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.

57 results for “disallowance”+ Section 108clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,429Delhi1,290Bangalore449Chennai364Kolkata308Ahmedabad257Indore214Jaipur194Hyderabad184Pune125Surat109Chandigarh101Agra88Cochin84Rajkot69Raipur59Nagpur57Cuttack52Lucknow37Karnataka37Calcutta35Amritsar28Telangana25Visakhapatnam18Jodhpur17Allahabad16Patna9Guwahati9SC6Panaji4Ranchi2Gauhati1Rajasthan1Jabalpur1Varanasi1Dehradun1ANIL R. DAVE AMITAVA ROY L. NAGESWARA RAO1

Key Topics

Section 153C85Section 26356Section 153A54Section 143(3)53Addition to Income41Section 6835Section 25019Section 14819Section 69C17Disallowance

HINGANGHAT NAGRI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA,HINGANGHAT vs. INCOME TAX WARD-1, WARDHA

In the result, appeal by the assessee for A

ITA 566/NAG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Feb 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Suyash RankaFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 56

disallowed a claim of deduction of Rs. 53,72,108/- under Section 80P.", "held": "The Tribunal held that the interest

HINGANGHAT NAGRI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA,HINGANGHAT vs. INCOME TAX WARD-1, WARDHA

In the result, appeal by the assessee for A

ITA 567/NAG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

Showing 1–20 of 57 · Page 1 of 3

13
Deduction11
Exemption11
For Appellant: Shri Suyash RankaFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 56Section 80P

section 139. If notice u/s 148 of the Act would not have been issued to the assessee, assessee would not have filed return the income as stated above would have bee escaped from tax. Therefore assessee was not eligible for deduction u/s 80P of Rs. 53,72,108/- as claimed in the return. Addition: Rs. 53,72,108

HINGANGHAT NAGRI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA,HINGANGHAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, WARDHA

In the result, appeal by the assessee for A

ITA 569/NAG/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Feb 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Suyash RankaFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 56Section 80P

section 139. If notice u/s 148 of the Act would not have been issued to the assessee, assessee would not have filed return the income as stated above would have bee escaped from tax. Therefore assessee was not eligible for deduction u/s 80P of Rs. 53,72,108/- as claimed in the return. Addition: Rs. 53,72,108

HINGANGHAT NAGRI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA,HINGANGHAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, WARDHA

In the result, appeal by the assessee for A

ITA 568/NAG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Suyash RankaFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 56Section 80P

section 139. If notice u/s 148 of the Act would not have been issued to the assessee, assessee would not have filed return the income as stated above would have bee escaped from tax. Therefore assessee was not eligible for deduction u/s 80P of Rs. 53,72,108/- as claimed in the return. Addition: Rs. 53,72,108

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCEL-1(2, NAGPUR vs. M/S. VIBRANT GLOBAL CAPITAL LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 229/NAG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Kishore P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 68

disallowance made under section 14A of the Act. The assessee 3 M/s. Vibrant Global Capital Ltd. ITA no.229/Nag./2022 has not preferred any appeal against the addition upheld by learned CIT(A). The Revenue has preferred appeal in respect to additions deleted in the appeal of the assessee and are enumerated in the grounds of appeal reproduced above

MAHATMA FULEY GRAMIN BIGAR SHETI SAHKARI PAT SANSTHA,KARAJGAON vs. ITO, WARD 3, AMRAVATI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 398/NAG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur08 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalemahatma Fuley Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari Pat Sanstha, Karajgaon Taluka, Anjangaon Surji ……………. Appellant Amravati-444805, Maharashtra. Pan–Aabam2153Q V/S Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–3, Saturna, Amravati-444601, Maharashtra. Assessee By : Shri Ratan Sharma. A.R. Revenue By : Shri Surjit Kumar Saha. Sr. D.R.

For Appellant: Shri Ratan Sharma. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha. Sr. D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

disallowing the deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) when the same has been fully allowed in the scrutiny assessment order for the immediate preceding A.Y. 2017-18. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify, alter or delete any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.” 2. At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR

SATPUDA FOUNDATION,AMRAVATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 143/NAG/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur03 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. Moryani a/wFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234A

disallow the deemed application of income claimed u/s 11(2) amounting to Rs. 15,00,000/- as the assessee has failed to furnish the statement in Form No.10 by due date u/s 139(1) for the A.Y. 2017-18." With respect to its above observations, the Appellant has referred to the CBDT circulars pertaining to the condonation of delay

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. M/S SHREE AGRAWAL FINANCE INDIA P. LTD.,, NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue's appeal being ITA no

ITA 172/NAG/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur15 May 2025AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri Sachin V. LuthraFor Respondent: \nShri Harshad S. Vengurlekar
Section 153ASection 40

108/- made on account\nof disallowance of interest paid.\n11. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned\nCIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.31,20,000/- made on account\nof investment in land treated as unexplained.\n12. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. M/S SHREE AGRAWAL FINANCE INDIA P. LTD.,, NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue's appeal being ITA no

ITA 171/NAG/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur15 May 2025AY 2006-07
For Appellant: \nShri Sachin V. LuthraFor Respondent: \nShri Harshad S. Vengurlekar
Section 153ASection 40

108/- made on account\nof disallowance of interest paid.\n11. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned\nCIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.31,20,000/- made on account\nof investment in land treated as unexplained.\n12. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR2(2), NAGPUR vs. M/S SHREE AGRAWAL COAL INDIA PVT. LTD.,, NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue's appeal being ITA no

