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.

172 results for “disallowance”+ Section 139(9)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi2,771Mumbai2,675Bangalore1,178Kolkata1,014Chennai935Jaipur818Pune638Ahmedabad565Hyderabad509Chandigarh361Indore319Cochin253Visakhapatnam230Raipur227Surat217Amritsar205Nagpur172Lucknow129Rajkot111Cuttack103Agra97Karnataka90Guwahati86Jodhpur76Allahabad54Calcutta42Telangana30Patna28SC26Panaji22Dehradun20Ranchi18Jabalpur18Varanasi14Kerala3Punjab & Haryana3Himachal Pradesh2Rajasthan1Tripura1Uttarakhand1Gauhati1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 69A44Section 153A41Section 143(3)38Addition to Income35Section 44A32Section 139(1)28Section 1125Section 115B23Section 69C21Disallowance

SUNIL VISHAMBARNATH TIWARI,NAGPUR vs. I.T.O. WARD 1(4), NAGPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 240/NAG/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur20 Dec 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri O.P. Kant, Am Assessment Year: 2009-10 Sunil Vishambaharnath Tiwari, Vs. I.T.O. 87, Panchvati Builders, Hindustan Ward 1(4), Colony, Wardha Road, Nagpur- Nagpur. 440015. Pan No.: Aalpt 0719 L Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Mahavir Atal (Ca) Revenue By : Shri Vitthal Bhosale (Sr.Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 20/12/2021 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-I, Nagpur Dated 30/05/2014 For The A.Y. 2009-10 Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Raised: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Endorsing The View Taken By The A.O. Of Disallowing Claim Of The Assessee. 3. Assessee Craves Leave To Add & Alter Any Other Ground That May Be Taken At The Time Of Hearing.” 2. In This Appeal, There Is Delay Of 363 Days In Filing The Present Appeal For Which The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condoning The Delay & The Contents Of The Same Are As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir Atal (CA)For Respondent: Shri Vitthal Bhosale (Sr.DR)
Section 253(5)

disallowance of 8016 deduction for belated filing of return. The Hon'ble 9 ITA 240/NAG/2015_ Sunil Vishambaharnath Tiwari Vs ITO Tribunal following the aforementioned judgment of the Jurisdictional Bombay High Court, decided in favour of the assessee and held that the return filed under section 139

Showing 1–20 of 172 · Page 1 of 9

...
21
Search & Seizure17
Deduction15

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

139 of the Act. So, we reverse the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A) affirming the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer and on technicalities, the claim under section 80P of the Act cannot be negated. Hence, the assessee is entitled for deduction under section 80P of the Act for ` 11,83,660. Now, as regards

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

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

139 of the Act. So, we reverse the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A) affirming the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer and on technicalities, the claim under section 80P of the Act cannot be negated. Hence, the assessee is entitled for deduction under section 80P of the Act for ` 11,83,660. Now, as regards

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

139 of the Act. So, we reverse the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A) affirming the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer and on technicalities, the claim under section 80P of the Act cannot be negated. Hence, the assessee is entitled for deduction under section 80P of the Act for ` 11,83,660. Now, as regards

M/S AKAY UDYOG,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU

In the result, the aforesaid appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 27/NAG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh V. Loya, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vitthal M. Bhosale, Jt. CIT–DR

139, assessee would be entitled to deduction under section 43B and such deduction would be admissible for the accounting year. This provision does not cover employee contribution referred to in clause (va) of sub-section (1) of section 36 of the Act. Though section 43B of the Act covers only employer„s contribution and does not cover employee contribution, some

SUPRIYA PACKAGING PVT LTD,NAGPUR vs. ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, NAGPUR

In the result, the aforesaid appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 25/NAG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh V. Loya, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vitthal M. Bhosale, Jt. CIT–DR

139, assessee would be entitled to deduction under section 43B and such deduction would be admissible for the accounting year. This provision does not cover employee contribution referred to in clause (va) of sub-section (1) of section 36 of the Act. Though section 43B of the Act covers only employer„s contribution and does not cover employee contribution, some

INTEGRITY CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the aforesaid appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 32/NAG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh V. Loya, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vitthal M. Bhosale, Jt. CIT–DR

139, assessee would be entitled to deduction under section 43B and such deduction would be admissible for the accounting year. This provision does not cover employee contribution referred to in clause (va) of sub-section (1) of section 36 of the Act. Though section 43B of the Act covers only employer„s contribution and does not cover employee contribution, some

PAWANSUT TRAVELS PVT. LTD,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGLORE

In the result, the aforesaid appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 17/NAG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh V. Loya, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vitthal M. Bhosale, Jt. CIT–DR

139, assessee would be entitled to deduction under section 43B and such deduction would be admissible for the accounting year. This provision does not cover employee contribution referred to in clause (va) of sub-section (1) of section 36 of the Act. Though section 43B of the Act covers only employer„s contribution and does not cover employee contribution, some

M/S. FORMS,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALURU

In the result, the aforesaid appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 20/NAG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh V. Loya, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vitthal M. Bhosale, Jt. CIT–DR

