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.

18 results for “disallowance”+ Section 270A(9)(a)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai309Delhi270Ahmedabad103Pune78Bangalore78Jaipur73Hyderabad61Chennai54Chandigarh37Kolkata22Nagpur18Visakhapatnam18Indore18Lucknow18Guwahati17Rajkot17Surat17Raipur13Cochin12Cuttack9Agra9Dehradun8Jodhpur3Patna3Jabalpur2Amritsar2Ranchi1Panaji1Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 270A22Section 80P19Section 142(1)14Disallowance14Penalty13Addition to Income11Section 143(3)10Section 143(2)9Section 40A(2)(b)9Section 40A(3)

KAMAL SHADIJA,INDORE vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX EPARTMENT, DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 637/IND/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year: 2020-21 Kamal Shadija Assessment Unit 156, Palsikar Colony, Income Tax Department बनाम/ Indore Vs. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan:Azsps4490H Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 06.02.2026

Section 143(2)Section 270ASection 57

section 270A being pressed by Ld. AR are on different footing and cannot help assessee. 7. We have considered rival contentions of both sides and perused the orders of lower-authorities as well as the material held on record to which our attention has been drawn. The issue before us is confined to the levy of penalty u/s 270A

BADAUD SHRI VARDHMAN SHIKSHA ,BADAUD vs. THE ITO NFAC DELHI, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

9
Section 699
Deduction8
ITA 51/IND/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2018-19 Badaud Shri Vardhaman Ito, बनाम/ Shiksha Samiti, Nfac, Badaud Delhi Vs. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aacab5370 Assessee By Shri Sharad Jain, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 25.07.2023

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 270A(2)Section 270A(8)

section 270A(2) is also not applicable because in the present case for the reason that the total income was reported by assessee at Rs. Nil which remained Rs. Nil at the time of assessment, it is not a case where the assessment has the effect of reducing the loss or converting loss into income. Ld. AR submitted that

MANOJ KUMAR GANGADHARAN,BHOPAL vs. ITO (IT AND TP) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 671/IND/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 143(3)Section 24Section 250Section 253Section 270ASection 270A(9)(a)Section 274

disallowed (House property). That the aforesaid assessment order is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned assessment order”. In the “impugned assessment order” issuance of a penalty notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 270A(1)/ 270A(9)(a) of the Act was contemplated too. 2.2 That as and by way of an order (penalty) passed u/s 270A of the Act i.e. “Misreporting penalty

HAMID HUSAIN,BHOPAL vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 115/IND/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Indore14 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiito-4(1), Hamid Husain, बनाम/ Bhopal 369, Kaji Camp, Vs. Gali No.3, Near Sindhi Colony, Berasia Road, Bhopal (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent) Hamid Husain, Assessment Unit, बनाम/ 369, Kaji Camp, Income Tax Department Vs. Gali No.3, Near Sindhi Colony, Berasia Road, Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 270A

section 270A of the I.T. Act are also being initiated separately for under reporting of the income. (Addition of Rs. 9,10,39,185/-)” (ii) Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal before CIT(A). The assessee made detailed submission which is re-produced by CIT(A) in Para No. 4 / Pages 3 to 6 of impugned order

NIRVINDHYA SHIKSHA AVAM SANSKRITI PRACHAR SAMITI,RAJGARH vs. ITO, RAJGARH

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 100/IND/2024[A Y 2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Indore10 Sept 2024

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2017-18 Nirvindhya Shiksha Avam Income-Tax Officer, Sanskriti Prachar Samiti, Rajgarh Biaora, C/O Adv. Hitesh Chimnani, बनाम/ Ug-37, Trade Centre, Vs. 18,South Tukoganj, Indore. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaaan8371J Assessee By Shri Hitesh Chimnani, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10.09.2024

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(6)Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 270A(1)

270A for charging/computing penalty fails because of the fact that the total income determined by both assessee and AO was Rs. Nil. If the assessee raises such a claim, the AO shall also look into the same. 8. Before parting, we would like to deal the 3rd contention raised by Ld. AR as narrated above. On a careful study

CMM KETI JV,INDORE vs. ITO 1(3), INDORE, INDORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 73/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Cmm Keti Jv, Income-Tax Officer, 108, Shalimar Corporate 1(3), Center, Indore. बनाम/ 8-B, South Tukoganj, Vs. Indore. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aakfc7524K Assessee By Shri Shashank Sharma, Ca & Shri Prakash Gupta, Ca Revenue By Shri Sanjeev H. Bhagat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.01.2025

