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.

20 results for “disallowance”+ Section 221(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi704Mumbai698Chennai315Ahmedabad174Bangalore150Kolkata129Jaipur107Hyderabad90Raipur55Surat43Chandigarh38Lucknow36Pune36Rajkot35Indore20Cochin20Visakhapatnam20Karnataka17Nagpur16Guwahati14Agra10Cuttack8Allahabad7Dehradun7SC7Jabalpur6Amritsar6Varanasi6Jodhpur5Telangana4Panaji3Ranchi3Kerala3Orissa2Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)34Section 26330Section 6823Addition to Income14Section 1488Section 143(2)8Section 142(1)7Section 41(1)7Exemption7Disallowance

COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITA 1654/CHNY/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Oct 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2007-08 Computer Sciences Acit, Corporation India Private Company Circle 1(3), Limited, Chennai [Formerly Covansys (India) Private Limited], बनाम/ Unit 13, Block 2, Sdf Buildings, Vs. Madras Export Processing Zone, Tambaram, Chennai (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aaacc1351M Assessee By Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. Shri Abhishek Agrawal, Ca Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 12.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement

Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 92C

section 32(1) by making a sufficient note in assessment-order. Consequently, we uphold AO’s action. The assessee fails in this ground. Ground No. 23: 32. This ground relates to the cost of Rs. 73,10,920/- incurred by assessee towards licensed software treated by AO as capital expenditure. 33. The assessee has incurred cost towards purchase of licensed

7
Section 153A6
Limitation/Time-bar4

INCOME TAX OFFICER, DHAR vs. SHRI SUNIL KUMAR JAIN PROP. M/S SUNIL TRADERS, KANWAN, BADNAGAR

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 793/IND/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

disallowing creditors shown on the ground that liability has ceased to exist. The assessee submitted that trading transaction in this case is not covered under Section 41(1) of the Act. Further that, on 16.12.2016, notice under Section 142(1) of the Act was further issued to the assessee asking for the details already asked for mentioned hereinabove alongwith confirmation

M/S J.C.SHARMA & SONS,BHOPAL vs. PR CIT -1, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 139/IND/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 163Section 263Section 37Section 37(1)

1) of the act. Continuing his submission, Ld. AR carried out attention to Para No. 4 of the assessment-order reproduced below: Page 2 of 4 J.C. Sharma & Sons Assessment Year 2016-17 “4. It is seen from the audited books that Rs.14,221/- has been debited as interest on TDS which is not a permitted expense and the same

M/S. FLEXITUFF INTERNATIONAL LTD.,DHAR vs. THE PR.CIT-1, INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 282/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore14 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2012-13 M/S. Flexituff International Pr. Commissioner Of Ltd, Vs. Income Tax-1, C-41-50, Sez, Sector-3, Indore Pithampur, Dist. Dhar (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan Aaacn5986H Revenue By Smt. Ashima Gupta, Cit Assessee By Shri Manjit Sachdeva & Avinash Gaur, Advocates Date Of Hearing 26.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 14.05.2019 O R D E R

Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

221/- for A.Y. 2012-13 in place of Rs. 12,51,79,200/- which was actually allowable. B. It is further found that disallowance of Rs.15,82,154/- made under the head interest paid on income tax which was debited by the assessee in P&L A/c as finance cost. In view of section 115JB of Income

ACIT(CENTRAL)-1,, INDORE vs. SHRI RAJUL BHARGAVA, INDORE

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 26/IND/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore15 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153A

1) during the regular assessment proceedings but also that the entire material was already available with the erstwhile LD. AO and was also duly considered by him while passing the regular assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A.It is a settled legal proposition than when the LD. AO had applied his mind and passed the original assessment order and there

ACIT(CENTRAL)-1, INDORE, INDORE vs. SHRI RAUNAK MARU, INDORE

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 27/IND/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore15 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153A

1) during the regular assessment proceedings but also that the entire material was already available with the erstwhile LD. AO and was also duly considered by him while passing the regular assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A.It is a settled legal proposition than when the LD. AO had applied his mind and passed the original assessment order and there

