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.

74 results for “disallowance”+ Natural Justiceclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai5,804 Delhi5,387 Bangalore2,039 Chennai1,826 Kolkata1,467 Ahmedabad968 Jaipur668 Pune543 Hyderabad524 Surat366 Karnataka360 Raipur321 Indore291 Chandigarh264 Lucknow234 Rajkot226 Visakhapatnam197 Amritsar193 Cochin164 Cuttack140 Agra138 Nagpur136 Telangana113 Calcutta97 Panaji95 Jodhpur85 Allahabad81 Patna74 Guwahati68 Jabalpur49 Dehradun42 SC36 Ranchi32 Varanasi31 Kerala31 Punjab & Haryana19 Orissa11 Rajasthan8 Himachal Pradesh4 Andhra Pradesh1 ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1 J&K1 Gauhati1 A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 25063 Section 143(3)52 Section 26342 Addition to Income39 Natural Justice34 Section 80I30 Section 143(2)23 Deduction23 Disallowance22 Section 142(1)

BRIJESH KUMAR,WEST CHAMPARAN vs. DC/AC CIRCLE-1, MUZAFFARPUR

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

ITA 77/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna06 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144Section 250Section 69A

natural justice. 4. In view of the ad hoc 10% expenditure in contract work disallowed Rs. 61,19,226/-, forfeiture

RUSHATAM KHAN,PURNEA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, PURNEA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2013-

ITA 328/PAT/2018[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Patna22 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Sri Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

Showing 1–20 of 74 · Page 1 of 4

20

Bench:

Section 234ASection 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

natural justice. 10. For that the assessment order passed is wrong, arbitrary and unjustified in the facts and circumstances of the appellant case. 11. For that the order of CIT (Appeal) and of Ld. assessing officer is bad in law as well as fact and fit for set aside. 12. For that the petitioner does not leave craved for additional

RUSHATAM KHAN,PURNEA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, PURNEA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2013-

ITA 329/PAT/2018[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Patna22 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 234ASection 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

natural justice. 10. For that the assessment order passed is wrong, arbitrary and unjustified in the facts and circumstances of the appellant case. 11. For that the order of CIT (Appeal) and of Ld. assessing officer is bad in law as well as fact and fit for set aside. 12. For that the petitioner does not leave craved for additional

DINESH KUMAR,PATNA vs. ITO WARD (5), PATNA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 427/PAT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna28 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.427/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dinesh Kumar……………………….....…..…………………....Appellant C/O Bhurendra Prasad, Near B D Public School, Buddha Colony, Patna – 800001. [Pan: Bxbpk1456M] Vs. Ito, Ward-5, Patna…………. ….…….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Shailendra Sinha, Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kumar, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 27, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 28, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.03.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Jaipur [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2016-17 By Showing Total Income Of Rs.2,71,810/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass Followed By Notices Issued U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act. The Assessing Officer Asked The Assessee To Produce Books Of Accounts, Ledger, Cash Book Etc. Before Him But The Assessee Did Not Comply. Accordingly, The Assessing Officer After Verification Of Return Of Income Found That The Assessee Had Filed Balance Sheet Showing Gross Total Income Of Rs.36,00,712/- & The Assessee Incurred Miscellaneous

Section 143(2)Section 194Section 249(3)Section 250

disallowed the unsecured loan of Rs.1445600/- and treated the same as income from other sources. Further, the Assessing Officer denied the claim under chapter VIA of Rs.150000/- and added back into the total income of the assessee by assessing total income of the assessee at Rs.2292630/-. 3. Aggrieved by the above order, the assessee preferred appeal before

SANJAY YADAV,JAHANABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 216/PAT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna11 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

natural justice. 3. For that the Id. CIT(A) NFAC has erred in affirming imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) for allegation non-compliance to the provision of section 142(1) of the Income- tax Act which is wrong, illegal and unjustified on the facts of the case. 4. For that the Ld. CIT (A) NFAC has failed

SANJAY YADAV,JAHANABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 218/PAT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna11 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

natural justice. 3. For that the Id. CIT(A) NFAC has erred in affirming imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) for allegation non-compliance to the provision of section 142(1) of the Income- tax Act which is wrong, illegal and unjustified on the facts of the case. 4. For that the Ld. CIT (A) NFAC has failed

SANJAY YADAV,JAHANABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 217/PAT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna11 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

natural justice. 3. For that the Id. CIT(A) NFAC has erred in affirming imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) for allegation non-compliance to the provision of section 142(1) of the Income- tax Act which is wrong, illegal and unjustified on the facts of the case. 4. For that the Ld. CIT (A) NFAC has failed

GANADHIPATI CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD,PATNA vs. PCIT, CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing

