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.

29 results for “disallowance”+ Penaltyclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai5,264Delhi4,366Ahmedabad1,372Chennai1,007Bangalore1,006Kolkata994Jaipur771Pune766Hyderabad533Indore462Chandigarh352Surat338Cochin189Raipur180Rajkot161Cuttack135Agra124Lucknow122Nagpur118Amritsar99Visakhapatnam91Karnataka67Guwahati64Allahabad55Ranchi52SC47Calcutta43Telangana35Dehradun34Jodhpur32Varanasi31Jabalpur29Panaji25Patna24Kerala6Punjab & Haryana5Rajasthan3A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2Himachal Pradesh1Gauhati1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Orissa1RANJAN GOGOI PRAFULLA C. PANT1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)37Section 200A33Section 234E33Section 271(1)(c)22Penalty21Addition to Income17Disallowance14Section 26313Section 80P10Section 147

J.P TOBACCO PRODUCT PVT. LTD.,DAMOH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, SAGAR

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

ITA 155/JAB/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur22 Sept 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S. J.P.Tobacco Products Vs Acit, Pvt. Ltd., Patharia Phatak, Circle-Sagar. Damoh (M.P.). (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacj7141G Assessee By Shri G.N.Purohit, Sr.Adv. & Shri Abhijeet Shrivastava, Adv. Revenue By Shri Rajesh Kumar Gupta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 15/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22/09/2023

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 37

disallowance upheld by the Tribunal, the AO issued show cause notice for levy of penalty. The submission filed by the assessee

SUDHIR CHANDRA DATT,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER CIRCLE 2(1), JABALPUR

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

Showing 1–20 of 29 · Page 1 of 2

9
Section 142(1)9
Deduction9
ITA 58/JAB/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur21 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesudhir Chandra Datt, Vs. Ito, Circle – 2(1), 1148A, Napier Town, Aaykar Bhavan, Jabalpur-482001, Napier Town, Madhyapradesh. Jabalpur-482001, Madhyapradesh. Pan/Gir No. : Acspd5225E Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Sanjayseth.Ca & Shri.Sachinbajpai,Adv.Ar Respondentby : Shri.Shivkumar.Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21.09.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Against The Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi / Cit(A) & Passed The Order U/Sec 143(3) & 250 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri.SanjaySeth.CA &For Respondent: Shri.ShivKumar.Sr. DR
Section 143(2)

disallowed salary paid for wine business@10% of the claim i.e Rs.3,42,000/- and salary &wages of construction business i.e @5% i.e.Rs.2,82,198/- both aggregating to Rs. 6,24,198/- (iii) the AO found that some penalty

SMT HANSA SHAH,JABALPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 2(1) JABALPUR, JABALPUR

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

ITA 52/JAB/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rahul Bardia, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

disallowance to this extent and initiated the penalty proceedings. 3. Aggrieved with the same, the assessee filed an appeal with

M/S ANUSHREE ENGINEERING,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JABALPUR

In the result, subject to the caveat stated at para 3

ITA 153/JAB/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur27 Sept 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

disallowance could hold in the facts and circumstances of the case. 6.3 It is wholly unnecessary, in view of the foregoing, to travel to or consider the other legal ground (refer para 6.1) by the assessee. 6.4 I decide accordingly, and the assessee succeeds. 7. The third appeal (ITA No. 06/Jab/2018), which challenges the levy of penalty

M/S.ANUSHRI ENGINEERING,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1), JABALPUR

In the result, subject to the caveat stated at para 3

ITA 6/JAB/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur27 Sept 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

disallowance could hold in the facts and circumstances of the case. 6.3 It is wholly unnecessary, in view of the foregoing, to travel to or consider the other legal ground (refer para 6.1) by the assessee. 6.4 I decide accordingly, and the assessee succeeds. 7. The third appeal (ITA No. 06/Jab/2018), which challenges the levy of penalty

HAJARIMAL MISHRIMAL BAFANA vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE,

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for AY 2004-05 is dismissed, and that of AY 2005-06 is partly allowed

ITA 176/JAB/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur29 Nov 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Mehrotra Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 254(2)Section 43B

disallowance of Rs. 53,720 is of it being penalty under commercial tax, 11 | P a g e ITA Nos. 175 &176/JAB/2016

