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.

10 results for “disallowance”+ Section 132(4)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai3,236 Delhi2,895 Bangalore919 Chennai737 Hyderabad502 Kolkata433 Jaipur415 Ahmedabad330 Surat218 Chandigarh181 Pune152 Indore145 Amritsar135 Rajkot115 Cochin93 Nagpur89 Raipur83 Visakhapatnam72 Karnataka64 Lucknow58 Guwahati52 Allahabad50 Calcutta39 Patna39 Agra38 Cuttack30 Jodhpur27 Ranchi18 Kerala16 SC15 Telangana13 Dehradun12 Panaji10 Varanasi5 Rajasthan2 Gauhati2 H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1 A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1 Jabalpur1 Orissa1

Key Topics

Section 43B21 Section 143(3)10 Addition to Income10 Section 2508 Section 253(2)6 Section 143(1)6 Section 1326 Section 133A6 Section 246A6 Survey u/s 133A

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELAGAVI, BELAGAVI vs. M/S POTDAR BROTHERS, BELAGAVI

Appeals of the Revenue are PARTLY ALLOWED for statistical purposes in aforestated terms

ITA 179/PAN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji18 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr M Satish [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 132Section 133ASection 138Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 253(2)

6

132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as well as u/s 131 of the Act on various occasions during the course of search and post search proceedings. 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee without appreciating the fact that the retraction statements were

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELAGAVI, BELAGAVI vs. M/S POTDAR BROTHERS, BELAGAVI

Appeals of the Revenue are PARTLY ALLOWED for statistical purposes in aforestated terms

ITA 175/PAN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji18 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr M Satish [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 132Section 133ASection 138Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 253(2)

132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as well as u/s 131 of the Act on various occasions during the course of search and post search proceedings. 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee without appreciating the fact that the retraction statements were

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELAGAVI vs. M/S POTDAR BROTHERS, BELAGAVI

Appeals of the Revenue are PARTLY ALLOWED for statistical purposes in aforestated terms

ITA 176/PAN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji18 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr M Satish [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 132Section 133ASection 138Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 253(2)

132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as well as u/s 131 of the Act on various occasions during the course of search and post search proceedings. 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee without appreciating the fact that the retraction statements were

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELAGAVI, BELAGAVI vs. M/S POTDAR BROTHERS, BELAGAVI

Appeals of the Revenue are PARTLY ALLOWED for statistical purposes in aforestated terms

ITA 177/PAN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji18 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr M Satish [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 132Section 133ASection 138Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 253(2)

132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as well as u/s 131 of the Act on various occasions during the course of search and post search proceedings. 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee without appreciating the fact that the retraction statements were

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELAGAVI, BELAGAVI vs. M/S POTDAR BROTHERS, BELAGAVI

Appeals of the Revenue are PARTLY ALLOWED for statistical purposes in aforestated terms

ITA 180/PAN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji18 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr M Satish [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 132Section 133ASection 138Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 253(2)

132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as well as u/s 131 of the Act on various occasions during the course of search and post search proceedings. 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee without appreciating the fact that the retraction statements were

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELAGAVI , BELAGAVI vs. SHRI IDREES MOHAMMED, KALABURAGI

The appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed in aforestated terms

ITA 149/PAN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji01 Apr 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Years: 2017-2018 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle, Belagavi, . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Idrees Mohammed Shop No. 4Cc, New Vegetable Market, Main Road, Kalaburagi, Karnataka-585101. Pan: Aajpi7572E . . . . . . . Respondent Represented Assessee By: Mr Ramesh Mudhol [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By: Mr Sashi Saklani [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 11/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 01/04/2026 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue U/S 253(2) Of The Income-Tax

For Appellant: Mr Ramesh Mudhol [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Sashi Saklani [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 253(2)Section 69A

132 of the Act was carried out on M/s Hussain Builders & Developers, Mr Haji Mohmmad Ilyas a partner of the respondent [‘HML’] wherein the residential premises of the assessee was also covered wherein the statement of Mr HML was recorded. 2.2 A simultaneous survey action u/s 133A of the Act on 07/09/2017 at the office/business premises of M/s Hussain Cold

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PANAJI vs. M/S SALITHO ORES PVT. LTD, PANAJI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 100/PAN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji21 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury(Through Virtual Hearing) M/S. Salitho Ores Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, Circle-1, Salgaocar Bhavan, Altinho, Margao Panaji, Goa. Pan: Aabcs 8859 F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwalla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Anand DJ, DR

section 43B of the Act. As the appellant has paid the royalty claimed in the P and L account, the disallowance made by the AO u/s. 43B of the Act amounting to Rs.5,85,17,297/- cannot be sustained and hence, is deleted. Ground No.2 is allowed.” 4. The Department in this ground substantially had contended that there has been

M/S SALITHO ORES PRIVATE LIMITED,PANAJI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - M1, MARGAO

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 72/PAN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji21 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury(Through Virtual Hearing) M/S. Salitho Ores Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, Circle-1, Salgaocar Bhavan, Altinho, Margao Panaji, Goa. Pan: Aabcs 8859 F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwalla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Anand DJ, DR

section 43B of the Act. As the appellant has paid the royalty claimed in the P and L account, the disallowance made by the AO u/s. 43B of the Act amounting to Rs.5,85,17,297/- cannot be sustained and hence, is deleted. Ground No.2 is allowed.” 4. The Department in this ground substantially had contended that there has been

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PANAJI vs. M/S SALITHO ORES PVT. LTD, PANAJI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 99/PAN/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji21 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury(Through Virtual Hearing) M/S. Salitho Ores Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, Circle-1, Salgaocar Bhavan, Altinho, Margao Panaji, Goa. Pan: Aabcs 8859 F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwalla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Anand DJ, DR

section 43B of the Act. As the appellant has paid the royalty claimed in the P and L account, the disallowance made by the AO u/s. 43B of the Act amounting to Rs.5,85,17,297/- cannot be sustained and hence, is deleted. Ground No.2 is allowed.” 4. The Department in this ground substantially had contended that there has been

DEMPO INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,PANAJI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1(2), PANAJI

The appeal of the assessee is ALLOWED in above terms

ITA 131/PAN/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji01 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing At Pune) आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 131/Pan/2019 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Dempo Industries Pvt. Ltd., Dempo House, Campal, Panaji, Goa - 403001 Pan: Aaacu1745F . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: Ms Rucha VaidyaFor Respondent: Mr Prabhakar Anand DJ

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 246A(1)Section 250Section 253(1)(a)Section 263Section 32(1)(iia)

disallowance and restoring the claim of the appellant. 2. Your Petitioner craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any of the above Grounds of Appeal.” 4. The ground number 2 is general, since not pressed into service for adjudication, therefore we have heard rival contentions of both the parties on ground number 1; and subject to the provisions