139, assessee would be entitled to deduction under section 43B and such deduction would be admissible for the accounting year. This provision does not cover employee contribution referred to in clause (va) of sub-section (1) of section 36 of the Act. Though section 43B of the Act covers only employer„s contribution and does not cover employee contribution, some

NEELAM RAKESH SINGH,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANLORE

In the result, the aforesaid appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 194/NAG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh V. Loya, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vitthal M. Bhosale, Jt. CIT–DR

139, assessee would be entitled to deduction under section 43B and such deduction would be admissible for the accounting year. This provision does not cover employee contribution referred to in clause (va) of sub-section (1) of section 36 of the Act. Though section 43B of the Act covers only employer„s contribution and does not cover employee contribution, some

DURGESH INDUSTRIAL SECURITY PVT. LTD,CHANDRAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the aforesaid appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 13/NAG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh V. Loya, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vitthal M. Bhosale, Jt. CIT–DR

139, assessee would be entitled to deduction under section 43B and such deduction would be admissible for the accounting year. This provision does not cover employee contribution referred to in clause (va) of sub-section (1) of section 36 of the Act. Though section 43B of the Act covers only employer„s contribution and does not cover employee contribution, some

SHANTI ARMS TECH PVT LTD,NAGPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU

In the result, the aforesaid appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 15/NAG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh V. Loya, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vitthal M. Bhosale, Jt. CIT–DR

139, assessee would be entitled to deduction under section 43B and such deduction would be admissible for the accounting year. This provision does not cover employee contribution referred to in clause (va) of sub-section (1) of section 36 of the Act. Though section 43B of the Act covers only employer„s contribution and does not cover employee contribution, some

M/S. KABRA ENGINEERING, CHANDRAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGLORE

In the result, the aforesaid appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 22/NAG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh V. Loya, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vitthal M. Bhosale, Jt. CIT–DR

139, assessee would be entitled to deduction under section 43B and such deduction would be admissible for the accounting year. This provision does not cover employee contribution referred to in clause (va) of sub-section (1) of section 36 of the Act. Though section 43B of the Act covers only employer„s contribution and does not cover employee contribution, some

SHAMLAX METACHEM PVT. LTD,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the aforesaid appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 99/NAG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh V. Loya, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vitthal M. Bhosale, Jt. CIT–DR

139, assessee would be entitled to deduction under section 43B and such deduction would be admissible for the accounting year. This provision does not cover employee contribution referred to in clause (va) of sub-section (1) of section 36 of the Act. Though section 43B of the Act covers only employer„s contribution and does not cover employee contribution, some

JAIKA VEHICLE TRADE PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CENTRE

In the result, the aforesaid appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 90/NAG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh V. Loya, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vitthal M. Bhosale, Jt. CIT–DR

139, assessee would be entitled to deduction under section 43B and such deduction would be admissible for the accounting year. This provision does not cover employee contribution referred to in clause (va) of sub-section (1) of section 36 of the Act. Though section 43B of the Act covers only employer„s contribution and does not cover employee contribution, some

SUPRIYA PACKAGING PVT LTD,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the aforesaid appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 30/NAG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh V. Loya, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vitthal M. Bhosale, Jt. CIT–DR

139, assessee would be entitled to deduction under section 43B and such deduction would be admissible for the accounting year. This provision does not cover employee contribution referred to in clause (va) of sub-section (1) of section 36 of the Act. Though section 43B of the Act covers only employer„s contribution and does not cover employee contribution, some

SADHNA SAHAKARI BANK LTD.,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, NAGPUR

In the result, the aforesaid appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 16/NAG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Apr 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh V. Loya, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vitthal M. Bhosale, Jt. CIT–DR

139, assessee would be entitled to deduction under section 43B and such deduction would be admissible for the accounting year. This provision does not cover employee contribution referred to in clause (va) of sub-section (1) of section 36 of the Act. Though section 43B of the Act covers only employer„s contribution and does not cover employee contribution, some

M/S R K WAREHOUSING AND LEASING ,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGLORE

In the result, the aforesaid appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 18/NAG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh V. Loya, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vitthal M. Bhosale, Jt. CIT–DR

139, assessee would be entitled to deduction under section 43B and such deduction would be admissible for the accounting year. This provision does not cover employee contribution referred to in clause (va) of sub-section (1) of section 36 of the Act. Though section 43B of the Act covers only employer„s contribution and does not cover employee contribution, some

M/S. DHANDHANIA INFOTECH ,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the aforesaid appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 84/NAG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh V. Loya, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vitthal M. Bhosale, Jt. CIT–DR

139, assessee would be entitled to deduction under section 43B and such deduction would be admissible for the accounting year. This provision does not cover employee contribution referred to in clause (va) of sub-section (1) of section 36 of the Act. Though section 43B of the Act covers only employer„s contribution and does not cover employee contribution, some

ANKUR SEEDS PVT. LTD.,NAGPUR vs. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (CPC), BANGALORE

In the result, the aforesaid appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 182/NAG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh V. Loya, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vitthal M. Bhosale, Jt. CIT–DR

139, assessee would be entitled to deduction under section 43B and such deduction would be admissible for the accounting year. This provision does not cover employee contribution referred to in clause (va) of sub-section (1) of section 36 of the Act. Though section 43B of the Act covers only employer„s contribution and does not cover employee contribution, some