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.

6 results for “disallowance”+ Section 133(6)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai3,420Delhi2,060Kolkata820Bangalore540Ahmedabad522Jaipur383Chennai308Pune269Surat212Indore199Chandigarh193Hyderabad143Raipur118Cochin92Lucknow75Rajkot66Visakhapatnam61Cuttack61Nagpur56Amritsar53Guwahati47Calcutta41Agra36Allahabad32Karnataka27Ranchi26Telangana19Patna18Jodhpur11Dehradun11SC11Varanasi11Jabalpur6Panaji5Punjab & Haryana2A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Kerala1ANIL R. DAVE AMITAVA ROY L. NAGESWARA RAO1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 1477Section 1486Section 80I6Section 405Addition to Income5Section 143(3)4Section 44A3Section 40A(3)3Disallowance3Deduction

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-SATNA, SATNA vs. M/S. RAM KUMAR SURESH KUMAR, SATNA

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

ITA 136/JAB/2018[2013-14]Status: PendingITAT Jabalpur22 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gaaleasst. Commissioner Of Vs Shri Ram Kumar Income Tax, Circle-Satna, Suresh Kumar, Satna Birla Road, Satna (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaffr3899D Revenue By Shri Shravan Kumar Gotru, Cit Dr Assessee By Shri Rahul Bardia, Fca Date Of Hearing 13/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22/09/2023 O R D E R Per Om Prakash Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against Order Dated 12.03.2018 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Jabalpur [In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”] For The Assessment Year 2013-14, Raising Following Grounds:

Section 133(6)Section 68

133(6) of the Act confirming the credit. There is also no denying of the fact that the invoices/bills for the sales were issued by the said creditor, viz., M/s P.G. Enterprises, 46, Vaikunthdham, Indore. It is only the enquiry conducted through the staff of the office of the Assessing Officer that the denial came from the party regarding

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL), JABALPUR vs. ANAND MINING CORPORATION, JABALPUR

3
Section 133(6)2
TDS2

In the result, the Cross Objection of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 104/JAB/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur24 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

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

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 40A(3)

133(6) of the Act to M/s Shree Rupandham Pvt. Ltd. which has been returned un-served. Considering the above facts, the Assessing Officer was of the opinion that the said amount claimed by the assessee as expenditure, is only undisclosed money/income of the assessee which has been routed through corporate channel for utilization in the business of the assessee

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KATNI vs. SHRI GANESH PRASAD VISHWAKARMA, KATNI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee raised at grounds no

ITA 43/JAB/2020[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Jabalpur01 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Sh. Dhiraj Ghai, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ravi Mehrotra, JCIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 40

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. and without complying the CBDT instruction in this regard. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case the ld CIT(A) was fully justified in deleting the addition of the transportation of Rs. 88,01,434/- done by 8 parties named in the assessment order to the income of the appellant

M/S BINDRA WAREHOUSING CORPORATION vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1),

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 153/JAB/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 Sept 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Bleassessment Year : 2008-09 Bindra Warehousing Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward-1(1), Corporation, Itarsi

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 44ASection 80Section 80I

disallowing the claim of depreciation and imposing the tax on the same which is neither correct nor justified therefore same is liable to be deleted. However, prior to arguing the same, the ld. Counsel for the assessee, Shri Mishra, would plead for admission of legal Grounds (Gds. 3 & 4), reading as under, also praying for their adjudication first inasmuch

M/S GEOMIN INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,JABALPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), JABALPUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 31/JAB/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur07 Sept 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Sanjay Arora

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) dated 28/09/2017 for assessment year (AY) 2015-16. The appeal raises two issues, which we shall take up in seriatim. 2. The first issue concerns the disallowance in the sum of Rs.1,59,100, being ten percent of the claim in respect of travel expenditure (i.e., Rs.15.91 lacs

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

6 DTR (Gul) 98 Appeal [CIT(A)]-Additional ground in appeal-Admissibility-Assessee claimed certain expenditure for asst. yr. 1986-87 but s ame was disallowed-Assessee claimed the same in appeal for asst. yr. 1985-86 pending before CIT(A) by way of additional ground-Expenditure being genuine and claim being bona fide, Tribunal was justified in holding that