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.

15 results for “disallowance”+ Section 246Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Indore159Delhi136Mumbai101Bangalore53Pune40Kolkata30Chennai26Jaipur25Chandigarh24Panaji18Raipur17Hyderabad15Amritsar14Nagpur14Ahmedabad14Jodhpur5Cochin5Cuttack5Visakhapatnam4Lucknow4Agra3Guwahati3Patna3Karnataka2Allahabad1Dehradun1Rajkot1Varanasi1SC1

Key Topics

Section 153C42Section 25014Addition to Income10Section 1328Section 118Section 153B(1)7Section 80C7Section 143(1)7Search & Seizure7

TIBERWALA ELECTRONICS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE -2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 424/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri KPRR Murthy
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 246ASection 249(3)Section 36(1)(va)

246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 143(1) of the Act dt.14.05.2019 passed by the CPC for A.Y. 2017-18. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(Appeals). Subsequently, the appeal was migrated to National Faceless Appeals Centre, Delhi, vide CBDT Notification No.139/2021 dt.28.12.2021, wherein the NFAC, Delhi after considering

Section 406
Disallowance6
Deduction4

TIBERWALA ELECTRONICS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE -2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 425/HYD/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Jan 2023AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri KPRR Murthy
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 246ASection 249(3)Section 36(1)(va)

246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 143(1) of the Act dt.14.05.2019 passed by the CPC for A.Y. 2017-18. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(Appeals). Subsequently, the appeal was migrated to National Faceless Appeals Centre, Delhi, vide CBDT Notification No.139/2021 dt.28.12.2021, wherein the NFAC, Delhi after considering

RAMKY INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. JCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 593/HYD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Ramky Infrastructure Ltd, Vs. Joint Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income Tax, Pan:Aaacr8627B Circle 3(1), Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram. Revenue By: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, Dr Date Of Hearing: 15/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 28/11/2022 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M

For Appellant: Shri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 80I

disallowed claim to an extent of Rs.4,74,2747. 7. It is submitted that the assessment passed on 11.11.2011 under section 143(3) of the Act by the AO got merged with the subsequent reassessment order passed subsequently on 31.03.2015 under section 143(3) rws 153A of the Act. It is further submitted that the order passed under section

RAIN CEMENTS,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 540/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Sri Deepak Chopra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri Madan Mohan Meena, Sr. AR
Section 115Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 234CSection 246A

246A of the Act from the date of service of the Intimation, which in the present case was 24.01.2020, when upon a specific request of the Appellant, the same was provided to the Appellant. 5. That the CIT(A) also erred in taking a rather pedantic of the reasons explained for the delay of approximately 3 months, by relying upon

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1) , HYDERABAD vs. GAIAN SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 569/HYD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Jul 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi

For Appellant: Sri SVD Vijay Bhaskar, AdvFor Respondent: Sri Srikanth S, D.R
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 144Section 195Section 195(2)Section 40Section 69Section 69C

disallowances a consequent demand of Rs. 6,84,620 is raised. 8. The assessing officer had also attached Notice under sec 271 (l)(c) read with section 274 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 along with the assessment order dated 28.12.2017 and served on 03.01.2018. Aggrieved by the assessment order and Penalty levied by the assessing officer under section

MOHAMMED IMRAN PATNI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 55/HYD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Us:

Section 132Section 153B(1)Section 153CSection 250Section 80C

disallowed under section 80C of the Income Tax Act.” 3. Succinctly stated, the assessee had filed his return of income for A.Y. 2014-15 on 12.11.2014 declaring an income of Rs.12,70,760/-. 4. Search and seizure operations u/s 132 of the Act were conducted in the case of M/s. Polisetty Somasundaram on 28.01.2020. During the course of search proceedings

MOHAMMED IMRAN PATNI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 59/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Us:

Section 132Section 153B(1)Section 153CSection 250Section 80C

disallowed under section 80C of the Income Tax Act.” 3. Succinctly stated, the assessee had filed his return of income for A.Y. 2014-15 on 12.11.2014 declaring an income of Rs.12,70,760/-. 4. Search and seizure operations u/s 132 of the Act were conducted in the case of M/s. Polisetty Somasundaram on 28.01.2020. During the course of search proceedings

