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.

10 results for “disallowance”+ Section 80P(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai651Bangalore387Pune373Cochin314Chennai202Kolkata108Ahmedabad106Panaji103Delhi91Visakhapatnam87Nagpur78Jaipur60Surat58Chandigarh50Rajkot47Hyderabad47Lucknow40Indore40Raipur40Jodhpur16Amritsar11Jabalpur10Varanasi6SC4Ranchi3Dehradun2Agra2Patna1Guwahati1

Key Topics

Section 80P26Section 14811Deduction9Addition to Income8Section 80P(2)(a)7Section 143(3)6Disallowance6Section 1475Section 80P(2)(d)5Section 250

JILA SAHKARI KENDRIYA BANK KARAMCHARI SAKH SAHKARI SAMITI,SATNA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, KATNI

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

ITA 102/JAB/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur20 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadalejila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Vs National E Karamchari Sakh Sahkari Assessment Samiti Maryadit Satna, Center, Income Tax Sahkar Bhawan, Behind Department, New Green Talkies, Pushpraj Delhi Colony, Satna (M.P)-485001. Acit, Katni (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabaj4497Q Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Shiv Kumar, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 12/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 20/09/2023

Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80p

disallowing the benefit of section 80P(2)(d) for deduction of interest received from district cooperative bank. The claim should

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, CHHINDWARA vs. M. P. RASTRIYA KOYLA KHADAN MAJDOOR SANGH COLLIERY EMPLOYEE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY, CHHINDWARA

4
Section 80P(1)4
TDS4
ITA 4/JAB/2021[2017-18]Status: Disposed
ITAT Jabalpur
11 Jan 2023
AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sh. G.N. Purohit, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Smt. Maya Maheshwari & Sh
Section 143(3)Section 44Section 5Section 80Section 80P(1)Section 80P(2)(a)

2)(a) that would qualify for deduction u/s. 80P(1). Toward this, once again, we find computation of income not on record. This assumes relevance as the assessee has, as per the assessment order, claimed deduction u/s. 80P(1) at Rs. 13,76,224, while the Assessing Officer (AO) has disallowed, in addition thereto, rs. 7,49,40,575, being

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

2. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) NFAC was not justified in confirming the disallowance of Rs.29,10,622 which is the deduction claimed by the appellant under section 80P

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

2. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) NFAC was not justified in confirming the disallowance of Rs.29,10,622 which is the deduction claimed by the appellant under section 80P

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), JABALPUR, JABALPUR vs. SHAKTI MAHILA SANGH BAHU-UDDESHIYA SAHKARI SAMITI MARYADIT, MAJHOLI

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 119/JAB/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur19 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y.-2017-18 Income Tax Officer, Ward- Vs Shakti Mahila Sangh Bahu-Uddeshiya 1(1), Jabalpur, M.P. Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Majholi Pan:Aafas3026A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act and the ld. AO was not justified in disallowing the deduction under

PRATH KRISHI SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT,LAMKANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1), JABALPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 18/JAB/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2017-18 Prath Krishi Sakh Sahakari V. Ito Ward-1(3) Samiti Maryadit Lamkana Annexe Building, Aayakar 01, Manjholi Jabalpur, Bhawan, Napier Town, Lamkana-483110. Jabalpur-482001. Pan:Aacap1804G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Sapan Usrethe, Adv Respondent By: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 22 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 270ASection 80P

disallowance of Rs.20,03,303/- which is the deduction claimed by Page 2 of 4 the appellant under section 80P

BHARATKAR KRISHI SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(5), JABALPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 53/JAB/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur11 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2017-18 Brahtakar Krishi Sakh Ito Ward-2(5) V. Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Annexe Building Aayakar 01, Barela Jabalpur-482001. Bhawan, Napier Town, Jabalpur-482001. Pan:Aabab4581D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sapan Usrethe, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. CIT(DR)
Section 271FSection 80P

2. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) NFAC was not justified in confirming the disallowance of Rs.18,87,730 which is the deduction claimed by the appellant under section 80P

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

80P.] 14. We find that, the ld. CIT(A) held that, Section 43B are applicable in the case where any sum as liability was payable by the assessee and was not paid on or before due date of filing of return for the relevant previous year. 15. In other words, any deduction otherwise allowable under the act shall

PRATHMIK KRISHI SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT ,JERATH vs. INCOMETAX OFFICER WARD , NARSINGHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 151/JAB/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2019-20 Prathmik Krishi Sakh V. Ito Ward Narsinghpur Sahakari Samiti Maryadit Income Tax Office, Jerath Trimurti Nagar, Housing Gram Jerath, Pathariya, Board Colony, Damoh-470661. Narsinghpur-487001. Pan:Aabap7893E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Sapan Usrethe, Adv Respondent By: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr 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 DR
Section 119(2)(b)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 250Section 80P

section 119(2)(b) is pending.” 2. The facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer received information through ITBA software that the assessee had made cash deposits of Rs.5,89,76,696/-; made contract payments of Rs.1,40,392/-; made commission payments of Rs.3,88,381/- and received interest of Rs.12,695/- but not filed any income

PARTH KRISHI SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT,SEHORA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD1(3), JABALPUR

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

ITA 93/JAB/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur21 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 143(3)Section 80P

2 u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” for short) determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.14,34,709/-. The Assessing Officer disallowed an amount of Rs.14,34,709/- u/s 80P of the Act. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal against the assessment order in the office of learned CIT(A). Vide impugned order