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 172(4)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,075Delhi818Bangalore243Chennai215Jaipur165Kolkata164Ahmedabad152Hyderabad133Surat115Cochin99Pune80Indore75Chandigarh66Raipur52Calcutta35Cuttack33Allahabad29Guwahati26Ranchi25Visakhapatnam22Lucknow21Nagpur21Telangana20Rajkot20Karnataka18Agra10Amritsar9Jodhpur7SC7Jabalpur4Dehradun4Rajasthan1Patna1Varanasi1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Kerala1

Key Topics

Section 80P10Section 1488Section 43B6Section 234A4Section 1474Addition to Income4Section 143(3)2Section 2502Section 143(2)2Deduction

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 of the Act without issuing any notice under section 148 as the notice issued under section 148 was not issued to anybody as apparent from the portal. 6. The AO was not justified in passing order

2
TDS2
Disallowance2

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 of the Act without issuing any notice under section 148 as the notice issued under section 148 was not issued to anybody as apparent from the portal. 6. The AO was not justified in passing order

M/S RPJ MINERALS PVT. LTD ,MAIHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1,SATNA, SATNA

ITA 86/JAB/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur19 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Meena, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 43B

4. The facts of the assessee's case in ITA No.86/JAB/2022 are somewhat similar. In the assessment year 2017-18, the assessee filed a return of income showing a total loss of Rs.29,97,675/-. The ld. AO observed that during this assessment year also, the business of the assessee had not been set up and it was still

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 vs. M/S RPJ MINERALS PRIVATE LTD., SATNA

ITA 154/JAB/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur19 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Meena, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 43B

4. The facts of the assessee's case in ITA No.86/JAB/2022 are somewhat similar. In the assessment year 2017-18, the assessee filed a return of income showing a total loss of Rs.29,97,675/-. The ld. AO observed that during this assessment year also, the business of the assessee had not been set up and it was still