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 36(1)(iv)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,595Delhi1,478Jaipur405Chennai400Bangalore359Ahmedabad288Hyderabad253Kolkata213Chandigarh202Indore198Raipur177Pune151Rajkot116Surat116Amritsar108Visakhapatnam98Cochin98Nagpur56SC53Lucknow52Guwahati49Panaji36Allahabad31Jodhpur29Agra24Patna21Cuttack14Dehradun14Ranchi14Jabalpur6Varanasi5A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1

Key Topics

Section 36(1)(va)7Addition to Income6Section 43B4Section 40A(3)3Disallowance3Section 143(1)2Section 2(24)(x)2TDS2

M/S A R TRANSPORT,SATNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SATNA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 16/JAB/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur22 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S. A.R.Transport, Vs Ito, Delha Mod, Sarla Nagar, Ward-1, Satna Maihar Distt., Satna-485772 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aayfa6634L Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Rajesh Kumar Gupta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 21/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22/09/2023

Section 139(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

disallowance following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services P. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income Tax-1 in Civil Appeal no. 2833 OF 2016. Relevant part of the order of Ld.CIT(A) is reproduced as under:- 5. Decision Ground No.1 to 4 1. Addition of Rs.2,37,773/- u/s 36(1

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-KATNI, KATNI vs. M/S. GAJRAJ MINING PVT. L:TD., SINGRAULI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as assessee is dismissed

ITA 27/JAB/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sh. Sapan Usrethe, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Shravan Kumar Gotru, CIT(DR)
Section 2Section 36(1)(iii)Section 43B

iv) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the various addition/ disallowances admitting additional evidence without affording opportunity to Assessing Officer in violation of Rule 46A of 1. T. Rules. (v) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order

SHRI GOVIND SINGH, REWA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1,, SATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is dismissed

ITA 11/JAB/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Sh. K.P Dewani, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Shiv Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43

iv) of s.143(1)(a). 7. The A.O. erred in disallowing Rs. 10,670/ - in respect to fee on alc of delay in filing of GST return; failing to appreciate tha t the fee paid for delay in filing of GST return is an allowable expenditure. 2. The issue of ESI/PF payment has attained finality by the order

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

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)

section 194J on the payment of Rs. 29,500/- made to 3 different parties. Hence, the assessee gets the relief of Rs.29,500/-. (ii) As regard the payment of Rs. 50,000/- made to Shri V Ravindra Prasad Advocate, the assessee submitted that V. Ravendra Prasad is a regular assessee of income and has included the payment received from

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) , JABALPUR vs. M/S. JABALPUR HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTER, JABALPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the Cross objections filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 19/JAB/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur20 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit, Vs. Jabalpur Hospital & Central Circle, Researchcentre,Pvtltd Ramnath Russel Crossing, Building,Napier Town, Napier Town, Jabalpur-482001, Jabalpur-482001 Madhya Pradesh. Madhya Pradesh Pan/Gir No. : Aabcj1959K Appellant .. Respondent Co.No.04/Jab/2019 (A.Y. 2016-17) (In Ita No.19/Jab/2019) Jabalpur Hospital & Vs. Dcit, Research Centre Pvt Ltd, Central Circle, Russel Crossing, Ramnath Napier Town, Building,Napier Town, Jabalpur-482001. Jabalpur-482001. Madhya Pradesh. Madhya Pradesh. Pan/Gir No. : Aabcj1959K Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Dhiraj Ghai.CA.ARFor Respondent: Shri Saad Kidwai. CIT-DR
Section 142(1)

36 of 53 9/10 2015 from Marc valued at Rs. 1,40,100/-it is submitted that the Philips PCG Assembly medical Services for Rs. 1,47,105/- (Copy of bill enclosed on page no999 of Es reply)The payment of Rs. 1,47,105/- was made on 09.10.2015 by cheque 147105 drawn on Bank of Maharastra Jabalpur Hospital Branch

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

disallowed expenditure claimed. Tribunal held that though purchases were from bogus parties, nevertheless purchases themselves were not bogus, so not the entire amount, but profit margin embedded in such amount only would be subjected to tax. The High Court held, whether purchases themselves were bogus or whether parties from whom such purchases were allegedly made were bogus is essentially