ITA 18/NAG/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur15 May 2025AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Sachin V. LuthraFor Respondent: \nShri Harshad S. Vengurlekar
Section 153ASection 40

108/- made on account\nof disallowance of interest paid.\n11. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned\nCIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.31,20,000/- made on account\nof investment in land treated as unexplained.\n12. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

A,C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.- 2(2), NAGPUR vs. SHRI DHARAMPAL R.AGRAWAL, NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeal being ITA no

ITA 292/NAG/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur15 May 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Sachin V. LuthraFor Respondent: Shri Harshad S. Vengurlekar
Section 153ASection 40Section 43B

108/- made on account of disallowance of interest paid. 11. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.31,20,000/- made on account of investment in land treated as unexplained. 12. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR2(2), NAGPUR vs. M/S SHREE AGRAWAL COAL INDIA PVT. LTD.,, NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeal being ITA no

ITA 23/NAG/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur15 May 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Sachin V. LuthraFor Respondent: Shri Harshad S. Vengurlekar
Section 153ASection 40Section 43B

108/- made on account of disallowance of interest paid. 11. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.31,20,000/- made on account of investment in land treated as unexplained. 12. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

A,C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.- 2(2), NAGPUR vs. SHRI DHARAMPAL R.AGRAWAL, NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue's appeal being ITA no

ITA 293/NAG/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur15 May 2025AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Sachin V. LuthraFor Respondent: Shri Harshad S. Vengurlekar
Section 153ASection 40

108/- made on account\nof disallowance of interest paid.\n11. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned\nCIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.31,20,000/- made on account\nof investment in land treated as unexplained.\n12. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR2(2), NAGPUR vs. M/S SHREE AGRAWAL COAL INDIA PVT. LTD.,, NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 19/NAG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur15 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Sachin V. LuthraFor Respondent: Shri Harshad S. Vengurlekar
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 40A(2)(b)

section 153A, the Assessing Officer made various additions by examining the Profit & Loss Account, Tax Audit Report determining total assessed income at ` 41,20,69,270, by making following additions:– 1. Addition for purchases ` 3,03,94,825 Agricultural income treated as business 2. ` 3,74,537 income ` 36,89,290 3. Disallowance

ASSISTANT COMISSIONER CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), NAGPUR vs. M/S SHRIGOPAL RAMESHKUMAR SALES PVT. LTD , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 135/NAG/2018[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Jan 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Kapil HiraniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 139Section 69C

disallowance under those heads as per law. 18. That with respect to the addition of ` 16,42,713, it is the submission of the assessee that the said amount pertains to payments made by farmers/agriculturist to the labourers directly for unloading charges without any recourse to the Assessee and as such the addition on this count deserves 10 Shrigopal Rameshkumar

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(2), NAGPUR vs. VIDARBHA INFOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 76/NAG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Kapil HiraniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 44ASection 69C

disallowance on merits, The appellant has also assailed the impugned order on law. It is submitted that AO has not doubted the source of expenditure of Rs. 7.50 Cr and has still proceeded to make the addition u/s 69C of the Act. It is also submitted that it is trite law that the bedrock for making an addition under section

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD,BILASPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeals for the assessment year 2009–10 to 2013–14 are partly allowed

ITA 111/NAG/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant Mmber

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 153ASection 153CSection 250

section 153A(1) read with „Expln-2‟; in absence of this, assessment made u/s153C would be invalid & is liable to be quashed; relied on Goldstone Cements Ltd (2023) (Gau HC); Fortune Vanijya (P) Ltd (2023) (Gau HC).” 40. In the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.111/Nag/ 2024, for the assessment year 2012-13 along with following additional ground

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION& INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD,BILASPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeals for the assessment year 2009–10 to 2013–14 are partly allowed

ITA 110/NAG/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant Mmber

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 153ASection 153CSection 250

section 153A(1) read with „Expln-2‟; in absence of this, assessment made u/s153C would be invalid & is liable to be quashed; relied on Goldstone Cements Ltd (2023) (Gau HC); Fortune Vanijya (P) Ltd (2023) (Gau HC).” 40. In the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.111/Nag/ 2024, for the assessment year 2012-13 along with following additional ground

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION& INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD,BILASPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeals for the assessment year 2009–10 to 2013–14 are partly allowed

ITA 109/NAG/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant Mmber

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 153ASection 153CSection 250

section 153A(1) read with „Expln-2‟; in absence of this, assessment made u/s153C would be invalid & is liable to be quashed; relied on Goldstone Cements Ltd (2023) (Gau HC); Fortune Vanijya (P) Ltd (2023) (Gau HC).” 40. In the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.111/Nag/ 2024, for the assessment year 2012-13 along with following additional ground

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION& INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD,BILASPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeals for the assessment year 2009–10 to 2013–14 are partly allowed

ITA 108/NAG/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Dec 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant Mmber

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 153ASection 153CSection 250

section 153A(1) read with „Expln-2‟; in absence of this, assessment made u/s153C would be invalid & is liable to be quashed; relied on Goldstone Cements Ltd (2023) (Gau HC); Fortune Vanijya (P) Ltd (2023) (Gau HC).” 40. In the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.111/Nag/ 2024, for the assessment year 2012-13 along with following additional ground