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.

5 results for “disallowance”+ Section 119(2)(b)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,157Mumbai1,116Chennai369Bangalore340Ahmedabad272Kolkata265Jaipur195Hyderabad155Chandigarh150Indore136Pune123Cochin99Raipur95Surat59Cuttack50Visakhapatnam49Allahabad47Amritsar40Lucknow39Calcutta37Rajkot35Guwahati27Agra25Karnataka24Nagpur19Telangana18Jodhpur14SC11Varanasi9Ranchi7Jabalpur5Patna5Himachal Pradesh3Panaji3Dehradun3Punjab & Haryana2Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 143(1)9Section 117Section 271(1)(c)5Section 12A3Section 143(3)3Section 1473Section 1483Exemption3Section 1542Deduction

RAI SAHAB BHAIYALAL DUBEY EDUCATIONAL AND MEDICAL CHARITABLE TRUST,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), JABALPUR

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

ITA 186/JAB/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur10 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11ASection 12ASection 143(1)

119(2)(b) of the Act. In the present case, there is no evidence on record that the appellant filed any such condonation petition before the Commissioner. CPC was therefore justified in disallowing the exemption u/s 11 as claimed in return. This authority has no jurisdiction to condone the delay in filing Form 10B. I.T.A. No.186/JAB/2024 Assessment Year

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

2
Disallowance2
Addition to Income2

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)

119(2)(a), gets resolved as per the said view. Needless to add, no submissions were made by the ld. Sr. DR, Sh. Halder, on this aspect of the assessee's case, argued without prejudice (refer para 3). 4.3 We may, before parting, however, if only for the sake of completeness of our order, record our view on the merits

PRATHMIK KRISHI SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT ,JERATH vs. INCOMETAX OFFICER WARD , NARSINGHPUR

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

ITA 151/JAB/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2019-20 Prathmik Krishi Sakh V. Ito Ward Narsinghpur Sahakari Samiti Maryadit Income Tax Office, Jerath Trimurti Nagar, Housing Gram Jerath, Pathariya, Board Colony, Damoh-470661. Narsinghpur-487001. Pan:Aabap7893E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Sapan Usrethe, Adv Respondent By: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr 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 DR
Section 119(2)(b)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 250Section 80P

section 119(2)(b) is pending.” 2. The facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer received information through ITBA software that the assessee had made cash deposits of Rs.5,89,76,696/-; made contract payments of Rs.1,40,392/-; made commission payments of Rs.3,88,381/- and received interest of Rs.12,695/- but not filed any income

SHRI NAMIYUN PARSWANATH JAIN, SWETAMBER MANIDHARI TRUST,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTION), JABALPUR

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes”

ITA 100/JAB/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur14 Sept 2023AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Sri Rahul Bardia.CA. ARFor Respondent: Shri Shiv Kumar. Sr.DR
Section 11Section 119(2)Section 12ASection 139Section 143(1)Section 154

119(2) dated 11.09.2020 denying condonation of delay being more than 365 days as against the due date of 31.10.2018, whereas it was claimed that delay be computed u/s 139 as per CBDT circular 02/2020 dt 3.1.2020 w.e.f due date being 31 March of every asstt. year, I e. For the A.Y. 2018-19- 31.03.2019 and thus 10B form filed

VARSMA ENGINEERS GROUP,JABALPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), JABALPUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 224/JAB/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur22 Oct 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Bleassessment Year: 2008-09 Varhsma Engineer’S Group, Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Income Tax, Vijay Nagar, Circle – 1(1), Jabalpur (M.P.) Jabalpur (M.P.) [Pan: Aaefv 7885Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. H.S. Modh Adv. Respondent By Smt. Swati Agarwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement 22/10/2021

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148(1)Section 184Section 40

2). It is not necessary at this stage to discuss the disallowance on merits. 4.2 The first thing that needs to be clarified is if the reason/s to believe escapement of income from assessment to tax based on an audit objection could be a valid reason. The matter, which was subject to difference of opinion by different High Courts