MOHAMMED IMRAN PATNI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 60/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Us:

Section 132Section 153B(1)Section 153CSection 250Section 80C

disallowed under section 80C of the Income Tax Act.” 3. Succinctly stated, the assessee had filed his return of income for A.Y. 2014-15 on 12.11.2014 declaring an income of Rs.12,70,760/-. 4. Search and seizure operations u/s 132 of the Act were conducted in the case of M/s. Polisetty Somasundaram on 28.01.2020. During the course of search proceedings

MOHAMMED IMRAN PATNI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 56/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Us:

Section 132Section 153B(1)Section 153CSection 250Section 80C

disallowed under section 80C of the Income Tax Act.” 3. Succinctly stated, the assessee had filed his return of income for A.Y. 2014-15 on 12.11.2014 declaring an income of Rs.12,70,760/-. 4. Search and seizure operations u/s 132 of the Act were conducted in the case of M/s. Polisetty Somasundaram on 28.01.2020. During the course of search proceedings

MOHAMMED IMRAN PATNI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABADQ

In the result, all these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 57/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Us:

Section 132Section 153B(1)Section 153CSection 250Section 80C

disallowed under section 80C of the Income Tax Act.” 3. Succinctly stated, the assessee had filed his return of income for A.Y. 2014-15 on 12.11.2014 declaring an income of Rs.12,70,760/-. 4. Search and seizure operations u/s 132 of the Act were conducted in the case of M/s. Polisetty Somasundaram on 28.01.2020. During the course of search proceedings

MOHAMMED IMRAN PATNI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 61/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Us:

Section 132Section 153B(1)Section 153CSection 250Section 80C

disallowed under section 80C of the Income Tax Act.” 3. Succinctly stated, the assessee had filed his return of income for A.Y. 2014-15 on 12.11.2014 declaring an income of Rs.12,70,760/-. 4. Search and seizure operations u/s 132 of the Act were conducted in the case of M/s. Polisetty Somasundaram on 28.01.2020. During the course of search proceedings

MOHAMMED IMRAN PATNI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 58/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us:

Section 132Section 153B(1)Section 153CSection 250Section 80C

disallowed under section 80C of the Income Tax Act.” 3. Succinctly stated, the assessee had filed his return of income for A.Y. 2014-15 on 12.11.2014 declaring an income of Rs.12,70,760/-. 4. Search and seizure operations u/s 132 of the Act were conducted in the case of M/s. Polisetty Somasundaram on 28.01.2020. During the course of search proceedings

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(2), , HYDERABAD vs. MYLAN LABORATORIES LIMITED (BEING THE AMALGAMATED COMPANY OF ASTRIX LABORATORIES LIMITED), , HYDERABAD

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1666/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Mar 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Smt. N. Swapna, DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 246ASection 92ASection 92C

Section 92A of the Act, the case was referred to Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO), who issued Transfer Pricing Order dated 30-01-2016 by making a NIL adjustment u/s. 92CA of the Act. The AO framed assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 92CA(3) of the Act dated 24-03-2016 (received by the assessee on 31-03-2016) taking

HYDERABAD METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of assessee and Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 271/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Dec 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. SandhyaFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya –
Section 11Section 139Section 139(1)

246A of the Act before ld.CIT(A)-3, who vide order dt.31.05.2022 partly allowed the appeal of assessee. 6. Feeling aggrieved with the order of ld.CIT(A), assessee and Revenue both are now in appeal before us for the grounds mentioned hereinabove. 7. Before us, ld. AR submitted that due to delay of two days in filing return of income

DCIT, EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE, HYDERABAD vs. HYDERABAD METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, SECUNDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of assessee and Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 326/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Dec 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. SandhyaFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya –
Section 11Section 139Section 139(1)

246A of the Act before ld.CIT(A)-3, who vide order dt.31.05.2022 partly allowed the appeal of assessee. 6. Feeling aggrieved with the order of ld.CIT(A), assessee and Revenue both are now in appeal before us for the grounds mentioned hereinabove. 7. Before us, ld. AR submitted that due to delay of two days in filing return of income