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.

10 results for “disallowance”+ Section 275clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi714Mumbai631Bangalore172Chennai168Kolkata132Ahmedabad124Jaipur94Cochin85Chandigarh57Surat46Hyderabad39Raipur33Pune29Karnataka20Indore19Nagpur19Cuttack18Amritsar17Lucknow15Rajkot13Ranchi11Jodhpur10Guwahati10Visakhapatnam7Telangana5Calcutta5Patna4Panaji4Allahabad3Varanasi3Agra3Jabalpur2SC2Dehradun1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 4017Section 143(3)9Addition to Income9Section 2508Section 43B6Section 10(26)4Section 139(4)4Section 271(1)(c)3Section 733Disallowance

ASSAM GAS COMPANY LIMITED,DULIAJAN vs. DCIT/ ACIT, CIRCLE 1/DBR, DIBRUGARH

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 66/GTY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati16 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

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

Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 438Section 43B

Section 43B was correctly made. Accordingly, this ground of appeal is rejected. 4.3 Ground 3: Disallowance of TDS Credit 4.3.1 The appellant has challenged the disallowance of Tax Deducted at Source I.T.A. No. 66/GTY/2025 Assam Gas Company Limited (TDS) credit amounting to Rs. 4.98,09,173. The appellant claims that the TDS credit was correctly claimed in the return based

3
Deduction2

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -II, GUWAHATI vs. M/S. ARIHANT INTERNATIONAL LIMITED , GUWAHATI

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

ITA 275/GTY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati19 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 43(5)Section 73

275/- was disallowed and income assessed at Rs. 5,71,17,516/- in the re-assessment order dated 23.11.2015. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before ld. CIT(A) raising legal grounds as well as grounds on merit and finally succeeded. Ld. CIT(A) firstly held that the impugned assessment order dated 23.11.2015 is conspicuously marred by clear denial

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, SHILLONG, SHILLONG vs. MEGHALAYA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED, LUMJINGSHAI, SHILLONG

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 308/GTY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Mar 2026AY 2016-17
Section 139(4)Section 139(9)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 72Section 80Section 80I

275/- In respect of disallowances\nmade by the AO to the extent sustained in appeals (ii) an amount of Rs.2,98,51,729/-\nwhich the AO had held as wrongly claimed loss in the belated Return filed u/s 139(4). I\nfind that the appellant has pressed for the grounds related to the second amount only.\nIt has been submitted

MEGHALAYA POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LIMITED,SHILLONG vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-SHILLONG, SHILLONG

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 361/GTY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati28 Feb 2023AY 2016-17

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

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act shall not be deducted in computing the income chargeable under the head ‘Profits and gains of business or profession’. Since the year under appeal is AY 2016-17 therefore, the said amendment is applicable and therefore, the disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act needs to be sustained only to the extent

MEGHALAYA ENERGY CORPORATION LIMITED, (GPF TRUST),SHILLONG vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-SHILLONG, SHILLONG

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 364/GTY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati28 Feb 2023AY 2016-17

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

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act shall not be deducted in computing the income chargeable under the head ‘Profits and gains of business or profession’. Since the year under appeal is AY 2016-17 therefore, the said amendment is applicable and therefore, the disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act needs to be sustained only to the extent

MEGHALAYA ENERGY CORPORATION LIMITED,SHILLONG vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-SHILLONG, SHILLONG

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 363/GTY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati28 Feb 2023AY 2016-17

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

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act shall not be deducted in computing the income chargeable under the head ‘Profits and gains of business or profession’. Since the year under appeal is AY 2016-17 therefore, the said amendment is applicable and therefore, the disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act needs to be sustained only to the extent

MEGHALAYA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED,SHILLONG vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-SHILLONG, SHILLONG

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 360/GTY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati28 Feb 2023AY 2016-17

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

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act shall not be deducted in computing the income chargeable under the head ‘Profits and gains of business or profession’. Since the year under appeal is AY 2016-17 therefore, the said amendment is applicable and therefore, the disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act needs to be sustained only to the extent

MEGHALAYA POWER DISTRIBUTION CORPORATION LIMITED,SHILLONG vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-SHILLONG, SHILLONG

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 362/GTY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati28 Feb 2023AY 2016-17

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

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act shall not be deducted in computing the income chargeable under the head ‘Profits and gains of business or profession’. Since the year under appeal is AY 2016-17 therefore, the said amendment is applicable and therefore, the disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act needs to be sustained only to the extent

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 on I.T.A. No.: 50/GTY/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Meghalaya Cooperative Apex Bank Limited. production of supporting evidences. Thus ground on this point is partly allowed. In view of the above discussion, the ground raised by the appellant is partly allowed subject

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(4), GUWAHATI vs. M/S. S.R.K.M. STEELS (P) LTD, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 274/GTY/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati18 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(4) M/S S.R.K.M Steels (P) Ltd. Room No.707, 7Th Floor, Aayakar M/S Srkm Steels (P) Ltd. Lokhra Bhawan Poorva, G.S. Road, Road, P.O. Sawkuchi, Guwahati- Vs. Guwahati-781005, Assam 781034, Assam (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aalcs5046E Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Ar Revenue By : Shri Santosh Kumar Karnani, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.12.2025

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Santosh Kumar karnani, DR
Section 133(6)

Section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. The ld. AO noted that during the year the assessee made payment of the above amount to M/s Shri Sriram Keshrimal against the purchase of ₹98,11,275/- which is not reasonable. Accordingly, the ld. AO noted that the assessee failed to provide the interest receivable by him from M/s Shri Sriram Keshrimal