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 80Dclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai19Jaipur10Chandigarh9Hyderabad7Kolkata6Bangalore6Delhi5Ahmedabad3Chennai3Visakhapatnam2Indore2Nagpur2Agra2Panaji1Pune1Jodhpur1Raipur1

Key Topics

Section 80C9Section 153A5Deduction5Disallowance5Addition to Income5Section 153C4Section 683Section 142(1)2Section 158B2

INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI vs. MOHD RIZWAN, DELHI

In the result, addition of Rs

ITA 3535/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2021-22
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abhijeet Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 80C

sections": [ "144", "80C", "80D", "80TTA", "68", "131", "132", "115BE" ], "issues": "Whether the disallowance of purchases made by the AO was justified

PANKAJ GUPTA,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 35(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3661/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

Bench:
For Appellant: Shri Wahaj Ahmed Khan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar, Sr.D.R
Section 143(3)Section 68Section 80C

Sections 80C and 80D. It is claimed on behalf of the assessee that assessee has paid LIP amounting to Rs.1,40,000/- and 80C claim thereon is allowable upto Rs. 1 lac. Similarly, the assessee has paid Rs.26,446/- towards premium for hospitalization benefit policy. The assertion made on behalf of the assessee is supported by the documentary evidences produced

VIJAY GUPTA,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1687/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Vijay Gupta, Vs Ito, H.No.538, Pipe Line Road, Ward-34(1), Khasra No.154, Chhoti Pooth Civic Centre, Jln (Pooth Khurd), Bawana, Marg, New Delhi. Delhi-110039. Pan-Ajdpg6741Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Shri Umesh Takyar, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 28.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 20.05.2022

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 80C

disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80C & 80D of the Act. Thus, the AO assessed the income at Rs.1,72,99,692/-, against the income of Rs.5,18,781/- declared by the assessee. 4. Aggrieved against this, the assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A), who after considering the submissions of the assessee, partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Thereby, Ld.CIT

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-20, NEW DELHI vs. GAUTAM GULATI, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7030/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Narender Kumar Choudhry

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 158BSection 80C

disallowance of deductions u/s 80C, 80G and 80D of the Act etc. Aggrieved by the order of AO, Assessee carried the matter before the CIT(A) who vide order dated 08.08.2018 in Appeal Nos. 372 to 374, 384, 385, 397 & 398/16-17 granted substantial relief to the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), Revenue is now before

MEENA GUPTA,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 464/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2012-13]

Section 153CSection 153DSection 234ASection 69ASection 80C

disallowance has been made by recording incorrect facts and findings and without providing the entire adverse material on record and without observing the principles of natural justice. 6. That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld. CIT(A) in not allowing the entire cost of construction/renovation expenses of Rs.48,48,524/- as claimed