 133A, while authorizing recording statements by the survey officer, does not give the same status of 'evidence' to such recorded statements. It is therefore open to the assessee to explain this 'statement

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. KISHORE KUMAR MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

ITA 48/CTK/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

For Appellant: Shri S.C Mohanty, Sr. DR

disallowance. Now, unlike section 132(4) which treats the statements recorded during a search operation as 'evidence' in any proceeding under the ~ Act, 1961, section 133A, while authorizing recording statements by the survey officer, does not give the same status of 'evidence' to such recorded statements. It is therefore open to the assessee to explain this 'statement

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. SMT. KUNTALA MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

ITA 50/CTK/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

For Appellant: Shri S.C Mohanty, Sr. DR

disallowance. Now, unlike section 132(4) which treats the statements recorded during a search operation as 'evidence' in any proceeding under the ~ Act, 1961, section 133A, while authorizing recording statements by the survey officer, does not give the same status of 'evidence' to such recorded statements. It is therefore open to the assessee to explain this 'statement

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. AMRUTA PREETAM MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

ITA 46/CTK/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

For Appellant: Shri S.C Mohanty, Sr. DR

disallowance. Now, unlike section 132(4) which treats the statements recorded during a search operation as 'evidence' in any proceeding under the ~ Act, 1961, section 133A, while authorizing recording statements by the survey officer, does not give the same status of 'evidence' to such recorded statements. It is therefore open to the assessee to explain this 'statement

SMT. PRAGYAN MOHANTY,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, BHUBANESWAR

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

ITA 446/CTK/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack29 Mar 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.S Sainiassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR

section 145 of the Act. Ld A.R. of the assessee has not brought any positive material on record to controvert the findings of lower authorities that Rs.2,34,256/- being license fee to State Excise was the expenditure for subsequent financial year 2011-12 and not for the year under consideration. Hence, the disallowance

M/S. VISION HABITATE & SERVICES PVT. LTD.,SAMBALPUR vs. PR. CIT, SAMBALPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 214/CTK/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Aug 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.214/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Vision Habitate & Services Vs. Pr. Cit, Sambalpur-768004 Private Limited, Kadambari Complex, Gole Bazar, Sambalpur-768001 Pan No. : Aadcn 4768 J (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri B.N.Agrawal/Binod Agrawal, Ars राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 25/08/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Pr.Cit, Sambalpur, Dated 30.03.2019 For The A.Y.2014-2015 On The Following Grounds :- 1. That The Order U/S. 263 Is Bad In Law As Well As In Facts. 2. That The Order U/S. 263, Stated To Have Been Passed On 30.03.2019, Is Ante Dated & Barred By Limitation, Being Issued & Served Upon The Appellant On 30.04.2019, Which Is After The Expiry Of Period Of Limitation On 31.03.2019. 3. That The Assessment Order Dt.29.12.2016 Making An Addition Of Rs.27,51,100 To The Returned Income U/S.56(2)(Viib) Consequent Upon Valuation Of Book Value Of 4,510 Nos. Of Equity Shares @ Rs.739 Per Share As On 31.03.2013 Allotted On 31.03.2014 @ Rs.1,349 Per Share. Thus, The Difference Of Rs.610 Per Share Multiplied By 4,510 Nos. Of Shares Allotted Coming To Rs.27,51,100 Has Been Added As Above By The Id. Ao. The Said Valuation & The Consequential Addition Has Been Disputed By The Appellant In The Appeal In Form No.35 E-Filed Before The Id.

For Appellant: Shri B.N.Agrawal/Binod AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CITDR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 56(2)(viib)

256 ITR 440 (Mad,) (Page 63)r where the revision has been held to be invalid as the subject-matter of the revision was the same as that of the pending appeal as Interpreted in Aermns Infrastructure & Technology ltd, v. CZT (2004) 271 ITR £5 (Demi) (Page 64), 5. in the Ground No.3 of the appeal filed against the assessment

M/S. ORISSA MINING CORPORATION LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. JCIT, RANGE-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee i

ITA 92/CTK/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 Oct 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am

For Appellant: Shri P. Venugopal RaoFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80G

Disallowance of Periphery Development expenses u/s 147 of the IT. Act, 1961 amounting to Rs.20,23,92,256/- on the ground that it is not incidental business is bad in law and incorrect. 2. The said expenditure was accepted by the then Ld. Assessing Officer (AO) in the reassessment u/s 147 dtd. 21.03.2011 and hence, subsequent rejection of the same

M/S. ORISSA MINING CORPORATION LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. JCIT, RANGE-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee i

ITA 93/CTK/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 Oct 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am

For Appellant: Shri P. Venugopal RaoFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80G

Disallowance of Periphery Development expenses u/s 147 of the IT. Act, 1961 amounting to Rs.20,23,92,256/- on the ground that it is not incidental business is bad in law and incorrect. 2. The said expenditure was accepted by the then Ld. Assessing Officer (AO) in the reassessment u/s 147 dtd. 21.03.2011 and hence, subsequent rejection of the same

ORISSA MINING CORPORATION LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee i

ITA 333/CTK/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 Oct 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am

For Appellant: Shri P. Venugopal RaoFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80G

Disallowance of Periphery Development expenses u/s 147 of the IT. Act, 1961 amounting to Rs.20,23,92,256/- on the ground that it is not incidental business is bad in law and incorrect. 2. The said expenditure was accepted by the then Ld. Assessing Officer (AO) in the reassessment u/s 147 dtd. 21.03.2011 and hence, subsequent rejection of the same

ORISSA MINING CORPORATION LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DICT, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee i

ITA 381/CTK/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 Oct 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am

For Appellant: Shri P. Venugopal RaoFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80G

Disallowance of Periphery Development expenses u/s 147 of the IT. Act, 1961 amounting to Rs.20,23,92,256/- on the ground that it is not incidental business is bad in law and incorrect. 2. The said expenditure was accepted by the then Ld. Assessing Officer (AO) in the reassessment u/s 147 dtd. 21.03.2011 and hence, subsequent rejection of the same

M/S. ORISSA MINING CORPORATION LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee i

ITA 375/CTK/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am

For Appellant: Shri P. Venugopal RaoFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80G

Disallowance of Periphery Development expenses u/s 147 of the IT. Act, 1961 amounting to Rs.20,23,92,256/- on the ground that it is not incidental business is bad in law and incorrect. 2. The said expenditure was accepted by the then Ld. Assessing Officer (AO) in the reassessment u/s 147 dtd. 21.03.2011 and hence, subsequent rejection of the same