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.

12 results for “disallowance”+ Reopening of Assessmentclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai5,749Delhi2,312Chennai1,419Kolkata834Bangalore706Ahmedabad499Jaipur393Surat384Hyderabad291Indore269Pune254Chandigarh220Rajkot184Raipur175Cochin122Visakhapatnam94Lucknow83Amritsar79Nagpur73Karnataka69Cuttack68Guwahati62Agra50Calcutta46Allahabad40Patna34Jodhpur31Dehradun27Telangana24Ranchi20Panaji16SC13Jabalpur12Kerala7Punjab & Haryana5Varanasi4Orissa3Himachal Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 14720Section 14818Addition to Income11Section 80P10Section 143(3)9Section 36(1)(viia)9Disallowance9Section 37(1)6TDS6Deduction

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- SEONI, SEONI vs. JILA SAHKARI KENDRIYA BANK MARYADIT, SEONI

In the result, all the Appeals and CO (# 7/2018) are allowed for statistical purposes, and CO (# 5/2018) is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 97/JAB/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur20 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri B.Ganguly, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shravan Ku. Gotru, CIT-DR
Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37(1)Section 43D

reopening, even if no disallowance on that count finally materializes in assessment (Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1991] 191 ITR 662 (SC)). In fact

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- SEONI, SEONI vs. JILA SAHKARI KENDRIYA BANK MARYADIT, SEONI

6
Section 1944
Section 1434

In the result, all the Appeals and CO (# 7/2018) are allowed for statistical purposes, and CO (# 5/2018) is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 99/JAB/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur20 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri B.Ganguly, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shravan Ku. Gotru, CIT-DR
Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37(1)Section 43D

reopening, even if no disallowance on that count finally materializes in assessment (Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1991] 191 ITR 662 (SC)). In fact

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- SEONI, SEONI vs. JILA SAHKARI KENDRIYA BANK MARYADIT, SEONI

In the result, all the Appeals and CO (# 7/2018) are allowed for statistical purposes, and CO (# 5/2018) is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 100/JAB/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur20 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri B.Ganguly, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shravan Ku. Gotru, CIT-DR
Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37(1)Section 43D

reopening, even if no disallowance on that count finally materializes in assessment (Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1991] 191 ITR 662 (SC)). In fact

RAMJIDAS BUDHRAJA CHARITABLE TRUST (SGM),CHHINDWARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEMPTION, JABALPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 235/JAB/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur19 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 10Section 11Section 11(2)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

reopened assessment proceedings for assessment year 2015-2016 were pending before the Assessing Officer. Since as mentioned in the assessment order the first 148 notice was issued on 01.12.2017. Even otherwise, the proceedings initiated on 28.03.2018 are posterior to the grant of registration under Section 12AA. On that date the registration under Section 12AA was available with I.T.A. No.235/JAB/2025 Assessment

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

reopening of the assessment. 3. Considering the fact that no notice under section 143(2) was issued before the completion of the assessment the Hon'ble CIT(A) should have held that the assessment order of ld AO is bad in law. 4. Considering the fact that the assessee has produced on 15.10.2018 books of account and supporting bills, royalty

KHANNA AUTOMOBILES REWA,REWA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, REWA

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

ITA 39/JAB/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2014-15 Khanna Automobiles V. Income Tax Officer 01 M/S Khanna Automobile, Ward-1 Bus Stand, Rewa, Madhya Income Tax Office, Kothi Pradesh-486001. Compound, Behind Customer Forum, Rewa- 486001. Pan:Aahfk4140J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Sapan Usrethe, Adv. Respondent By: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 20 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 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

reopening of assessment was without any new information and no tangible material was gathered by the AO and reason was based on the basis of available record and it appears that it was on the basis of audit objection and it is settled position that proceeding initiated under section 148 is bad in law if it was based on audit

MOHAN LAL BHIKHULAL BETULGANJ ,BETUL,BETUAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BETUL WARD, BATUL

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 78/JAB/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur07 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

For Appellant: Shri Abhijeet Shrivastava, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Sheogankar, Sr. CIT(DR)
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 194Section 40

REOPEN THE CASE U/S 147/148 WITHOUT ANY CONCRETEREASONS THEREFORE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED IS UNLAWFULL. b. The learned Assessing Office and CIT (Appeal) was not justified was not justified in making assessment against the law and facts of the case. c. Because ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED ITO-BETUL ERRED

MOHAN LAL BHIKHULAL,BETUL GANJ, BETUL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , BETUL

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 73/JAB/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur07 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

For Appellant: Shri Abhijeet Shrivastava, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Sheogankar, Sr. CIT(DR)
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 194Section 40

REOPEN THE CASE U/S 147/148 WITHOUT ANY CONCRETEREASONS THEREFORE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED IS UNLAWFULL. b. The learned Assessing Office and CIT (Appeal) was not justified was not justified in making assessment against the law and facts of the case. c. Because ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED ITO-BETUL ERRED

SAURABH SINGHAI L/H LATE SHRI MAHENDRA KUMAR JAIN,SAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3 SAGAR, SAGAR

In the result, the assessee‟s appeal is dismissed

ITA 5/JAB/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur29 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Ble & Sh. Manomohan Das, Hon‟Ble

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148(1)Section 263

reopening of the assessment. The assessee, in the ensuing proceedings, clarified vide his reply dated nil (PB-4, pgs. 2-4), stated to be filed on 03/02/2006, that the short deduction of tax at source was occasioned by a change in law by Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009, w.e.f. 01/10/2009, whereby a person making payment for carriage of goods

BRAHTAKAR KRISHI SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT,SAHAJPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2), JABALPUR

In the result, all the three appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 149/JAB/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Sh. Sapan Usrethe, Advocate & ShFor Respondent: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 80P

disallowed by the ld. AO in an ex parte order. The assessee Society functions in a remote area and all the Members of the assessee society are villagers who are not conversant with the internet and various legal compliances. For this reason, it was not able to attend to the assessment proceedings and it was also unable to make

BRAHTAKAR KRISHI SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT,SAHAJPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2), JABALPUR

In the result, all the three appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 151/JAB/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Sh. Sapan Usrethe, Advocate & ShFor Respondent: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 80P

disallowed by the ld. AO in an ex parte order. The assessee Society functions in a remote area and all the Members of the assessee society are villagers who are not conversant with the internet and various legal compliances. For this reason, it was not able to attend to the assessment proceedings and it was also unable to make

SANJAY KUMAR AGRAWAL ,SATNA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX CIRCLE, SATNA

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

ITA 156/JAB/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur21 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2016-17 Sanjay Kumar Agarwal V. Acit Circle Satna Blooms Campus, Nh-75, Panna Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Road, Satna (Mp)-485001. Lines, Satna, Mp-485001. Tan/Pan:Ackpa2596H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Sanjay Mishra, Adv Respondent By: Shri N. M. Prasad, Sr. Dr-1 Date Of Hearing: 19 08 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21 08 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Mishra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri N. M. Prasad, Sr. Dr-1
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

disallowing interest Rs.42,16,333/- on loans and advances given by the assessee.” 2. Apropos to the grounds of appeal, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the contents of written submissions for the sake of clarity the written submission of the assessee is reproduced as under: - “The Appellant respectfully submits the present appeal against the order dated 12.02.2025 passed