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.

6 results for “disallowance”+ Section 207clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi704Mumbai696Chennai311Bangalore190Kolkata145Ahmedabad139Jaipur118Hyderabad77Chandigarh71Pune65Raipur45Surat34Indore31Cuttack21Visakhapatnam20Allahabad18Guwahati15Lucknow14Karnataka12Kerala11Telangana9Ranchi9Amritsar9SC8Cochin8Jodhpur6Agra6Nagpur6Rajkot5Dehradun3Rajasthan3Patna3Punjab & Haryana2MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1Varanasi1Jabalpur1D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1Calcutta1

Key Topics

Section 685Addition to Income4Section 143(3)3Section 2502Section 139(4)2Section 11(1)2Section 1442Section 250(6)2Disallowance2Limitation/Time-bar

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)

section 80AC Trustee of Tulsidas Gopalji Charitable and Chaleshwar Temple Trust Vs CIT (207 ITR 368) (Bom)(HC). (Paper book pg No 135)(Vol -2) In this case the issue before, the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court was disallowance

2
Condonation of Delay2

RAVINDRA MADANLAL KHANDELWAL,AKOLA vs. DCIT/ACIT CIRCLE , AKOLA

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

ITA 375/NAG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir AtalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 144BSection 68

section 68 only sets up a presumption against the assessee whenever unexplained credits are found in the books of account of the assessee. It cannot but be again said that the presumption is rebuttable. In refuting the presumption raised, the initial burden is on the assessee. This burden, which is placed on the assessee, shifts as soon as the assessee

PRAVIN MANSUKHLAL PATELIYA,HINGANGHAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, WARDHA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1/NAG/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur20 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 40

Section 143(3) of the Act, 1961 on 29.03.2014 determining total income at Rs.16,18,207. The AO passed the order u/s 144 r/w S.147 of the IT Act, 1961 and made disallowance

VIVIDHA KARYAKARI CO-OP SOCIETY,CHANDRAPUR vs. ITO WARD-2, CHANDRAPUR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 76/NAG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir Atal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anand Nagrale, Sr.DR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 131(4)Section 139Section 139(4)Section 250Section 80P(2)(d)

disallowances made by the A.O./CPC. Therefore, the assessee being aggrieved has preferred this instant appeal. 3. Admittedly, the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Trustee of Tulsidas Gopalji Charitable & Chaleshwar Temple Trust vs. CIT (207 ITR 368)(Bom–HC) has also dealt with an identical issue, wherein the return, by the assessee, was filed belatedly

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(2), NAGPUR vs. AJAY VISHANDAS KAMNANI, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 88/NAG/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur02 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri Himesh DemleFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69C

207,385,901 226,603,279 1,906,424 0.84 2014–15 102,789,084 76,963,140 1,468,314 1.91 9. The Ld. A.O. ought to have considered the factual dictum of the case, nature of the assessee's business, the net profit margin of the assessee's business over the past years to conclude the net profit

SHRI KRUPA UDHYOG,AKOLA vs. DCIT AKOLA CIRCLE, AKOLA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 139/NAG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri S.G. GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 133(6)Section 44ASection 68

section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"). On being pointed out of the difference in amount confirmed vis–a–vis balance per books. The assessee furnished following submissions in support of its claim:– “1. Anis Traders Daryapur wer have purchase bill of amounting to ₹ 23,06,938/- in the last fifteen days of March