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.

2,472 results for “disallowance”+ Section 271(1)(b)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,472Delhi2,219Bangalore523Ahmedabad367Kolkata359Chennai317Jaipur279Hyderabad185Pune153Indore111Raipur83Chandigarh81Surat61Lucknow53Nagpur51Allahabad46Rajkot42Visakhapatnam41Calcutta39Guwahati32Karnataka24Amritsar22SC21Ranchi19Cuttack18Agra13Varanasi12Cochin11Telangana9Jodhpur9Patna8Panaji7Jabalpur4Dehradun4Punjab & Haryana2ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Rajasthan1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)86Section 143(3)80Addition to Income64Penalty50Section 14743Section 4043Section 14A41Disallowance39Section 14834Section 263

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014

ITA 1053/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Joshi
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 37(1)

271(1)© of the Act. For ready reference, said Explanation is reproduced as under: reference, said Explanation is reproduced as under: Where in the course of a 71[search 72 initiated under section 132 [Explanation 5.-Where in the course of a section 132 before the 1st day of June, 2007], the assessee is found to be the owner

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

Showing 1–20 of 2,472 · Page 1 of 124

...
30
Deduction29
Section 25026

In the result all In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014

ITA 1051/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Joshi
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 37(1)

271(1)© of the Act. For ready reference, said Explanation is reproduced as under: reference, said Explanation is reproduced as under: Where in the course of a 71[search 72 initiated under section 132 [Explanation 5.-Where in the course of a section 132 before the 1st day of June, 2007], the assessee is found to be the owner

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DICT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014

ITA 1052/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Joshi
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 37(1)

271(1)© of the Act. For ready reference, said Explanation is reproduced as under: reference, said Explanation is reproduced as under: Where in the course of a 71[search 72 initiated under section 132 [Explanation 5.-Where in the course of a section 132 before the 1st day of June, 2007], the assessee is found to be the owner

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014

ITA 1054/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Joshi
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 37(1)

271(1)© of the Act. For ready reference, said Explanation is reproduced as under: reference, said Explanation is reproduced as under: Where in the course of a 71[search 72 initiated under section 132 [Explanation 5.-Where in the course of a section 132 before the 1st day of June, 2007], the assessee is found to be the owner

HEMAL MAGANLAL SHAH,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A) NFAC, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 285/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyalhemal Maganlal Shah 84, 4Th Floor, Pankaj-B, Lbs Road, Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai-400086. Pan: Amfps8271G ...... Appellant Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Mumbai. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. H.M. Shah Respondent By : Sh. Prasoon Kabra Date Of Hearing : 17/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 10/08/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M:

For Appellant: Sh. H.M. ShahFor Respondent: Sh. Prasoon Kabra
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)Section 274Section 69C

section 271((1) (c) of the Act. So that the version of the Revenue and submissions of assessee can be evaluated. “[Unexplained Expenditure, etc. 69C. Where in any financial year an assessee has incurred any expenditure and he offers no explanation about the source of such expenditure or part thereof, or the explanation, if any, offered

POLYCHEM LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 1(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 5148/MUM/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Nov 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi a/wFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

B). h) The said deeming provisions are not applicable to the orders passed by the Commissioner of Appeals and the Commissioner. i) The imposition of penalty is not automatic. j) Imposition of penalty even if the tax liability is admitted is not automatic. k) Even if the assessee has not challenged the order of assessment levying tax and interest

AUTORIDERS INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 9(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed, as above

ITA 2803/MUM/2012[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2017AY 1997-98

Bench: D.T. Garasia & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 1997-98 Assessment Year: 1999-2000 Assessment Year: 2004-05 M/S. Autoriders India Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Comm. Of Income 4-A, Vikas Centre, Tax-9(1), 104 S.V. Road, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Santacruz, Mumbai Mumbai – 400 054 Pan: Aaaca8939R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta, A.R. Revenue By : Shri R.P. Meena, D.R. & Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 10.11.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.11.2017 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Meena, D.R. &
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

disallowance of interest of Rs.1,25,155/-. A.Y. 1999-2000 Note: In printed show cause notice issued u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on 23.03.2002 along with assessment Sr. Particulars Amount Penalty initiated in Penalty No. assessment order passed levied by Assessing Officer 1. Interest on amount 2,20,85,000 Furnishing of inaccurate Concealment borrowed for particulars

AUTORIDERS INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 9(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed, as above

ITA 2804/MUM/2012[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2017AY 1999-00

Bench: D.T. Garasia & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 1997-98 Assessment Year: 1999-2000 Assessment Year: 2004-05 M/S. Autoriders India Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Comm. Of Income 4-A, Vikas Centre, Tax-9(1), 104 S.V. Road, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Santacruz, Mumbai Mumbai – 400 054 Pan: Aaaca8939R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta, A.R. Revenue By : Shri R.P. Meena, D.R. & Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 10.11.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.11.2017 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Meena, D.R. &
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

disallowance of interest of Rs.1,25,155/-. A.Y. 1999-2000 Note: In printed show cause notice issued u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on 23.03.2002 along with assessment Sr. Particulars Amount Penalty initiated in Penalty No. assessment order passed levied by Assessing Officer 1. Interest on amount 2,20,85,000 Furnishing of inaccurate Concealment borrowed for particulars

AUTORIDERS INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 9(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed, as above