KRISHNA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY ,REWA vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE, KATNI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 204/JAB/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur29 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Sapan Usrethe, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 194CSection 234BSection 234DSection 250Section 270ASection 271ASection 40

disallowance of Rs.25,00,000/- on this account and initiated penalty proceedings under section 270A. Furthermore, the ld. AO also

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), JABALPUR vs. MADHYA PRADESH POWER GENERATING CO. LTD., JABALPUR

In the result, the Revenue's appeal is dismissed as not maintainable

ITA 251/JAB/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur23 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Bardia, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Halder, DR
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 271(1)(c)

penalty. The cited decision is to be read and understood in the context and backdrop of the facts of the case. The claim under reference was for interest expenditure u/s. 36(1)(iii) for AY 2001-02, which was found as 9 liable to be disallowed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE- SATNA vs. SHRI JAMMU BEG,

In the result, the levy of penalty is cancelled and the appeal of the appellant is allowed

ITA 196/JAB/2016[2012-13]Status: FixedITAT Jabalpur20 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleacit, Vs. Shri Jammu Beg, Satna, M/S Mirza Transport, Madhya Pradesh. Main Road, Waidhan, Singrauli. Madhya Pradesh.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Shravan Kumar Gotru, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271D

disallowance of Rs.1,00,000/- Jammu Beg. and the assessed the total income of Rs.11,73,280/- and passed the order u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 26.11.2014. 3. Subsequently the AO has initiated penalty

J.P TOBACO PRODUCTA PVT. LTD. vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - SAGAR,

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

ITA 186/JAB/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur20 Jan 2020AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Sanjay Aroraassessment Year: 2003-04 J.P. Tobacco Products Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Pathariya Phatak, Damoh Tax, [Pan:Aaacj 7141G] Circle- Sagar (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 234Section 80Section 80I

penalty amount of Rs.14,800/- has been wrongly included (in the detail stated in the relevant Ground) in-as-much as the impugned disallowance

PRATH KRISHI SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT,LAMKANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1), JABALPUR

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

ITA 18/JAB/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2017-18 Prath Krishi Sakh Sahakari V. Ito Ward-1(3) Samiti Maryadit Lamkana Annexe Building, Aayakar 01, Manjholi Jabalpur, Bhawan, Napier Town, Lamkana-483110. Jabalpur-482001. Pan:Aacap1804G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Sapan Usrethe, Adv Respondent By: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 22 05 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 06 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sapan Usrethe, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. CIT(DR)
Section 270ASection 80P

penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short) was separately initiated. The Assessing Officer in the absence of the supporting evidence disallowed

BHARATKAR KRISHI SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(5), JABALPUR

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

ITA 53/JAB/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur11 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2017-18 Brahtakar Krishi Sakh Ito Ward-2(5) V. Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Annexe Building Aayakar 01, Barela Jabalpur-482001. Bhawan, Napier Town, Jabalpur-482001. Pan:Aabab4581D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sapan Usrethe, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. CIT(DR)
Section 271FSection 80P

penalty proceedings u/s 271F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short) were also separately initiated. The Assessing Officer in the absence of any supporting evidence disallowed

CHHAYA MASURKAR,BALAGHAT vs. NFAC, ITO BALAGHAT, BALAGHAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 61/JAB/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur26 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshrachhaya Masurkar V. National Faceless Appeal 1, Ward No. 9, Ram Mandir Center (Nfac) Road, Katangi, Balaghat (Mp)- Delhi (Jurisdiction Officer, 481445. Income Tax Officer, Balaghat (Mp)-110001. Pan:Cakpm8662A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Vijay Bagrecha, Ca Respondent By: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. Cit(Dr) O R D E R (A) The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)- Delhi, Dated 23.02.2024 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Grounds Of Appeal Of The Assessee Are As Under: -

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Bagrecha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 50CSection 69A

disallowing condonation of filling appeal application. ., The order passed by Ld. CIT (A) NFAC under section 250 of the IT Act 1961 is bad in law on facts and liable to be quashed. 4. The Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC has erred on facts and in law in conforming levy of penalty

