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.

4 results for “disallowance”+ Section 145(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,839Delhi1,472Kolkata486Chennai433Bangalore405Jaipur348Ahmedabad269Surat203Hyderabad193Chandigarh146Agra112Pune98Raipur92Indore83Cochin78Rajkot77Lucknow70Visakhapatnam52Amritsar51Allahabad42Cuttack39Calcutta39Ranchi35Karnataka33Nagpur32Telangana27Jodhpur22SC18Patna18Dehradun15Varanasi10Panaji9Guwahati7Punjab & Haryana4Jabalpur4Himachal Pradesh3Rajasthan1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1

Key Topics

Addition to Income4Disallowance3Section 143(2)2Section 145(3)2

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE SAGAR, SAGAR vs. SHRI RISHAV KUMAR JAIN, SAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 55/JAB/2019[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Jabalpur01 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

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

Section 143(2)Section 145(3)

disallowance of Rs.2,00,48,809 without rejecting the books of account and without invoking section 145(3). He disallowed

VIJAY RATHI,ITARSI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-ITARSI, ITARSI

ITA 141/JAB/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur09 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2012-13 Vijay Rathi L/H Manisha V. Dcit, Circle Rathi 109, Aaykar Bhawan, C/O Rathi Dal Mill, Surajganj, Hoshangabad Road, Main Road, Itarsi-461111. Bhopal-462011. Pan:Agmpr6103K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Sapan Usrethe, Adv. Respondent By: Shri Bharat Sheogankar, Sr. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 08 01 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 09 01 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sapan Usrethe, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Sheogankar, Sr. CIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 145Section 145(3)

section 145 of income tax Act. 6. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) NFAC was not justified in confirming the action of AO with regard to the addition made on account of business loss by treating it as loss from speculative business without any basis and therefore order of lower authorities deserves to be quashed. 7. The appellant craves

PUNJAB HOUSE,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1)

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 54/JAB/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2017-18 Punjab House V. Income Tax Officer, 1, Star Complex, Opp Dominos, Ward-2(1) Jyoti Talkies Road, Napier Town Annexe Building, Aayakar Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh- Bhawan, Napier Town, 482001. Jabalpur-Madhya Pradesh-482001. Pan: Aaqfp3056R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri G. N. Purohit, Sr. Advocate. Respondent By: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 18 09 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 09 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri G. N. Purohit, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. DR

section and legal pronouncements in his context Page 3 of 7 cannot be added ack. Here the Ld. A.O. has 1ot rejected the books oi account u/s 145(3) of the Ac: and has not made the addition for the source oi credit entry (from which sources the cash has been received, although proved to the A.O.) which

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

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) dated 26/12/2006 and 24/12/2007 for Assessment Years (AYs.) 2004-05 & 2005-06 respectively, vide his orders dated 09/03/2016 & 13/03/2016 respectively. The appeals raising common issues, were heard together, and are being disposed of per a common order for the sake of convenience, even as was by the Tribunal