Search: disallowance | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

115 results for “disallowance”+ Section 75clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai4,380 Delhi3,794 Bangalore1,508 Chennai1,127 Kolkata1,073 Ahmedabad1,046 Pune683 Jaipur611 Hyderabad580 Indore395 Chandigarh390 Cochin304 Surat264 Raipur155 Visakhapatnam148 Rajkot136 Karnataka133 Cuttack130 Lucknow118 Nagpur115 Amritsar113 Guwahati67 Allahabad66 Ranchi64 Jodhpur47 Agra46 Calcutta43 Telangana42 Patna24 Panaji21 Dehradun21 SC20 Varanasi15 Jabalpur10 Kerala6 Punjab & Haryana5 Rajasthan2 Himachal Pradesh2 Orissa1 Tripura1 RANJAN GOGOI PRAFULLA C. PANT1 A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)94 Section 153A81 Section 153C68 Addition to Income67 Section 6838 Disallowance36 Section 14729 Section 4025 Section 25025 Deduction

ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(1), NAGPUR vs. SHRI NANDKUMAR KHATTUMAL HARCHANDANI , NAGPUR

ITA 410/NAG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 10(38)Section 68

75,789, in the return of income. The Assessing Officer has made disallowance under section 14A at ₹ 15,75,789, though

KEMA LOGISTICS AND MANUFACTURERS PVT LTD,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGLORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 124/NAG/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur

Showing 1–20 of 115 · Page 1 of 6

24

15 Nov 2022

AY 2017-18

Bench: S.S.Viswanethra Ravi & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.124/Nag/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Kema Logistics & The Dcit, Cpc, Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd, Vs Bangalore. 80B, Shivaji Nagar, Nagpur. Pan: Aabck 6785 E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri G.J.Ninawe – Dr Date Of Hearing 09/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 15/11/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeal, (Nfac) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2017-18 Passed On 02.08.2021. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1) The Hon'Ble Cit (Appeals) Erred In Law & On Facts By Dismissing The Appeal On The Ground That Epf Has Not Been Paid As Appeal Was Filed For Disallowance Of Bonus Payment. 2) The Learned Cit (Appeals) Erred In Law & On Facts By Holding That The Epf Payment Of Rs.9,75,173/- Remained Unpaid Before The Due Date Of Filing Return As The Amount Relates To Unpaid Bonus At The Year-End Which Was Duly Paid By The Appellant Before The Due Date Of Filing Of Income Tax Return. 3) Any Other Ground That May Be Taken At The Time Of Hearing

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

disallowable under section 43B 7. Thus, the order under section 143(1) has not specified the nature of transaction pertaining to Rs.9,75

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

RAVINDRA KHANDELWAL,AKOLA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CIRCLE AKOLA , AKOLA

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

ITA 403/NAG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir AtalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 36Section 68Section 69A

75 lakh as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. 9. The next issue which arose out of ground no.4, relates to interest under section 36)\(1)(iii) of the Act. 10. The Assessing Officer disallowed

SMT. ANJU SARAF,,NAGPUR vs. A,C.I.T CENT CIR. 2(2), NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 499/NAG/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh BanthiaFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 80I

Section 22 of the Income Tax Act on the property which is other than the self occupied property. I find that the assessee owns two residential properties. During the course of assessment, the AO held that the residential property at Saibaba Temple Road, Hospet is a self occupied property of the assessee on the basis of the Wealth Tax return

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. SMT. ANJU SARAF, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 436/NAG/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Jul 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh BanthiaFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 80I

Section 22 of the Income Tax Act on the property which is other than the self occupied property. I find that the assessee owns two residential properties. During the course of assessment, the AO held that the residential property at Saibaba Temple Road, Hospet is a self occupied property of the assessee on the basis of the Wealth Tax return

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. SMT. ANJU A. SARAF, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 511/NAG/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Jul 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh BanthiaFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 80I

Section 22 of the Income Tax Act on the property which is other than the self occupied property. I find that the assessee owns two residential properties. During the course of assessment, the AO held that the residential property at Saibaba Temple Road, Hospet is a self occupied property of the assessee on the basis of the Wealth Tax return

SMT. ANJU SARAF,,NAGPUR vs. A,C.I.T CENT CIR. 2(2), NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 498/NAG/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Jul 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh BanthiaFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 80I

Section 22 of the Income Tax Act on the property which is other than the self occupied property. I find that the assessee owns two residential properties. During the course of assessment, the AO held that the residential property at Saibaba Temple Road, Hospet is a self occupied property of the assessee on the basis of the Wealth Tax return

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. SMT. ANJU SARAF, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 438/NAG/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh BanthiaFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 80I

Section 22 of the Income Tax Act on the property which is other than the self occupied property. I find that the assessee owns two residential properties. During the course of assessment, the AO held that the residential property at Saibaba Temple Road, Hospet is a self occupied property of the assessee on the basis of the Wealth Tax return

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. SMT. ANJU A. SARAF, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 512/NAG/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh BanthiaFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 80I

