Search: disallowance | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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”+ Section 147clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai5,435 Delhi2,603 Chennai1,291 Ahmedabad924 Bangalore893 Kolkata878 Jaipur667 Pune613 Hyderabad598 Surat491 Chandigarh319 Indore299 Cochin274 Visakhapatnam213 Raipur211 Rajkot204 Nagpur182 Cuttack127 Amritsar121 Lucknow93 Karnataka70 Panaji70 Allahabad64 Agra62 Guwahati61 Jodhpur52 Patna51 Calcutta50 Telangana39 Ranchi30 Jabalpur29 SC20 Dehradun18 Varanasi14 Punjab & Haryana8 Kerala4 Gauhati2 Rajasthan2 Orissa2 H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1 Himachal Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 14736 Section 143(3)35 Section 14827 Addition to Income24 Disallowance16 Section 80P12 Deduction12 Section 26310 Section 271(1)(c)10 Section 43B

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

disallowance in the year under consideration is bad in law. ADDITIONAL GROUND 5. The AO was not justified in passing order under section 147

Showing 1–20 of 29 · Page 1 of 2

10

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

disallowance in the year under consideration is bad in law. ADDITIONAL GROUND 5. The AO was not justified in passing order under section 147

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

147 shall be taken by the Assessing Officer in case of such trust or institution for any assessment year preceding the aforesaid assessment year only for non-registration of such trust or institution for the said assessment year. Provided also that provisions contained in the first and second proviso shall not apply in case of any trust or institution which

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

RENU ANANDANI,JABALPUR vs. NFAC, NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 120/JAB/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Sh. Neeraj Agarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

disallowed the claim of short term capital loss of Rs. 21,72,628/- and also added Rs. 43,452/- as unexplained expenditure and passed an order under section 147

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

disallowed when no income from exempt income was disclosed. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) NFAC was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs.15,00,000/- on account of credit appearing in the books of account of Ms. Khanna Polyware Pvt. Ltd., without appreciating that complete details were filed before the AO and addition was made without

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

147 of the Act, the power of revision under section 263 is not contingent on the giving of a notice to show cause. In fact, section 263 has been understood not to require any specific show-cause notice to be served on the assessee. Rather, what is required under the provision is an opportunity of hearing to the assessee

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

147 read with section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2008-09 vide order dated 16/06/2014. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, a partnership firm in contract business, was assessed at a total income of Rs.6,19,810 for the relevant year vide assessment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1), JABALPUR vs. M/S.TDP & ASSOCIATES, JABALPUR

In the result, both the Revenue’s appeal and the assessee’s CO are dismissed

ITA 66/JAB/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur15 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Shiv Kumar, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Sapan Usrethe, Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 254(2)Section 44A

147 read with section 143(3) of the 1 | P a g e C.O.No. 01/JAB/2022 TDP & Associates Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) dated 28/12/2017 for Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13. 2. The appeal, initially dismissed by the Tribunal on 23/08/2019 on account of low tax-effect, was later recalled vide order u/s. 254(2) dated 27/04/2022 for being

INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 1(1), JABALPUR vs. SHRI DEEPAK SINGH BANAFER, JABALPUR

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed on the aforesaid terms

ITA 92/JAB/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur11 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Sh. L.L. Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Shiv Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148(1)Section 54B

147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’, hereinafter) for Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15 vide order dated 18/12/2018. 2.1 The facts of the case, insofar as are relevant, are that the assessee sold during the relevant year 1.61 acres of his inherited land at Swami Vivekanand Ward 21 (near Vijay Nagar), Jabalpur for Rs. 260 lacs

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), JABALPUR, JABALPUR vs. HARISHCHAND NEMICHAND DUGAD, CHHINDWARA

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 97/JAB/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur19 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y.-2012-13 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Harishchand Nemichand Circle-2(1), Jabalpur, Jabalpur, M.P. Dugad, Chhindwara, M.P. Pan:Aabhh3293K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 250Section 801B(10)Section 80I

section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) dated 19.06.2019 has been partially allowed. The grounds of appeal are as under:- “1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance

