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.

78 results for “disallowance”+ Section 26clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi3,151Mumbai3,123Chennai848Bangalore671Ahmedabad620Hyderabad600Jaipur576Kolkata458Chandigarh305Pune287Indore267Raipur262Surat213Cochin150Rajkot144Visakhapatnam133Amritsar130Nagpur108Lucknow107Guwahati78SC74Allahabad71Jodhpur62Ranchi53Cuttack52Agra48Panaji42Patna35Dehradun26Jabalpur19Varanasi15A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN3MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1ANIL R. DAVE AMITAVA ROY L. NAGESWARA RAO1

Key Topics

Section 6862Addition to Income54Section 25052Section 153C37Disallowance31Section 14830Section 10(26)24Section 4022Section 143(3)21Section 36(1)(va)

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. M/S. PAWAN CEMENT COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, GUWAHATI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue for AY

ITA 73/GTY/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati03 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 250Section 68

26 of the order of the CIT(A) set out from the written submissions filed by the Appellant before him. In addition to the above, we may also refer to the following orders : a) In the context of Section 153C of the Act which is para materia to Section 153A of the Act the Hon'ble Apex court

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. M/S. PAWAN CEMENT COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, GUWAHATI

Showing 1–20 of 78 · Page 1 of 4

19
Depreciation15
Natural Justice12

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue for AY

ITA 72/GTY/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati03 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 250Section 68

26 of the order of the CIT(A) set out from the written submissions filed by the Appellant before him. In addition to the above, we may also refer to the following orders : a) In the context of Section 153C of the Act which is para materia to Section 153A of the Act the Hon'ble Apex court

GWASINLO KATH RENGMA,DIMAPUR, NAGALAND vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, DIMAPUR, DIMAPUR

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

ITA 104/GTY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati15 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Ble & Shri Sanjay Awasthi, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri S.K. TulsiyanFor Respondent: Shri Kausik Ray JCIT
Section 10(26)Section 148aSection 250

section 10(26) of the Act, the ld. CIT(A) observed that, the ld. AO has not disallowed any claim

NYANYA GOLLO,ITANAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TEZPUR

In the result, ITA No. 110/Gau/2020 is allowed and ITA No

ITA 167/GTY/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati06 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 10(26)Section 250Section 251(2)Section 271(1)(c)

disallowed the exemption claimed by the assessee u/s. 10(26) of the Act by passing a non-speaking order that assessee has not explained the exemption claimed u/s. 10(26) of the Act whereas the Ld. CIT(A) has partly allowed the addition only in respect of that work receipt which was evidenced by work order issued by Govt

NYANYA GOLLO,ITANAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TEZPUR

In the result, ITA No. 110/Gau/2020 is allowed and ITA No

ITA 110/GTY/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati06 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 10(26)Section 250Section 251(2)Section 271(1)(c)

disallowed the exemption claimed by the assessee u/s. 10(26) of the Act by passing a non-speaking order that assessee has not explained the exemption claimed u/s. 10(26) of the Act whereas the Ld. CIT(A) has partly allowed the addition only in respect of that work receipt which was evidenced by work order issued by Govt

JYOTI PRAKASH DAS,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 102/GTY/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati31 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2017-18 Jyoti Prakash Das Dcit, Circle-3, Guwahati Kumud Enclave, Nawaram Vs. Kakati Path, Rehabari, Guwahati-781008. Pan: Ajipd 5193 Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Ramesh Goenka, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Arun Bhowmick, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 31.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.08.2023 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 07.02.2020 Of Ld. Cit(A), Guwahati-2 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’]. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1(A). That Neither The Learned Assessing Officer Was Justified In Making Disallowance Of Rs. 1,43,73,603/- On Account Of Proportionate Direct Expenses & Adding The Same In The Closing Stock Of The Appellant Nor The Learned Cit(A) Was Justified In Confirming The Aforesaid Disallowance/Addition.

