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.

2 results for “disallowance”+ Section 245Cclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai67Delhi18Allahabad16Chennai14Jaipur5Visakhapatnam5Agra5Bangalore3Pune3Kolkata2Indore2Karnataka1SC1Lucknow1

Key Topics

Section 153A2Section 143(3)2Section 40A(3)2Section 292C2Section 234A2Deduction2Addition to Income2

DCIT, CC-VIII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI SHYAM SUNDAR PATODIA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1248/KOL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalit(Ss)A No.111/Kol/2014 Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 292CSection 40A(3)

disallowance of expenditure of Rs. 50,00,000/- made in cash for the sake of boundary wall, as claimed by the assessee. 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in restricting the addition of Rs.2,04,60,000/- to Rs. 55,60,000/- only after allowing

DCIT, CC-VIII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI SHYAM SUNDAR PATODIA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1247/KOL/2014[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Aug 2023AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalit(Ss)A No.111/Kol/2014 Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 292CSection 40A(3)

disallowance of expenditure of Rs. 50,00,000/- made in cash for the sake of boundary wall, as claimed by the assessee. 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in restricting the addition of Rs.2,04,60,000/- to Rs. 55,60,000/- only after allowing