SHRI DIGPAL JAISWAL,KATNI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1 , KATNI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 42/JAB/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. K P Dewani, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Shravan Kumar Gotru, CIT-DR
Section 1Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 271(1)(b)Section 40

disallowance. A.O. further proceeded to assess the same income as determined in regular assessment framed u/s 143(3) of the Act. 7. Any other ground that shall be prayed at the time of hearing. 3. The assesse has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 42/Jab/2021 are as under:- 1. That the levy of Penalty

SHRI DIGPAL JAISWAL,KATNI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, JABALPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 83/JAB/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. K P Dewani, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Shravan Kumar Gotru, CIT-DR
Section 1Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 271(1)(b)Section 40

disallowance. A.O. further proceeded to assess the same income as determined in regular assessment framed u/s 143(3) of the Act. 7. Any other ground that shall be prayed at the time of hearing. 3. The assesse has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 42/Jab/2021 are as under:- 1. That the levy of Penalty

BASANT GROVER,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(3), JABALPUR

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

ITA 93/JAB/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur20 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadalebasant Grover, Vs Ito, 245/2, Behind Ashoka Ward-2(3), Apartment, Madanmahal, Jabalpur. Jabalpur-482002 (M.P.) (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Adbpg3734F Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Rajesh Kumar Gupta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 13/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 20/09/2023

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 54Section 68

disallowance of Rs.10,000/- on account of expenses claimed in the Profit & Loss Account, being arbitrary and not justified. 4. Considering the fact, that, Long term Capital Gain of Rs. 12,55,692/-(infra) is calculated after taking the Sale consideration of Rs.22,11,000/- instead of Rs. 15,98,000/; the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC erred in confirming addition

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-CHHINDWARA, CHHINDWARA vs. SHRI SHEVENDRA SINGH PARIHAR, BALAGHAT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 91/JAB/2019[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Jabalpur01 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

penalty proceedings u/s 271(c) of I.T. Act is initiated separately.” I.T.A. No.91/Jab/2019 C.O.No.01/Jab/2020 5 Assessment Year:2011-12 5. The learned CIT(A), while restricting the addition at the rate of 10% out of the expenses, held as under: “Ground No. 4 & 5:- Through these grounds of appeal the appellant has challenged the addition

RAJEEV MISHRA,SEONI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, SEONI, SEONI

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

ITA 152/JAB/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Sapan Usrethe, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69

disallowance is permissible in law that too merely on presumption. 8. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) of NFAC New Delhi was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs.13,470/- made by the AO on the ground that these expenses could not be fully verified, whereas the appellant has submitted vouchers in support of these expenses, even after

RAJ KUMAR KHATIK,SAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3, SAGAR, SAGAR

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

ITA 13/JAB/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur20 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadaleraj Kumar Khatik, Vs Ito, Fresh Vegetable Commission Ward-3, Sagar Agent, Sabji Mandi, Sagar, Madhya Pradesh-470002. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Cefpk7387R Assessee By Shri Dhiraj Ghai, Fca Revenue By Shri Shiv Kumar, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 12/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 20/09/2023

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

penalty of Rs.10,000/- vide his order dated 18.05.2018. Before Ld.CIT(A), the assessee submitted that on the date of hearing, the assessee attended the office of the AO and remained throughout the day but the AO was not available in the office. The Ld.CIT(A) however, rejected the contention of the assessee by observing as under:- 5. “I have

GANPAT SINGH PATEL,BALAGHAT vs. ITO WARD, BALAGHAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 53/JAB/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2014-15 Ganpat Singh Patel V. Ito Ward, Balaghat Prem Nagar, Balaghat H.O. Railway Station Road, Balaghat, Balaghat, 481001, Balaghat-481001. Madhya Pradesh. Pan:Aeopp9849L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashok Vijaywargiya, Adv Respondent By: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 20 08 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28 08 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Vijaywargiya, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. CIT(DR)
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 54B

disallowance of deduction u/s 54B. 2. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in upholding the contested addition of Rs. 5,00,753/- due to the purported variance between the balance sheet amount and the valuation report, a discrepancy which is unsubstantiated, unwarranted, flawed, and legally infirm.". 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case the learning C.I.T. has erred