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 270A(9)Section 271BSection 272(1)(d)Section 40A(2)Section 40A(2)(b)

270A(9), 271B and 272(1)(d). Page 2 of 10 CMM Keti JV, Indore. ITA No. 73/Ind/2024 – AY 2017-18 4. During first-appeal, the CIT(A) passed following order upholding the addition made by AO: “8. Ground no.1 is relating to addition of Rs. 1,03,58,390/- being 2% of the turnover as the income

SMT HAFIZ SHAIKH,DEWAS vs. THE ITO WARD-1, DEWAS

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

ITA 56/IND/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanihafiz Shaikh Ito Ward-1 32/2, Laxmi Park Moti Dewas Vs. Bunglow Dewas (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Ajups6986 L Assessee By Ms. Richa Parwal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 29.05.2023

Section 45Section 45(3)Section 54Section 54B

270A is being initiated separately. 6. The provision of section 45(3) contemplates only the deemed consideration in case of transfer of capital asset by the partner to the partnership firm. Therefore, the claim of deduction u/s 54B cannot be denied only because the transfer of the capital asset falls under the provision of section

MRS. JATINDER KAUR BHATIA,KHANDWA vs. ACIT- (CENTRAL) UJJAIN, UJJAIN

Appeals are dismissed and assessee’s

ITA 227/IND/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 132Section 153ASection 40A(3)Section 69

disallowance made by CIT(A). Consequently, we uphold order of CIT(A) and the grounds raised by revenue are dismissed. Page 14 of 46 Mrs. Jatinder Kaur Bhatia ITA Nos. 206 & 207/Ind/2023 & ITANo.227/Ind/2023 AY 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2018-19 Ground No. 3 to 5: 14. In these grounds, the revenue has challenged the CIT(A)’s action of deleting

DCIT- (CENTRAL)-3, INDORE vs. MRS. JATINDER KAUR BHATIA, KHANDWA

Appeals are dismissed and assessee’s

ITA 206/IND/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 132Section 153ASection 40A(3)Section 69

disallowance made by CIT(A). Consequently, we uphold order of CIT(A) and the grounds raised by revenue are dismissed. Page 14 of 46 Mrs. Jatinder Kaur Bhatia ITA Nos. 206 & 207/Ind/2023 & ITANo.227/Ind/2023 AY 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2018-19 Ground No. 3 to 5: 14. In these grounds, the revenue has challenged the CIT(A)’s action of deleting

DCIT- (CENTRAL)-3, INDORE vs. MRS. JATINDER KAUR BHATIA, KHANDWA

Appeals are dismissed and assessee’s

ITA 207/IND/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 132Section 153ASection 40A(3)Section 69

disallowance made by CIT(A). Consequently, we uphold order of CIT(A) and the grounds raised by revenue are dismissed. Page 14 of 46 Mrs. Jatinder Kaur Bhatia ITA Nos. 206 & 207/Ind/2023 & ITANo.227/Ind/2023 AY 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2018-19 Ground No. 3 to 5: 14. In these grounds, the revenue has challenged the CIT(A)’s action of deleting

KHANDWA INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. ACIT, KHANDWA, KHANDWA

Appeal is allowed

ITA 309/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2017-18 Khandwa Industries Pvt. Ld., Acit, G-2 Amans Corner, Khandwa बनाम/ 301, Goyal Vihar, Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aadck4103G Assessee By Shri Soumya Bumb, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21.03.2025

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 40A(2)Section 40A(2)(b)

270A are hereby initiated for under reporting of income.” 5. Now, we extract the order passed by CIT(A) reading as under: “Ground No. 1.5 & 1.6 - The appellant has contended that the AO has erred in viewing the TAR pertaining to previous year i.e. A.Y. 2016-17 and made a disallowance of Rs. 41,39,084/-. In this regard

THE DCIT CIRCLE 5(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S L N MALVIYA INFRA PROJECTS P LTD, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 189/IND/2023[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Jan 2024AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanidcit, Circle 5(1) M/S. L.N. Malviya Infra Projects Bhopal Pvt. Ltd. Plot No.29, F/F Sector, Dwarka Vs. New Delhi