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh Goenka, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arun Bhowmick, JCIT
Section 143(2)Section 250Section 40A(3)Section 69C

26) of the Act. He further submitted that since the genuineness of the payments have not been doubted by the authorities below, therefore, the claim of the assessee for such business expediency, such amount should not be disallowed. The ld. A/R prayed that the disallowance made by the ld. AO may be deleted. 11. The ld. D/R on the other

M/S. ADD CONSTRUCTION,GUWAHATI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE -1, GUWAHATI

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 13/GTY/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati22 Aug 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.12,13&14/Gau/2023 Assessment Years: 2018-19 To 2020-21 M/S Add Construction….…........…..…………....................……….……Appellant C/O Rahul Raj Jain & Co., H.No.15, 1St Floor, Bye Lane-2, Shaktigarh Path, Bhangagarh, G.S. Road, Assam-781005. [Pan: Aaifa2627H] Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Guwahati ……….…............…….......................…..…..Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri N.T Sherpa, Jcit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 26, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 22, 2023 Order Per Manish Borad: All These Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Years 2018-19 To 2020-21 Are Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] All Dated 31.01.2023 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Common Issue Involved In All These Appeals Is Relating To The Disallowance Made By The Assessing Officer/Central Processing Centre (Cpc) U/S 36(1)(Va) R.W.S. 2(24)(X) Of The Act On Account Of Delayed Deposit Of Employees’ Contribution To Pf/Esi I.E. After The Due Date As Provided Under The Respective Welfare Enactments.

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

26, 2023 Date of pronouncing the order : August 22, 2023 ORDER Per Manish Borad, Accountant Member: All these appeals filed by the same assessee pertaining to the Assessment Years 2018-19 to 2020-21 are directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short ld. “CIT(A)”] all dated 31.01.2023 passed u/s 250 of the Income

M/S. ADD CONSTRUCTION,GUWAHATI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE -1, GUWAHATI

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 12/GTY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati22 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.12,13&14/Gau/2023 Assessment Years: 2018-19 To 2020-21 M/S Add Construction….…........…..…………....................……….……Appellant C/O Rahul Raj Jain & Co., H.No.15, 1St Floor, Bye Lane-2, Shaktigarh Path, Bhangagarh, G.S. Road, Assam-781005. [Pan: Aaifa2627H] Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Guwahati ……….…............…….......................…..…..Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri N.T Sherpa, Jcit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 26, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 22, 2023 Order Per Manish Borad: All These Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Years 2018-19 To 2020-21 Are Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] All Dated 31.01.2023 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Common Issue Involved In All These Appeals Is Relating To The Disallowance Made By The Assessing Officer/Central Processing Centre (Cpc) U/S 36(1)(Va) R.W.S. 2(24)(X) Of The Act On Account Of Delayed Deposit Of Employees’ Contribution To Pf/Esi I.E. After The Due Date As Provided Under The Respective Welfare Enactments.

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

26, 2023 Date of pronouncing the order : August 22, 2023 ORDER Per Manish Borad, Accountant Member: All these appeals filed by the same assessee pertaining to the Assessment Years 2018-19 to 2020-21 are directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short ld. “CIT(A)”] all dated 31.01.2023 passed u/s 250 of the Income

M/S. ADD CONSTRUCTION,GUWAHATI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE -1, GUWAHATI

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 14/GTY/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati22 Aug 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.12,13&14/Gau/2023 Assessment Years: 2018-19 To 2020-21 M/S Add Construction….…........…..…………....................……….……Appellant C/O Rahul Raj Jain & Co., H.No.15, 1St Floor, Bye Lane-2, Shaktigarh Path, Bhangagarh, G.S. Road, Assam-781005. [Pan: Aaifa2627H] Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Guwahati ……….…............…….......................…..…..Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri N.T Sherpa, Jcit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 26, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 22, 2023 Order Per Manish Borad: All These Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Years 2018-19 To 2020-21 Are Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] All Dated 31.01.2023 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Common Issue Involved In All These Appeals Is Relating To The Disallowance Made By The Assessing Officer/Central Processing Centre (Cpc) U/S 36(1)(Va) R.W.S. 2(24)(X) Of The Act On Account Of Delayed Deposit Of Employees’ Contribution To Pf/Esi I.E. After The Due Date As Provided Under The Respective Welfare Enactments.

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

26, 2023 Date of pronouncing the order : August 22, 2023 ORDER Per Manish Borad, Accountant Member: All these appeals filed by the same assessee pertaining to the Assessment Years 2018-19 to 2020-21 are directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short ld. “CIT(A)”] all dated 31.01.2023 passed u/s 250 of the Income

M/S. JACK N JILL,DIMAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 17/GTY/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati12 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Mody, FCAFor Respondent: Shri N. T. Sherpa, JCIT
Section 133ASection 194Section 201Section 201(1)Section 204Section 4Section 4(1)

section 10(26) of the Act, hence, we could not have legally deducted ITDS therefrom. In the circumstances, we cannot be treated as 'assessee-in-default' on account of non-deduction of tax at source on Rent of Rs.39,53,040/- paid by us to the aforesaid persons during the financial year 2015- 2016. Therefore, it is most respectfully prayed

