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.

106 results for “disallowance”+ Section 156clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,136Delhi973Bangalore284Chennai265Kolkata220Ahmedabad134Pune116Hyderabad106Jaipur104Raipur95Cochin72Chandigarh62Surat57Panaji44Calcutta38Lucknow33Indore32Rajkot22SC21Nagpur20Allahabad15Ranchi15Karnataka15Visakhapatnam13Varanasi13Cuttack11Amritsar8Kerala5Jabalpur5Agra3Punjab & Haryana2Patna2Himachal Pradesh2Telangana2Dehradun2Rajasthan1Gauhati1Jodhpur1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1

Key Topics

Section 153B72Addition to Income69Section 13254Section 143(3)48Section 153A42Disallowance39Section 14837Section 292C24Section 80P23Undisclosed Income

KASUSALYA AVENUES PRIVATE LIMITED ,KARIMNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 685/HYD/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramarao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Reema Yadav, Sr.AR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

disallowed by the first appellate authority as well as the validity of the reassessment proceedings. 16. The solitary issue that came up for our consideration in Ground No.2 of the assessee's appeal is the addition towards estimated interest receivable on redeemable debentures for Rs. 1,47,63,000/-. 17. The learned counsel for the assessee Shri S. Rama

Showing 1–20 of 106 · Page 1 of 6

21
Section 143(1)20
Limitation/Time-bar20

KASUSALYA AVENUES PRIVATE LIMITED ,KARIMNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 682/HYD/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramarao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Reema Yadav, Sr.AR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

disallowed by the first appellate authority as well as the validity of the reassessment proceedings. 16. The solitary issue that came up for our consideration in Ground No.2 of the assessee's appeal is the addition towards estimated interest receivable on redeemable debentures for Rs. 1,47,63,000/-. 17. The learned counsel for the assessee Shri S. Rama

KASUSALYA AVENUES PRIVATE LIMITED ,KARIMNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 684/HYD/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramarao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Reema Yadav, Sr.AR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

disallowed by the first appellate authority as well as the validity of the reassessment proceedings. 16. The solitary issue that came up for our consideration in Ground No.2 of the assessee's appeal is the addition towards estimated interest receivable on redeemable debentures for Rs. 1,47,63,000/-. 17. The learned counsel for the assessee Shri S. Rama

KASUSALYA AVENUES PRIVATE LIMITED ,KARIMNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 681/HYD/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramarao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Reema Yadav, Sr.AR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

disallowed by the first appellate authority as well as the validity of the reassessment proceedings. 16. The solitary issue that came up for our consideration in Ground No.2 of the assessee's appeal is the addition towards estimated interest receivable on redeemable debentures for Rs. 1,47,63,000/-. 17. The learned counsel for the assessee Shri S. Rama

KASUSALYA AVENUES PRIVATE LIMITED ,KARIMNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 683/HYD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramarao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Reema Yadav, Sr.AR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

disallowed by the first appellate authority as well as the validity of the reassessment proceedings. 16. The solitary issue that came up for our consideration in Ground No.2 of the assessee's appeal is the addition towards estimated interest receivable on redeemable debentures for Rs. 1,47,63,000/-. 17. The learned counsel for the assessee Shri S. Rama

SINGARENI COLLIERIES COMPANY LIMITED,KOTHAGUDEM vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-13(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 285/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.285/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2018-19) M/S. Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Circle 13(1), Hyderabad. Kothagudem. Pan:Aaact8873F (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.307/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2018-19) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S. Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., Circle 13(1), Hyderabad. Vs. Kothagudem. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri M.V. Anil Kumar, Advocate & Shri C.H.Venkatesh, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Ms.U. Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 25/08/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 10/09/2025

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Anil Kumar, Advocate and Shri C.H.Venkatesh, C.AFor Respondent: Ms.U. Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144B

156 of paper book no.1), where the assessee has disallowed a sum of Rs.933,43,12,325/- under the head “Any other item or items of addition under section

DCIT., CIRCLE-13(1), HYDERABAD vs. THE SINGARENI COLLIERIES COMPANY LIMITED, KOTHAGUDEM

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

ITA 307/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.285/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2018-19) M/S. Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Circle 13(1), Hyderabad. Kothagudem. Pan:Aaact8873F (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.307/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2018-19) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S. Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., Circle 13(1), Hyderabad. Vs. Kothagudem. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri M.V. Anil Kumar, Advocate & Shri C.H.Venkatesh, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Ms.U. Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 25/08/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 10/09/2025

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Anil Kumar, Advocate and Shri C.H.Venkatesh, C.AFor Respondent: Ms.U. Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144B

156 of paper book no.1), where the assessee has disallowed a sum of Rs.933,43,12,325/- under the head “Any other item or items of addition under section

RATNA INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS PVT.LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYD, HYDERABAD

ITA 730/HYD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

disallowance paid at various project sites in cash mode. We make it clear that neither of the assessment orders before us has made any un- disclosed income addition despite the fact that there has been a long discussion on identical lines to this effect. Learned CIT- DR could hardly rebut the fact that Section 40A(1) itself makes it clear

RATNA INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS PVT.LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYD, HYDERABAD

ITA 731/HYD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

disallowance paid at various project sites in cash mode. We make it clear that neither of the assessment orders before us has made any un- disclosed income addition despite the fact that there has been a long discussion on identical lines to this effect. Learned CIT- DR could hardly rebut the fact that Section 40A(1) itself makes it clear

