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 234Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,695Delhi1,594Bangalore1,055Ahmedabad232Kolkata212Chennai181Jaipur141Hyderabad111Pune80Indore57Nagpur55Chandigarh38Surat36Lucknow33Allahabad31Rajkot29Agra23Karnataka20Ranchi18Dehradun16Raipur15Jodhpur12Patna11Amritsar8Visakhapatnam8Cochin7Cuttack6SC5Jabalpur4Panaji3Guwahati2Calcutta1Telangana1Varanasi1Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Section 69A6Section 271A2Section 2502Section 1442Section 142(1)2Section 234A2Unexplained Money2Cash Deposit2Demonetization2Penalty

ALUMINIUM INDUSTRIES (ASSAM) PRIVATE LIMITED,TINSUKIA vs. ITO, WARD-1, TINSUKIA

ITA 187/GTY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati06 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: the Ld. Assessing Officer. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(A) is seen to have proceeded to confirm the action of the Ld. AO.

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 234ASection 250Section 271ASection 69A

section 69A of the Act is inconsistent with the provisions of the Act as the transactions are already recorded in the books of account and therefore bad in law. 7) That the aforesaid additions are arbitrary based on suspicion, surmises and conjectures without any tangible material. 8) For that the additions / disallowances were made by the Assessing Officer without making

ALUMINIUM INDUSTRIES (ASSAM) PRIVATE LIMITED,TINSUKIA vs. ITO, WARD - 1, TINSUKIA

2
Disallowance2
Addition to Income2
ITA 186/GTY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati06 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: the Ld. Assessing Officer. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(A) is seen to have proceeded to confirm the action of the Ld. AO.

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 234ASection 250Section 271ASection 69A

section 69A of the Act is inconsistent with the provisions of the Act as the transactions are already recorded in the books of account and therefore bad in law. 7) That the aforesaid additions are arbitrary based on suspicion, surmises and conjectures without any tangible material. 8) For that the additions / disallowances were made by the Assessing Officer without making