Section 234ASection 3(3)Section 37(1)

9 of 17 ITANo.189/Ind/2023 L.N. Malviya Infra Projects P. Ltd. 10. Ground no.3 is regarding adhoc disallowance of traveling expenses which was deleted by the CIT(A). Ld. DR has submitted that the assessee has claimed traveling expenses of Rs.2,53,81,491/-. The AO on examination of the ledger account and invoice furnished by the assessee found that

INDORE SAHAKARI DUGDH SANGH MARYADIT,DAIRY COMPOUND, MANGLIA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), NFAC, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 293/IND/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 234ASection 270ASection 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

270A of the Income Tax Act 1961 whereas the Appellant had not under reported Income. 3. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in levy of Interest u/s 234A,2348,234C & 234D. 4. The Appellant Craves leave to add, alter, amend any or all the Grounds of Appeal on or before the date of Hearing.” 2. Solitary common issue arises

INDORE SAHAKARI DUGDH SANGH MARYADIT,DAIRY COMPOUND, MANGLIA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NFAC, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 294/IND/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 234ASection 270ASection 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

270A of the Income Tax Act 1961 whereas the Appellant had not under reported Income. 3. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in levy of Interest u/s 234A,2348,234C & 234D. 4. The Appellant Craves leave to add, alter, amend any or all the Grounds of Appeal on or before the date of Hearing.” 2. Solitary common issue arises

MADHYA PRADESH VIDYUT MANDAL KARMCHARI PARASPAR SAHAKARI SANSTHA MARYADIT,MANDSAUR vs. PCIT INDORE-1, INDORE

In the result, we reject condonation request of assessee and consequently this appeal filed

ITA 857/IND/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore11 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshimadhya Pradesh Vidyut Pr. Cit-1, बनाम/ Mandal Karmchari Indore Vs. Paraspar Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Shop No.5 Nahar Sayyad Road, Kityani Mandsaur (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan:Aaaam6716A Assessee By Shri Ashok Ratnawat, Ar Revenue By Shri Anoop Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 10.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 11.11.2025

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 263Section 270A(2)Section 80P

9,88,400/-. Subsequently, the case of assessee was selected for scrutiny and the AO issued notices u/s 143(2)/142(1) which remained uncompiled by assessee. Ultimately, the AO passed ex-parte assessment-order u/s 144 denying the benefit of deduction u/s 80P of Rs. 54,26,486/- and assessing total income at Rs. 64,14,886/-, the relevant

MADHYA PRADESH VIDYUT MANDAL KARMCHARI PARASPAR SAHAKARI SANSTHA MARYADIT,MANDSAUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MANDSAUR

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 833/IND/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore11 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshimadhya Pradesh Vidyut Ito, Mandsaur बनाम/ Mandal Karmchari Vs. Paraspar Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Shop No.5 Nahar Sayyad Road, Kityani Mandsaur (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan:Aaaam6716A Assessee By Shri Ashok Ratnawat, Ar Revenue By Shri Anoop Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 10.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 11.11.2025

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 270A(2)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

9,88,400/-. Subsequently, the case of assessee was selected for scrutiny and the AO issued notices u/s 143(2)/142(1) which remained uncompiled by assessee. Ultimately, the AO passed ex-parte assessment-order u/s 144 denying the benefit of deduction u/s 80P of Page 2 of 8 Madhya Pradesh Vidyut Mandal Karmchari Paraspar Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit ITA No.833/Ind/2025-

RIDDHI SIDDHI REALTY,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 4(1), INCOME TAX INDORE

In the result the appeal of the assesse is allowed for

ITA 170/IND/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiriddhi Siddhi Realty, Income Tax Officer बनाम/ 39 Shardhanand Marg, 4(1), Vs. Indore Indore

Section 143(3)Section 234Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 270A

disallowed since these amount assessee paid in F.Y.2015-16.so an amount of Rs.7,61,540/- added to the total income of the assessee. Penalty proceeding u/s 270A of the Income Tax Act are initiated for under-reporting of Income by assessee. 9. Subject to the above remarks and on the basis of data made available on records, total income is determined

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

9. We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. The AO has made an addition on account of unsecured loan as under: “1. Addition on account of unsecured loan: The assessee has shown unsecured loan at Rs.6,64,991/- in you audit report. However, no confirmation and details have been furnished by the assessee. Therefore