SHRI PRASHANT AGRAWAL,BHOPAL vs. PR. CIT -I , BHOPAL

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 561/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Goyal & Shri N. DFor Respondent: Shri P. K. Mitra, CIT.D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

disallowances which an assessee feels aggrieved with. 23. As far as absence of discussion in the assessment order is concerned, this is what has been laid down by this court in the case of Rayon Silk Mills v. CIT [1996] 221 ITR 155 :— "In the first instance it was contended by learned counsel for the assessee that the very premise

SMT ANUPAMA ASSWA,INDORE vs. THE PCIT-1, INDORE, INDORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 59/IND/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy, Judicial Memebr & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyaniआयकर अपील सं. / I.T.A. No. 59/Ind/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Smt. Anupama Asawa, Pcit-I, बनाम/ Indore Indore Vs.

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Agrawal & ShriFor Respondent: 20.09.2022 & 19.12.2022
Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54BSection 54F

disallowances which an assessee feels aggrieved with. 23. As far as absence of discussion in the assessment order is concerned, this is what has been laid down by this court in the case of Rayon Silk Mills v. CIT [1996] 221 ITR 155 :— "In the first instance it was contended by learned counsel for the assessee that the very premise

MOJILAL RAJPUT,SUJALPUR MANDI vs. THE ITO, SHAJAPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 20/IND/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Dec 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Mehta & Shri ApurvaFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mitra, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 44ASection 80C

disallowances which an assessee feels aggrieved with. 23. As far as absence of discussion in the assessment order is concerned, this is what has been laid down by this court in the case of Rayon Silk Mills v. CIT [1996] 221 ITR 155 :— "In the first instance it was contended by learned counsel for the assessee that the very premise

MOJILAL RAJPUT,SHUJALPUR MANDI vs. ITO, SHAJAPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 21/IND/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Dec 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Mehta & Shri ApurvaFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mitra, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 44ASection 80C

disallowances which an assessee feels aggrieved with. 23. As far as absence of discussion in the assessment order is concerned, this is what has been laid down by this court in the case of Rayon Silk Mills v. CIT [1996] 221 ITR 155 :— "In the first instance it was contended by learned counsel for the assessee that the very premise

M/S. YATHARTH INFRASTRUCTURES (P) LTD.,UJJAIN vs. PR. CIT, UJJAIN

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 532/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy, Judicial Memebr & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Parth Jhavar, ARs
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

disallowances which an assessee feels aggrieved with. 23. As far as absence of discussion in the assessment order is concerned, this is what has been laid down by this court in the case of Rayon Silk Mills v. CIT [1996] 221 ITR 155 :— "In the first instance it was contended by learned counsel for the assessee that the very premise

THE ACIT 4 (1), INDORE vs. M/S SINGNET INDUSTRIES LTD , INDORE

In the result ground no 2 of the appeal is allowed

ITA 357/IND/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri P. K. Mitra, CIT.DRFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Tulsiya & Shri Kapil
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)

221/- to the total income of the assessee, which was, in turn, deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). Hence, the instant appeal before us. 4. We have heard the rival submissions made by the respective parties and also perused the materials available on record. ITA No.357/Ind/2020 (ACIT vs. M/s. Singnet Industries Ltd.) A.Y.– 2017-18 - 4 - 5. Before the First

DIVINE INFRACREATION & TRADING (P) LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-5(1) INDORE, INDORE

ITA 656/IND/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Sunit Nema, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri P. K. Mitra, CIT.D.R
Section 143(3)Section 68

disallowance of unsecured loan u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 when as identity, creditworthiness of the loan providing companies and genuineness of transactions were not established by the assessee. ITA Nos. 730 & 656/Ind/2019 (M/s. Divine Infracreation & Trading Pvt. Ltd.) A.Y.– 2011-12 - 3 - 6. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case