ITA 357/PAT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna16 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263

natural justice or without application of mind. The phrase 'prejudicial to the interests of the revenue’ has to be read in conjunction with an erroneous order passed by the Assessing Officer. Every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of the Assessing Officer cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, for example, when

GANADHIPATI CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED,PATNA vs. PCIT, CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing

ITA 359/PAT/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Patna16 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263

natural justice or without application of mind. The phrase 'prejudicial to the interests of the revenue’ has to be read in conjunction with an erroneous order passed by the Assessing Officer. Every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of the Assessing Officer cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, for example, when

GANADHIPATI CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LTD,PATNA vs. PCIT, CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing

ITA 360/PAT/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Patna16 Oct 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263

natural justice or without application of mind. The phrase 'prejudicial to the interests of the revenue’ has to be read in conjunction with an erroneous order passed by the Assessing Officer. Every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of the Assessing Officer cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, for example, when

GANADHIPATI CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED,PATNA vs. PCIT, CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing

ITA 358/PAT/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Patna16 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263

natural justice or without application of mind. The phrase 'prejudicial to the interests of the revenue’ has to be read in conjunction with an erroneous order passed by the Assessing Officer. Every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of the Assessing Officer cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, for example, when

GANADHIPATI CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED,PATNA vs. PCIT, CENTRAL , PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing

ITA 356/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna16 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263

natural justice or without application of mind. The phrase 'prejudicial to the interests of the revenue’ has to be read in conjunction with an erroneous order passed by the Assessing Officer. Every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of the Assessing Officer cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, for example, when

THE SIWAN CENTRAL CO.-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,SIWAN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 29/PAT/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Patna15 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 147Section 250Section 36Section 40aSection 43D

disallowance of Rs.3,20,487/- and additions of Rs.2,95,62,024/-sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) are wrong, illegal and unjustified on the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant’s case. 16. For that the order passed is violative of principles of equity, natural justice

THE SIWAN CENTRAL CO.-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,SIWAN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 30/PAT/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Patna15 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 147Section 250Section 36Section 40aSection 43D

disallowance of Rs.3,20,487/- and additions of Rs.2,95,62,024/-sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) are wrong, illegal and unjustified on the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant’s case. 16. For that the order passed is violative of principles of equity, natural justice

SHEKHAR NARAYAN,PATNA vs. NFAC, DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 355/PAT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna29 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 13Section 194Section 194JSection 250Section 44A

natural justice by denying opportunity of hearing before the alleged approval. 15. For that the Ld. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi has erred in upholding the variation in the income made by the AO although there was no incriminating material to indicate any falsity in declaration of income under the head profession, the claim of expense against professional income

SHEKHAR NARAYAN,PATNA vs. NFAC, DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 354/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna29 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 13Section 194Section 194JSection 250Section 44A

natural justice by denying opportunity of hearing before the alleged approval. 15. For that the Ld. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi has erred in upholding the variation in the income made by the AO although there was no incriminating material to indicate any falsity in declaration of income under the head profession, the claim of expense against professional income

SUNIL KUMAR SINGH,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD- 6 (1), PATNA

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

ITA 390/PAT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna15 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: the sale of immovable properties on which long term capital gain was derived.

Section 250Section 251(2)Section 3Section 54BSection 54F

disallowing deduction claimed under Section 54F of the Act for Rs. 3,02,11,651/- and three other additions were made as per section 143(1)(a) of the Act for Rs. 11,64,260/-, as per para 3.1.1, Rs. 1,75,000/- and as per para 3.3 of Rs. 2,05,609/-. 3. Aggrieved from the above order

CREATOR EVENTS PRIVATE LIMITED,PATNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), PATNA

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

ITA 76/PAT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna22 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 76/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Creator Events Pvt. Limited,…….….………Appellant H. No. 123, Vijay Nagar, Rukunpura, Bailey Road, Patna-800014, Bihar [Pan:Aafcc3700R] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………….Respondent Ward-2(1), Patna, Jay Prakash Bhawan, Income Tax Department, Patna-800001, Bihar

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

disallowing the claim of carry forward loss. Subsequently, the case of the assessee for AY 2015-16 was re- opened u/s147 of the I.T. Act after obtaining approval of the competent authority. In view of the above and material available on record, an amount of Rs. 44,96,900/- being the value of purchase of vehicle by the assessee during

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATNA vs. GANADHIPATI CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 298/PAT/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Patna15 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri AK Rastogi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rinku Singh, DR

Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 250Section 801ASection 80I

disallowances u/s 801A which is against the Principle of Equity and Natural Justice and no opportunity of being heard was given

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, PATNA, PATNA vs. GANADHIPATI CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 297/PAT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna15 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri AK Rastogi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rinku Singh, DR

Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 250Section 801ASection 80I

disallowances u/s 801A which is against the Principle of Equity and Natural Justice and no opportunity of being heard was given