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 270clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai879Delhi637Chennai248Bangalore216Kolkata196Jaipur103Pune95Ahmedabad88Hyderabad74Chandigarh68Surat48Cuttack36Calcutta35Indore29Rajkot29Allahabad23Amritsar23Karnataka20Guwahati16Panaji16Cochin13Visakhapatnam11Nagpur11Kerala7Agra5Dehradun5Telangana5Lucknow5Raipur4Varanasi4SC3Jodhpur3Jabalpur2Patna2Punjab & Haryana2Rajasthan1Ranchi1

Key Topics

Condonation of Delay4Section 253(3)3Section 1323Search & Seizure3Section 249(2)2Section 249(3)2Addition to Income2

GEETA SHARMA,SHAHJAHANPUR vs. ITO-1(4), SHAHJAHANPUR

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

ITA 373/LKW/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2018-19 Geeta Sharma V. Income Tax Officer 1(4) C/O M/S Neeraj Foods Trading Shahjahanpur Company Moh. Matani Shahjahanpur Tan/Pan:Beeps6201L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Jitendra Kumar Yadav, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 07 08 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 08 2024 O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 18.4.2024, Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee E-Filed Her Return Of Income In Itr-3 On 31.10.2018, Declaring Total Income Of Rs.5,69,770/- After Claiming Deduction Under Section 80C & 80Tta Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’) At Rs.1,53,970/- Out Of Gross Total Income Shown At Rs.7,23,739/- Consisting Of Profits & Gains From Business At Rs.7,19,769/- & Income From Other Sources At Rs.3,970/-. Subsequently, The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & The Total Income Of The Assessee Was Assessed At Rs.17,97,270/- By Making Disallowance Of Rs.2,37,412/- On Account Of Interest Paid

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Kumar Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R
Section 80C

section 80C & 80TTA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’) at Rs.1,53,970/- out of gross total income shown at Rs.7,23,739/- consisting of profits and gains from business at Rs.7,19,769/- and income from other sources at Rs.3,970/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and the total income of the assessee

BHAVAN RAVAT,RAEBARELI vs. ASSESSING AUTHORITY NFAC, DELHI

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

ITA 8/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow12 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2017-18 Bhavan Ravat Assessing Authority V. Vill. Rampur Sudauli, Nfac Raebareli-229301. Delhi Pan:Ajwpr1755Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Adv. Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 18 02 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 12 03 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl
Section 147Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 270Section 270ASection 5

disallowed the condonation of delay, overlooking that the Income Tax Act, 1961, is a self-contained enactment and section 249(3) provides for condonation of delay at the discretion of the CIT(A), with sufficient cause for delay as envisaged in section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY,GONDA vs. DCIT/ACIT (CENTRAL)-2, LUCKNOW

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

ITA 349/LKW/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 132Section 253(3)

disallowed, the net profit rate of 11% applied by the Assessing Officer is too high when appellant has shown comparatively higher profit margin of 10.13% and 9.68% in subsequent years i.e. A.Y. 2021-22 and A.Y. 2022- 23 to cover up the deficiencies of unproved sundry creditors/remission of liabilities found during search proceeding. Therefore, I am of the considered view

RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY,GONDA vs. DCIT/ACIT (CENTRAL)-2, LUCKNOW

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

ITA 351/LKW/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 132Section 253(3)

disallowed, the net profit rate of 11% applied by the Assessing Officer is too high when appellant has shown comparatively higher profit margin of 10.13% and 9.68% in subsequent years i.e. A.Y. 2021-22 and A.Y. 2022- 23 to cover up the deficiencies of unproved sundry creditors/remission of liabilities found during search proceeding. Therefore, I am of the considered view

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW vs. RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY, GONDA U.P.

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

ITA 460/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 132Section 253(3)

disallowed, the net profit rate of 11% applied by the Assessing Officer is too high when appellant has shown comparatively higher profit margin of 10.13% and 9.68% in subsequent years i.e. A.Y. 2021-22 and A.Y. 2022- 23 to cover up the deficiencies of unproved sundry creditors/remission of liabilities found during search proceeding. Therefore, I am of the considered view