DCIT-5(1) INDORE, INDORE vs. DIVINE INFRACREATION & TRADING (P) LTD., MUMBAI

ITA 730/IND/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Sunit Nema, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri P. K. Mitra, CIT.D.R
Section 143(3)Section 68

disallowance of unsecured loan u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 when as identity, creditworthiness of the loan providing companies and genuineness of transactions were not established by the assessee. ITA Nos. 730 & 656/Ind/2019 (M/s. Divine Infracreation & Trading Pvt. Ltd.) A.Y.– 2011-12 - 3 - 6. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case

ACIT CENTRAL-2 INDORE, INDORE vs. SHRI .GAURAV TEKRIWAL, INDORE

In the result, this appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 62/IND/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Acit, Central -2 Shri Gaurav Tekriwal Indore बनाम/ 204, Princess Valley, South Tukoganj, Indore Vs. (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Acppt 1628 Q Assessee By Shri Anil Kamal Garg, Arpit Gaur, Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 21.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 21.11.2022

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 54FSection 55(2)(a)Section 57

section 45(1), 48, 55(2) and 2(29B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Therefore, the Ld. AO was wrong in rejecting the claim of long-term capital gain and assessing the same as income from other sources. We do not find any infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A) who has, after mindful consideration, reversed the action

M/S OREF SECURITIES PRIVATE LTD. ,MANDSAUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 70/IND/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms.Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.70/Ind/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2013-14 Vs. Ito, Mandsaur. M/S.Oref Securities P.Ltd. 69, Agrasen Nagar B/H. Mid India Mandsaur.

For Appellant: Shri S. S. Solanki, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajib Jain, CIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

221 Taxman 151 Section 68: Cash credits -Share application money - No addition shall be made in the hands of the assessee where transaction related to the receipt of share application money are genuine and are fully recorded by the share applicants. 7 x) HONORABLE AHMEDABAD, IT AT TRIBUNAL (A) In The Case of ITO vs. APEX THERM PACKAGING

AABHUSHAN,DHAMNOD, MADHYA PRADESH vs. ITO DHAR, DHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 344/IND/2023[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 May 2024

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniaabhushan Dhamnod Ito, Dhar 1St Floor, Ganpati Market Ab Road Dhamnod Vs. Mp (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Abgfa0812K Assessee By Shri Pranay Goyal & Shri S.N. Goyal, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09.05.2024 O R D E R

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

221 ITR 239 (All). 22. The Rajasthan High Court in CIT Vs. Kewal Krishna and Partners [2009] 18 DTR 121 (Raj) has also taken similar view." 27. Section 68 requires the Assessing Officer to satisfy itself of the source of the credit and if during the course of enquiry undertaken, the entries are found to be not genuine then

GUNVEER SINGH CHHABRA ,INDORE vs. THE PR CIT -1, INDORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 117/IND/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy, Judicial Memebr & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Shubhash Jain, A.R
Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 263

disallowances which an assessee feels aggrieved with. 23. As far as absence of discussion in the assessment order is concerned, this is what has been laid down by this court in the case of Rayon Silk Mills v. CIT [1996] 221 ITR 155 :— "In the first instance it was contended by learned counsel for the assessee that the very premise

M/S BHOPAL DUGDH SANGH SAHAKARI MY.DAIRY PLANT, BHOPAL vs. DCIT -1 (1) ,BHOPAL, BHOPAL

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

ITA 128/IND/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri B.M. Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patva, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Amit Soni, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)

221 ITR 317 as well as in the case of Gujrat Power Corporation Ltd. Vs. ITO reported at (2013) 354 ITR 201 (Guj), the Tribunal has allowed the appeal by deleting the addition of Rs. 1,25,44,938/- made by the AO. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court affirmed the view taken by the Tribunal.” 12. From a careful

M/S. MANISH FILMS PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ITO 3(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

ITA 152/IND/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 2Section 50BSection 50C

1) C/o Shri Jagdish Sharma Indore बनाम/ J-59, MIG Colony, Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.AADCM7398D Appellant by Shri Ajay Tulsiyan & Shri Kapil Shah, A.Rs Respondent by Shri Rajib Jain, D.R. Date of Hearing: 27.11.2018 Date of Pronouncement: 10.01.2019 आदेश / O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, J.M: This appeal by the assessee is directed against order