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 251clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,126Delhi945Bangalore324Chennai290Kolkata254Jaipur152Hyderabad142Ahmedabad140Pune120Chandigarh89Surat73Raipur59Indore56Lucknow51Amritsar40Nagpur38Cochin34Allahabad28Rajkot24Panaji19Karnataka19Cuttack18Guwahati14Telangana10Visakhapatnam9Jodhpur9Kerala8Dehradun5Ranchi4SC3Patna3Agra2Jabalpur2Varanasi2Rajasthan2Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Section 80I13Section 805Addition to Income5Deduction3Section 2502Section 69A2Section 1442Section 142(1)2Section 143(3)2Cash Deposit

SH.SUDESH VERMA,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, W-1(2)(4), DEHRADUN

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 86/DDN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun28 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 133(6)Section 250Section 282Section 69A

disallowance of expenses of Rs.7,31,340/- have been made mainly due to non-compliance on the part of the assessee. As the assessee has failed to produce his books of account etc. before the AO and any compliance before the Ld. CIT(A). 7. We take note of the fact that the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal

CHERRIE GEMS PRIVATE LIMITED ,ROORKEE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), NFAC, DELHI

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

2
Demonetization2
Natural Justice2
ITA 98/DDN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun12 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: BEFORESHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member), SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA (Accountant Member)

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250(6)Section 69A

disallowance of cash deposit of Rs 19,79,000 into bank during demonetization period since this amount has been deposited out of sale proceeds of jewelry and garments. 5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in the addition made by the Ld. AO solely on the basis

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1)(1), DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN vs. THDC INDIA LIMITED, TEHRI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as above

ITA 120/DDN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun31 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 115JSection 7Section 80I

251/- under section 115JB of the Act. The case was picked up for scrutiny and consequential assessment was completed at income of Rs.1208,85,53,720/-as under: S. No. Particulars Amount (Rs.) 1. Disallowance

M/S THDC INDIA LIMITED, RISHIKESH,RISHIKESH vs. PCIT, DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 69/DDN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun24 Dec 2025AY 2020-21
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 270ASection 80

251(1)(a) of the Act by the\nHon'ble CIT(A) and enhancing the income of the Appellant is invalid\nand contrary to the provisions of law, and the enhancement deserves\nto be deleted.\nThat on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the\nHon'ble CIT(A) has erred in enhancing the income

IMSI (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,DEHRADUN vs. JCIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 53/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun26 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri N.C. Upadhyay, CIT-DR
Section 234BSection 80Section 80I

disallowed the claim of deduction u/s 80IC of the Act. 6. We find that the claim of deduction u/s 80IC of the Act was allowed by this Tribunal in A.Ys 2007-08 to 2010-11 in ITA Nos. 5856/DEL/2011, 4279/DEL/2012, 5744/DEL/2012 and 2506/DEL/2013. The relevant findings of the co-ordinate bench read as under: “27. We have considered the submissions