ITA 2805/MUM/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: D.T. Garasia & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 1997-98 Assessment Year: 1999-2000 Assessment Year: 2004-05 M/S. Autoriders India Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Comm. Of Income 4-A, Vikas Centre, Tax-9(1), 104 S.V. Road, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Santacruz, Mumbai Mumbai – 400 054 Pan: Aaaca8939R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta, A.R. Revenue By : Shri R.P. Meena, D.R. & Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 10.11.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.11.2017 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Meena, D.R. &
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

disallowance of interest of Rs.1,25,155/-. A.Y. 1999-2000 Note: In printed show cause notice issued u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on 23.03.2002 along with assessment Sr. Particulars Amount Penalty initiated in Penalty No. assessment order passed levied by Assessing Officer 1. Interest on amount 2,20,85,000 Furnishing of inaccurate Concealment borrowed for particulars

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. DHANVINDER BINDRA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5697/MUM/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri R.L. Negi

For Appellant: Shri Purushottam KumarFor Respondent: Shri Neel Khandelwal
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

b) penalty proceedings under Section 271(l)(c) are initiated separately, do not comply with the meaning of the word direction as contemplated even in the amended provisions of law. The direction should be clear and without any ambiguity. The word 'direction' has been interpreted by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rajendranath 120 ITR pg.14

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. DHANVINDER BINDRA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5698/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri R.L. Negi

For Appellant: Shri Purushottam KumarFor Respondent: Shri Neel Khandelwal
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

b) penalty proceedings under Section 271(l)(c) are initiated separately, do not comply with the meaning of the word direction as contemplated even in the amended provisions of law. The direction should be clear and without any ambiguity. The word 'direction' has been interpreted by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rajendranath 120 ITR pg.14

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. DHANVINDER BINDDRA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5694/MUM/2015[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2017AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri R.L. Negi

For Appellant: Shri Purushottam KumarFor Respondent: Shri Neel Khandelwal
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

b) penalty proceedings under Section 271(l)(c) are initiated separately, do not comply with the meaning of the word direction as contemplated even in the amended provisions of law. The direction should be clear and without any ambiguity. The word 'direction' has been interpreted by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rajendranath 120 ITR pg.14

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. DHANVINDER BINDRA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5695/MUM/2015[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri R.L. Negi

For Appellant: Shri Purushottam KumarFor Respondent: Shri Neel Khandelwal
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

b) penalty proceedings under Section 271(l)(c) are initiated separately, do not comply with the meaning of the word direction as contemplated even in the amended provisions of law. The direction should be clear and without any ambiguity. The word 'direction' has been interpreted by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rajendranath 120 ITR pg.14

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. DHANVINDER BINDRA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5696/MUM/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri R.L. Negi

For Appellant: Shri Purushottam KumarFor Respondent: Shri Neel Khandelwal
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

b) penalty proceedings under Section 271(l)(c) are initiated separately, do not comply with the meaning of the word direction as contemplated even in the amended provisions of law. The direction should be clear and without any ambiguity. The word 'direction' has been interpreted by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rajendranath 120 ITR pg.14

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. DHANVINDER BINDRA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5699/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri R.L. Negi

For Appellant: Shri Purushottam KumarFor Respondent: Shri Neel Khandelwal
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

b) penalty proceedings under Section 271(l)(c) are initiated separately, do not comply with the meaning of the word direction as contemplated even in the amended provisions of law. The direction should be clear and without any ambiguity. The word 'direction' has been interpreted by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rajendranath 120 ITR pg.14

MAHESH M. GANDHI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 20(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2976/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2976/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Shri Mahesh M. Gandhi, Asst. Commissioner Of बनाम/ 303/304, Sholay Income Tax – 20(2), V. Apartments, Mumbai. Raheja Complex, Seven Bungalows, Versova, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 061. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aabpg3545P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri D.D. JimuliaFor Respondent: Shri Saurabhkumar Rai,DR
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Section 271(1)(B), which reads as under: "271.(1)(B) Where any amount is added or disallowed in computing

AVARSEKAR & SONS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CT CEN CIR 45, MUMBAI

In the result, the penalty levied of Rs

ITA 5807/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Nov 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)

271(1)(b) of the Act was levied on the assessee for the said seven assessment years, for failure on its part to comply with filing the requirements called in the questionnaire annexed to the notice under section M/s. Avarsekar & Sons Pvt. Ltd., 142(1) of the Act dated 11.10.2013. In our view, it is relevant to extract hereunder

AVARSEKAR & SONS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CT CEN CIR 45, MUMBAI

In the result, the penalty levied of Rs

ITA 5805/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Nov 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)

271(1)(b) of the Act was levied on the assessee for the said seven assessment years, for failure on its part to comply with filing the requirements called in the questionnaire annexed to the notice under section M/s. Avarsekar & Sons Pvt. Ltd., 142(1) of the Act dated 11.10.2013. In our view, it is relevant to extract hereunder

AVARSEKAR & SONS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 45, MUMBAI

In the result, the penalty levied of Rs

ITA 5809/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Nov 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)

271(1)(b) of the Act was levied on the assessee for the said seven assessment years, for failure on its part to comply with filing the requirements called in the questionnaire annexed to the notice under section M/s. Avarsekar & Sons Pvt. Ltd., 142(1) of the Act dated 11.10.2013. In our view, it is relevant to extract hereunder

AVARSEKAR & SONS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CT CEN CIR 45, MUMBAI

In the result, the penalty levied of Rs

ITA 5806/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Nov 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)

271(1)(b) of the Act was levied on the assessee for the said seven assessment years, for failure on its part to comply with filing the requirements called in the questionnaire annexed to the notice under section M/s. Avarsekar & Sons Pvt. Ltd., 142(1) of the Act dated 11.10.2013. In our view, it is relevant to extract hereunder