MAYANK JAIN,SAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SAGAR

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

ITA 197/JAB/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur01 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 144Section 147Section 69

147 read with section 144/144B of the Act on 26/09/2021 and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.45,08,792/- by disallowing

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

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2008-09 vide order dated 06.12.2010. 2. The appeal raises two grounds, as under: 1. That the learned first appellate authority has erred in arbitrarily conforming the addition of Rs. 8,43,219/- made by the learned assessing authority by ,1 Bindra Warehousing

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)

section 147 of the Act. During the course of re-assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (“AO”) issued a notice u/s 142(1) of the Act alongwith questionnaire on 20.09.2017, fixing the case for hearing on 27.09.2017, but neither anyone appeared on behalf of the assessee nor was any compliance made till 19.10.2017. 2 | P a g e Consequently

SHRI KISHORE KUMAR AGRAWAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,

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

ITA 53/JAB/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur16 Mar 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad""./ Ita No. 53/Jab/2015 "" " " " " " " / Assessment Year : 2005-06 Shri Kishore Kumar Agrawal, Income Tax Officer, C/O. M/S. Agrawal Stores, Vs

For Appellant: Shri L.L. Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri PD Chougule, DR

Section 147 r.w.s 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) was framed vide order dated 20.09.2010, assessing total income of the assessee at Rs.8,04,680/-. While framing the assessment, the Assessing Officer made various additions in the income declared by the assessee, including addition of Rs.1,01,000/- on account of unexplained cash

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)

disallowed, assessing the income (under the regular provisions) at (-) Rs.1,06,68,638 vide order u/s. 147 r/w s. 143(3) dated 21.3.2016. The same was further modified u/s.154 (on 11.01.2017) to bring on record the income under Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) regime at Rs. 817.29 lacs, which income had remained unchanged. The said reassessment and modification were not challenged

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

147 IS MERELY A CHANGE OPINION AND ALSO UNLAWFULL. FURTHER THE ASSESSEE HAS DEDUCTED THE TDS AS PER SECTION 194(C) IF APPLICABLE EFORE WITHOUT GIVING MEANINGFULL OPPORTUNITY THE ORDER PASSED U/S 143/147 IS UNJUSTIFIED WITHOUT MAKING PROPER OPPORTUNITY /INQUIRY THE DISALLOWANCE/ADDITION MADE U/S 143/147 IS IMPROPER, UNJUSTIFIED AND UNWANTED.THE SAID ADDITION MAY KINDLY BEDELETED GROUNDS OF APPEAL

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

147 IS MERELY A CHANGE OPINION AND ALSO UNLAWFULL. FURTHER THE ASSESSEE HAS DEDUCTED THE TDS AS PER SECTION 194(C) IF APPLICABLE EFORE WITHOUT GIVING MEANINGFULL OPPORTUNITY THE ORDER PASSED U/S 143/147 IS UNJUSTIFIED WITHOUT MAKING PROPER OPPORTUNITY /INQUIRY THE DISALLOWANCE/ADDITION MADE U/S 143/147 IS IMPROPER, UNJUSTIFIED AND UNWANTED.THE SAID ADDITION MAY KINDLY BEDELETED GROUNDS OF APPEAL

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)

section 143(3) and u/s. 143(3) 1 ITA No. 152 -153/Jab/2013 & 06/Jab/2018 Anushree Engineering v. ITO read s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) and that dated 13/11/2017 confirming the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, for the Assessment Year (AY) 2006-07. 2.1 The facts of the case

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)

section 143(3) and u/s. 143(3) 1 ITA No. 152 -153/Jab/2013 & 06/Jab/2018 Anushree Engineering v. ITO read s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) and that dated 13/11/2017 confirming the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, for the Assessment Year (AY) 2006-07. 2.1 The facts of the case