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-10(1), HYDERABAD vs. VERTEX PROJECTS LLP (FORMERLY M/S VERTEX PROJECTS LTD) , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1187/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Acit,Circle-10(1) Vs. Vertex Projects Llp Room No.515, 5Th Floor, (Formerly M/S.Vertex A-Block, I.T.Towers, Projects Ltd.) A.C.Guards, #156-159, Paigah House Hyderabad. S.P.Road, Next To Pg College. Secunderabad-500 026. Pan : Aanfv0232C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sriram Seshadri, Ca Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar,Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.04.2023 O R D E R Per Shri Laliet Kumar, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Dated 16.03.2018 For The Ay 2014-15, On The Following Grounds :

For Appellant: Shri Sriram Seshadri, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar,CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 14A(3)Section 47Section 56Section 56(2)(viia)Section 56(2)(viiia)

section 147 / 148 of the Act, the coordinate Bench had held as under : “22. Coming back to our point we have to examine whether protective assessment/addition is possible under section 147 in respect of the same person and for the same period. When a regular assessment is made and later on it comes to the notice of the Assessing Officer

GRANULES INDIA LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee company is allowed

ITA 1295/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1295/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2020-21) M/S. Granules India Limited, Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Hyderabad. Tax, Pan : Aaacg7369K Circle 2(1), Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Y.V. Bhanu Narayan Rao, C.A. राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 22/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 24/12/2025

For Appellant: Shri Y.V. Bhanu Narayan RaoFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, SR-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 155(18)Section 270A

Section 270A of Rs. 82,63,156 for under-reporting of income w.r.t the disallowance of HEC of Rs. 4,81,53,591/-. 6. Aggrieved

WALDEN PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 644/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad25 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar,CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153C

section 153C of the IT Act 1961, that the appellant had undisclosed income, on account of material found in the case oi searched person belonging to the assessee and not belonging to searched person, not having been recorded by the Assessing Officer in the case of I Shyam Prasad Reddy, who was subjected to proceedings

WALDEN PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 643/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad25 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar,CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153C

section 153C of the IT Act 1961, that the appellant had undisclosed income, on account of material found in the case oi searched person belonging to the assessee and not belonging to searched person, not having been recorded by the Assessing Officer in the case of I Shyam Prasad Reddy, who was subjected to proceedings

KANTAR GDC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE - 2(1), HYDERABAD

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 274/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. M. Narmada, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 156

156 is ‘notice of demand’, which itself states that notice u/s.156 of the Act is to be issued in case of demand only. The primary purpose behind issue of notice u/s.156 of the Act is to inform the assessee about payment to be made on finalisation of an assessment. However, in a case where the assessment resulted in a refund

KANTAR GDC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE - 2(1), HYDERABAD

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 804/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. M. Narmada, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 156

156 is ‘notice of demand’, which itself states that notice u/s.156 of the Act is to be issued in case of demand only. The primary purpose behind issue of notice u/s.156 of the Act is to inform the assessee about payment to be made on finalisation of an assessment. However, in a case where the assessment resulted in a refund

SYNCHRONY INTERNATIONAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2073/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad30 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.2071 To 2073 /Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 To 2018-19) Synchrony International Vs. Assistant Commissioner Services Private Limited Of Income Tax Hyderabad Circle 3 (2) Pan: Aadcr9682D Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Aliasgar Rampurwala, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Aves Madhukar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/03/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 30/03/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

For Appellant: Shri Aliasgar Rampurwala, CAFor Respondent: : Shri AVES Madhukar, Sr. AR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 43BSection 92C

section 144C of the Act on 10.12.2019 proposing the transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.26,24,06,156/- and also disallowance

SYNCHRONY INTERNATIONAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2072/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad30 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.2071 To 2073 /Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 To 2018-19) Synchrony International Vs. Assistant Commissioner Services Private Limited Of Income Tax Hyderabad Circle 3 (2) Pan: Aadcr9682D Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Aliasgar Rampurwala, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Aves Madhukar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/03/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 30/03/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

For Appellant: Shri Aliasgar Rampurwala, CAFor Respondent: : Shri AVES Madhukar, Sr. AR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 43BSection 92C

section 144C of the Act on 10.12.2019 proposing the transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.26,24,06,156/- and also disallowance

SYNCHRONY INTERNATIONAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE -3(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2071/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad30 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.2071 To 2073 /Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 To 2018-19) Synchrony International Vs. Assistant Commissioner Services Private Limited Of Income Tax Hyderabad Circle 3 (2) Pan: Aadcr9682D Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Aliasgar Rampurwala, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Aves Madhukar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/03/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 30/03/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

For Appellant: Shri Aliasgar Rampurwala, CAFor Respondent: : Shri AVES Madhukar, Sr. AR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 43BSection 92C

section 144C of the Act on 10.12.2019 proposing the transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.26,24,06,156/- and also disallowance

CO-OPERATIVE ELECTRIC SUPPLY SOCIETY LTD.,KARIMNAGAR vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1, KARIMNAGAR

ITA 478/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Us:

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(va)

disallowed the assessee’s claim for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Elaborating on his contention, the Ld. AR submitted that, as the assessee society had received interest income on its investments/deposits made/lying with cooperative banks viz., Telangana State Cooperative Apex Bank Limited, (TSCAB) Hyderabad and Karimnagar District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Karimnagar, therefore, it was duly

CO-OPERATIVE ELECTRIC SUPPLY SOCIETY LTD.,,SIRICILLA vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1, KARIMNAGAR

ITA 411/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Us:

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(va)

disallowed the assessee’s claim for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Elaborating on his contention, the Ld. AR submitted that, as the assessee society had received interest income on its investments/deposits made/lying with cooperative banks viz., Telangana State Cooperative Apex Bank Limited, (TSCAB) Hyderabad and Karimnagar District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Karimnagar, therefore, it was duly