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 255(4)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai743Delhi684Bangalore241Chennai206Kolkata144Ahmedabad121Jaipur113Chandigarh90Raipur70Hyderabad69Pune65Cochin44Indore42Surat41Calcutta36Guwahati35Panaji34Karnataka27Allahabad22Rajkot22Amritsar18Visakhapatnam16Lucknow14Cuttack13Jodhpur12Nagpur11Telangana5Jabalpur5SC4Dehradun3Varanasi3Orissa2Ranchi2Agra2Patna2Rajasthan1Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Section 43B14Section 2639Section 36(1)(va)8Addition to Income5Section 234A4Section 139(1)4Section 143(3)3Section 22Section 143(1)2

NIKHIL MOHINE,PARASIA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), JABALPUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 38/JAB/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur18 Nov 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Ble

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

4 thereto) The same are unambiguously worded. They clarify, with a view to remove any doubt in the matter, that s. 36(1)(va) and s. 43B operate in different fields. While that to the former clarifies the ‘due date’ u/s. 36(1)(va) to be that under the relevant statute, i.e., under which the deposit of the contributions

NIKHIL MOHINE,CHHINDWARA vs. DCIT, CPC, BENGULURU

Deduction2
Disallowance2

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 37/JAB/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur18 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Ble

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

4 thereto) The same are unambiguously worded. They clarify, with a view to remove any doubt in the matter, that s. 36(1)(va) and s. 43B operate in different fields. While that to the former clarifies the ‘due date’ u/s. 36(1)(va) to be that under the relevant statute, i.e., under which the deposit of the contributions

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

255 (Del) had, after considering both the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Limited and Bokaro Steel Limited, concluded that the interest earned during the period of pre-commencement of business out of funds available for setting up project, would be of capital nature and cannot be assessed under

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

255 (Del) had, after considering both the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Limited and Bokaro Steel Limited, concluded that the interest earned during the period of pre-commencement of business out of funds available for setting up project, would be of capital nature and cannot be assessed under

M/S AMBAJEE JEWELLERS JABALPUR,JABALPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX JABALPUR-1,, JABALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 21/JAB/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur12 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatshri Nikhil Choudhary

For Respondent: Shri Shravan Kumar Meena, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 263Section 68

4 AY 2017-18 M/s Ambajee jewellers Jabalpur be disallowed and added back to the assessee’s total income. However, the AO had added back only Rs.2,12,82,278/-. As a result of this, there had been under assessment of income to the extent of Rs.1,38,61,255/- u/s. 68 of the Act. From the same, learned PCIT