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.

4 results for “disallowance”+ Section 153(5)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,780Delhi1,699Chennai562Bangalore476Jaipur293Hyderabad231Ahmedabad224Kolkata209Chandigarh160Surat148Pune146Indore140Cochin121Amritsar102Raipur88Lucknow46Karnataka45Allahabad43Guwahati43Nagpur41Cuttack37Rajkot34Visakhapatnam25Jodhpur23Dehradun20Patna17SC12Telangana10Calcutta8Agra5Panaji4Ranchi3Jabalpur3Gauhati2Varanasi2Punjab & Haryana2Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 15514Section 143(1)9Section 1546Section 5A4Addition to Income4Section 143(3)3Section 14A3Section 683Section 41(1)2Rectification u/s 154

PRIME MINERAL EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED (NOW AMALGAMATED WITH FOMENTO RESOURCES PRIVATE LIMITED),PANAJI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE - 1, PANAJI

The appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purpose in aforestated terms

ITA 3/PAN/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji05 Jun 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 003/Pan/2023 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Prime Mineral Exports Pvt. Ltd. (Now Amalgamated With Fomento Resources Pvt. Ltd.) 102, 1St Fl. Kamat Metropolis-1, Behind Caculo Mall, St. Inez, Panaji, Goa-403001. . . . . . . .Appellant Pan : Aadcp1647E V/S Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, . . . . . . . Respondent Range-1, Panaji, Goa

For Appellant: Mr Nishant Thakkar [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr M. Satish [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 246ASection 250Section 253(1)
2
Section 41(1)
Section 4I

5 of 42 Prime Mineral Exports Pvt. Ltd.(Now Amalgamated with Fomento Resources Pvt. Ltd.) Vs JCIT, Panaji ITA Nos.003/PAN/2023 AY: 2009-10 5.2 The appellant claimed that in earning exempt dividend income from investments, it didn’t incur any expenditure in relation to making, monitoring & managing such investment which for the year under consideration. In view of the appellant

M/S ADITI SCANS PVT. LTD,BIJAPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 1, BIJAPUR

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

ITA 38/PAN/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji07 Oct 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Am M/S Aditi Scans Pvt. Ltd. Vs Acit, Circle-1, Bijapur Shiva Kunja Chalukya Nagar (East) Solapur Road, Vijaypur, Vijaypur Pan No.Aagca 7255 E (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Prasanth G.S., Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Prabhat Jha, Citdr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 07/10/2021 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07/10/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A), Gulbarga, Dated 29.11.2017 For The Assessment Year 2009- 2010, On The Following Grounds :- The Order Of The Learned Cit(A) In So Far As It Is Against The 1. Appellant, Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Natural Justice, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case. The Appellant Denies Itself Liable To Be Assessed On A Total Loss 2. Of Rs. 15,76,829/- As Against The Lossof Rs.75,46,930/- Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. The Authorities Below Erred In Treating The Share Capital Of Rs. 3. 13,75,000/- As Unexplained Money Under Section 68 Of The Act Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. The Order Of The Authorities Below Is Bad In Law As The Amount 4. Of Rs. 13,75,000/- Cannot Be Brought To Tax In The Hands Of The Appellant As The Mandatory Conditions To Invoke Section 68 Of The Act Have Not Been Satisfied Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri Prasanth G.S., CAFor Respondent: Shri Prabhat Jha, CITDR
Section 263Section 68

disallowed the amounts without application of mind which is opposed to the settled principles of natural justice and thus the order needs to be deleted. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or substitute 10. any of the grounds urged above. In view of the above and other grounds that may be urged at 11. the time

JENNY ELTON VALES,DONA PAULA vs. ITO, WARD - 5, MARGAO

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 65/PAN/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji30 Jan 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri D. E. RobinsonFor Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 155Section 5A

5 of the impugned order. On perusal of the A.Ys.2007-08 & 2009-10 same, I note that the assessee primarily placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. Vs. DCIT reported as 259 ITR 19 and contended that reopening is bad under law. I note that the AO provided

JENNY ELTON VALES,DONA PAULA vs. ITO, WARD - 5, MARGAO

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 64/PAN/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji30 Jan 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri D. E. RobinsonFor Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 155Section 5A

5 of the impugned order. On perusal of the A.Ys.2007-08 & 2009-10 same, I note that the assessee primarily placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. Vs. DCIT reported as 259 ITR 19 and contended that reopening is bad under law. I note that the AO provided