Search: disallowance

7 results for “disallowance”+ Section 70clear

Sorted by relevance

Key Topics

Section 26310 Section 80P10 Section 1488 Addition to Income6 Section 2504 Section 1474 Disallowance4 TDS3 Section 542 Section 143(2)

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. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) NFAC was not justified in confirming the addition on account of interest of Rs. 18,77,776 without properly appreciating the facts and even otherwise appellant is eligible for deduction under section 80P of the act. ADDITIONAL GROUND

BRAHTAKAR KRISHI SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT,SAHAJPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2), JABALPUR

BRAHTAKAR KRISHI SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT,SAHAJPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2), JABALPUR

BRAHTAKAR KRISHI SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT,SAHAJPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2), JABALPUR

RAJEEV MISHRA,SEONI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, SEONI, SEONI

BASANT GROVER,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(3), JABALPUR

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

RAJESH JAIN,TIKAMGARH vs. PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX GWALIOR, GWALIOR

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