M/S. JACK N JILL,DIMAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 14/GTY/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati12 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Mody, FCAFor Respondent: Shri N. T. Sherpa, JCIT
Section 133ASection 194Section 201Section 201(1)Section 204Section 4Section 4(1)

section 10(26) of the Act, hence, we could not have legally deducted ITDS therefrom. In the circumstances, we cannot be treated as 'assessee-in-default' on account of non-deduction of tax at source on Rent of Rs.39,53,040/- paid by us to the aforesaid persons during the financial year 2015- 2016. Therefore, it is most respectfully prayed

M/S. JACK N JILL,DIMAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 15/GTY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati12 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Mody, FCAFor Respondent: Shri N. T. Sherpa, JCIT
Section 133ASection 194Section 201Section 201(1)Section 204Section 4Section 4(1)

section 10(26) of the Act, hence, we could not have legally deducted ITDS therefrom. In the circumstances, we cannot be treated as 'assessee-in-default' on account of non-deduction of tax at source on Rent of Rs.39,53,040/- paid by us to the aforesaid persons during the financial year 2015- 2016. Therefore, it is most respectfully prayed

M/S. JACK N JILL,DIMAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 16/GTY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati12 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Mody, FCAFor Respondent: Shri N. T. Sherpa, JCIT
Section 133ASection 194Section 201Section 201(1)Section 204Section 4Section 4(1)

section 10(26) of the Act, hence, we could not have legally deducted ITDS therefrom. In the circumstances, we cannot be treated as 'assessee-in-default' on account of non-deduction of tax at source on Rent of Rs.39,53,040/- paid by us to the aforesaid persons during the financial year 2015- 2016. Therefore, it is most respectfully prayed

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-SHILLONG, SHILLONG vs. THE MEGHALAYA COOPERATIVE APEX BANK LIMITED, SHILLONG

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is allowed and the Cross

ITA 50/GTY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati29 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sri Manomohan Das & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 10(26)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 36Section 40

disallowance and also allow the exemption u/s 10(26) and also consider the cases covered by form No 15H/15G subject to production of supporting evidence before AO for cases covered by exemption u/s 10(26). ii) On the facts of the case and in law, whether the AO is duty-bound to follow the direction

TRIDENT INFRAPROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(2), GUWAHATI

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 254/GTY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati06 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 10(26)Section 194CSection 194C(6)Section 250Section 40Section 69C

disallowance of the expenditure under Section 40(a)(ia). No TDS is required if, the single payment made to the transporter does not exceed Rs. 30,000. The aggregate payments to the transporter during the financial year do not exceed Rs. 1,00,000. Although no TDS is deducted, the payments made to transporters must still be reported

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. ABCI INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

ITA 2/GTY/2023[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Guwahati05 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44A

Section 44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It is an admitted fact that the Assessing Officer has not pointed out any specific discrepancies in the audited Books of Accounts of the Appellant and disallowed the above expenses merely on the basis of conjectures and surmises. It is further noted that the above disallowance is more on the basis

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. ABCI INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

ITA 37/GTY/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Guwahati05 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44A

Section 44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It is an admitted fact that the Assessing Officer has not pointed out any specific discrepancies in the audited Books of Accounts of the Appellant and disallowed the above expenses merely on the basis of conjectures and surmises. It is further noted that the above disallowance is more on the basis

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. ABCI INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

ITA 38/GTY/2022[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Guwahati05 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44A

Section 44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It is an admitted fact that the Assessing Officer has not pointed out any specific discrepancies in the audited Books of Accounts of the Appellant and disallowed the above expenses merely on the basis of conjectures and surmises. It is further noted that the above disallowance is more on the basis

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. ABCI INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

ITA 39/GTY/2022[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Guwahati05 Apr 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44A

Section 44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It is an admitted fact that the Assessing Officer has not pointed out any specific discrepancies in the audited Books of Accounts of the Appellant and disallowed the above expenses merely on the basis of conjectures and surmises. It is further noted that the above disallowance is more on the basis

ABCI INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

ITA 43/GTY/2022[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Guwahati05 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44A

Section 44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It is an admitted fact that the Assessing Officer has not pointed out any specific discrepancies in the audited Books of Accounts of the Appellant and disallowed the above expenses merely on the basis of conjectures and surmises. It is further noted that the above disallowance is more on the basis