Section 22 of the Income Tax Act on the property which is other than the self occupied property. I find that the assessee owns two residential properties. During the course of assessment, the AO held that the residential property at Saibaba Temple Road, Hospet is a self occupied property of the assessee on the basis of the Wealth Tax return

ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(1), NAGPUR vs. SHRI NANDKUMAR KHATTUMAL HARCHANDANI , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 411/NAG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 10(38)Section 68

disallowance of exemption u/s. 10(38) of Rs. 5,60,75,185/- is directed to be deleted. Hence these grounds are allowed.” Since the learned CIT(A) decided the aforesaid issue in favour of the assessee, the Revenue being aggrieved filed appeal before Tribunal. Ground no I(i) to (xxiv) 10. The learned Departmental Representative assailing the impugned order passed

SIMA RAVISINGH KACHHAWAH,UMRER vs. ITO WARD 3(4), NAGPUR

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

ITA 418/NAG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shripavan Kumar Gadalesima Ravisingh Kachhawah, Girad Road, Om Nagar Umrer, ……………. Appellant Nagpur- 441203 Maharastra, Pan – Aqmpk2899K V/S Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–3(4), Nagpur Assessee By: Shri.D.P. Lohiya.Ar Revenue By :Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri.D.P. Lohiya.ARFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 270A(9)Section 272(1)(d)Section 44ASection 50CSection 80C

75,600 claimed under Section 80C. This addition was made despite the assessee having declared the entire transaction value/gross receipts of Rs. 33,25,470/- as turnover under Section 44AD from the real estate business in the return of income. The addition was unjustifiably made under Section 50C as Long-Term Capital Gain and the claimed deduction under Section

SNNEHSHILP CONSTRUCTIONS,AURANGABAD vs. ITO WARD 1(5), NAGPUR

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

ITA 413/NAG/2023[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur11 Jul 2024AY 2005-2006

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

For Appellant: Shri Milind BhusariFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 263Section 40

section 144 of the Act was completed on 31/12/2007, by making addition of ` 41,32,485, which included addition of ` 11.98.065, on account of profit estimated @ 8% of the gross receipts of ` 1,48,75,822., and addition of ` 29.34,420, on account of disallowance

HIMMAT RAMJIBHAI PATEL,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 4(3), NAGPUR

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

ITA 479/NAG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur27 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir AtalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 147Section 148Section 151A

section 151A of the Act read with Notification No 18/2022 dated 29.09.2022? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) was justified in affirming the order of the assessing officer by allowing only 25% of cost of improvement claimed and disallowed balance 75

ADITI EXPRESS CARGO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. DCIT ACIT CIRCLE -3, , NAGPUR

In the result, all the captioned seven appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 558/NAG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: S/Shri Nitin Gulati a/w Pankaj KapoorFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

75,54,332, which was added to the total income of the assessee on account of undisclosed income from contract business and charged to tax accordingly. 3. Insofar as the disallowance under section

ADITI EXPRESS CARGO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED THROUGH ITS ERSTWHILE DIRECTOR PRASHANT NATWARLAL LAKHANI,NAGPUR vs. DCITACIT CIRCLE-3 , NAGPUR

In the result, all the captioned seven appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 498/NAG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: S/Shri Nitin Gulati a/w Pankaj KapoorFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

75,54,332, which was added to the total income of the assessee on account of undisclosed income from contract business and charged to tax accordingly. 3. Insofar as the disallowance under section

ADITI EXPRESS CARGO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. DCIT ACIT CIRCLE -3, NAGPUR

In the result, all the captioned seven appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 559/NAG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: S/Shri Nitin Gulati a/w Pankaj KapoorFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

75,54,332, which was added to the total income of the assessee on account of undisclosed income from contract business and charged to tax accordingly. 3. Insofar as the disallowance under section

ADITI EXPRESS CARGO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. DCIT ACIT CIRCLE -3, NAGPUR

In the result, all the captioned seven appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 560/NAG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: S/Shri Nitin Gulati a/w Pankaj KapoorFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

75,54,332, which was added to the total income of the assessee on account of undisclosed income from contract business and charged to tax accordingly. 3. Insofar as the disallowance under section

ADITI EXPRESS CARGO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED THROUGH ITS ERSTWHILE DIRECTOR PRASHANT NATWARLAL LAKHANI,NAGPUR vs. DCIT ACIT CIRCLE-3, NAGPUR

In the result, all the captioned seven appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 501/NAG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: S/Shri Nitin Gulati a/w Pankaj KapoorFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

75,54,332, which was added to the total income of the assessee on account of undisclosed income from contract business and charged to tax accordingly. 3. Insofar as the disallowance under section

ADITI EXPRESS CARGO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED THROUGH ITS ERSTWHILE DIRECTOR PRASHANT NATWARLAL LAKHANI,NAGPUR vs. DCIT ACIT CIRCLE-3, NAGPUR

In the result, all the captioned seven appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 500/NAG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: S/Shri Nitin Gulati a/w Pankaj KapoorFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

75,54,332, which was added to the total income of the assessee on account of undisclosed income from contract business and charged to tax accordingly. 3. Insofar as the disallowance under section