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.

27 results for “disallowance”+ Penaltyclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai4,436Delhi3,998Bangalore964Chennai925Ahmedabad839Kolkata776Jaipur492Pune489Hyderabad390Chandigarh216Indore187Surat169Raipur147Rajkot116Lucknow108Cochin95Nagpur88Visakhapatnam65Cuttack55Amritsar52Guwahati51SC47Allahabad47Agra42Ranchi38Jodhpur31Patna27Dehradun21Calcutta19Varanasi17Jabalpur16Karnataka15Panaji14Kerala6Punjab & Haryana5Rajasthan3A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2Gauhati1RANJAN GOGOI PRAFULLA C. PANT1Himachal Pradesh1Orissa1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)28Section 26325Section 25020Section 142(1)14Penalty14Section 14713Addition to Income13Natural Justice11Section 271(1)(b)10Section 270A

SANGAM ALMIRAH PRIVATE LIMITED,MUZAFFARPUR vs. NFAC, DELHI

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

ITA 338/PAT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna27 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(9)

disallowed. Penalty proceeding was also initiated and the order under section 270A was passed on 10/02/2022 treating the sum of ₹3,80,091/- as misreporting

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

Showing 1–20 of 27 · Page 1 of 2

10
Section 44A9
Disallowance8

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

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

penalty proceedings under section 271AB(1a) of the Act. Ld. Assessing Officer has also disallowed the claim of deduction made

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

penalty proceedings under section 271AB(1a) of the Act. Ld. Assessing Officer has also disallowed the claim of deduction made

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

penalty proceedings under section 271AB(1a) of the Act. Ld. Assessing Officer has also disallowed the claim of deduction made

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

penalty proceedings under section 271AB(1a) of the Act. Ld. Assessing Officer has also disallowed the claim of deduction made

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

penalty proceedings under section 271AB(1a) of the Act. Ld. Assessing Officer has also disallowed the claim of deduction made

PREM KUMAR GOUTAM,LAKHISARAI vs. ITO WARD- 2 (5), LAKHISARAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 156/PAT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna12 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 115BSection 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 270ASection 44ASection 69CSection 80C

disallowed under section 69C. He charged the taxes @ 60% under section 115BBE. Thereafter ld. Assessing Officer has observed that interest be charged and penalty

BIJAY KUMAR SARAF,DALDALI BAZAR, MUZAFFARPUR vs. DC/AC CIRCLE 1,MUZFFARPUR, IT-OFFICE, POLICE LINE, SIKANDERPUR MUZZAFFARPUR

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

ITA 205/PAT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna30 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 194(7)Section 194C(6)Section 250

penalty under section 271(1)(b) of the Act was also filed. It was stated that the Ld. CIT(A) sustained part of the disallowance

WHALE BLUE HI TECH PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS CZAR CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD),PATNA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, PATNA., PATNA

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

ITA 372/PAT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna06 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) also as there to the Ld. CIT(A) was constrained to pass an exparte order since the assessee did not respond to notices fixing the case for hearing.

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250

disallowing the expenses claimed in profit and loss account on account of "Extension of time" amounting to Rs.33,68,518/- by treating the same as alleged penalty

RAJESH SINGH,HAJIPUR vs. ADDL/JCIT, DELHI, DELHI

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

ITA 573/PAT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna28 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz)

disallowed Rs.2,00,000/- as agriculture income from sale of mango and litchi and taken income from other sources of Rs.2,00,000/- and added to the total income of the assessee and initiated penalty

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

penalty in certain cases clearly indicate that the faculty members are salaried employee. 4. For that the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has erred in treating the income declared under the head profession as salary income and erred in disallowing

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

penalty in certain cases clearly indicate that the faculty members are salaried employee. 4. For that the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has erred in treating the income declared under the head profession as salary income and erred in disallowing

RANI DEVI,PATNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PATNA

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

ITA 308/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna25 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 44ASection 69ASection 80C

disallowed the claim of Rs.50,000/- under chapter VIA of the Act on account of non-submission/evidence filed by the assessee. Finally, the ld. Assessing Officer determined the total assessed income of the assessee at Rs.51,39,945/- and initiated penalty

SAMASTIPUR KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK,PATNA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3, DARBHANGA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 32/PAT/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Patna01 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.32/Pat/2019 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Samastipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank (Merged With Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank)……………....Appellant C/O Nirmal & Associates, Ca, Nepali Kothi, Opp Gasoline Petrol Pump, Boring Road, Patna-800001. [Pan: Aafas8891R] Vs. Dcit, Circle-3, Darbhanga..…..……………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Nishant Maitin, Ca Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Rinku Singh, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 21, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 1St, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.10.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Jamshedpur Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is Regional Rural Bank & Had Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Nil Income After Claiming Deduction On Account Of Brought Forward Losses & Deductions U/S 80P Of The Act. The Deduction U/S 80P Was Withdrawn From The Statute W.E.F Asst Year 2007-08. Accordingly, In The Present Case Of The Assessee, Assessment Was Framed By Disallowing The Claim Of Brought Forward Losses & Deduction U/S 80P Of The Act.

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80P

disallowing the claim of brought forward losses and deduction u/s 80P of the Act. I.T.A. No.32/Pat/2019 Samastipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank 3. Against the order passed the Assessing Officer, the assessee did not file any appeal against the quantum order passed by the Assessing Officer. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty

SEEMA SRIVASTAVA,PATNA vs. ITO,DC/AC-6, PATNA, PATNA

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 715/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna06 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 250(2)Section 48Section 54Section 54F

disallowed the claim because of two reasons including the assessee not providing any details regarding whether she fulfills all the applicable conditions u/s 54F. The appellant having failed to do so even during the appellate proceedings, the claim of deduction/exemption cannot be allowed. Therefore, both the grounds are dismissed. 6.2 Ground No. 4 pertains to initiation of penalty

GOODHOST LIQUORS PVT LTD. vs. DCIT,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 72/PAT/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Patna01 Jul 2024AY 2007-08

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

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 37

penalty under the Excise/VAT 4 Assessment Year: 2007-2008 Goodhost Liquors Pvt. Ltd. Law because from one hand, the assessee made the payment for violation of Excise provision and on the other hand, it has claimed deduction under the Income Tax Act as an allowable business expenditure. Therefore, we are of the view that ld. CIT(Appeals) has rightly confirmed

PAVAN KUMAR BHAGAT,SAHARSA vs. ITO, WARD-3(4), SAHARSA, SAHARA

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

ITA 281/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna02 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 37Section 69A

disallowing and adding Rs.11,65,739 claimed as commission expenses by the appellant, solely on the ground that the said deduction is not allowable in view of violation of provision of section 194G of the Act and section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, without considering the fact that the commission have been paid genuinely and through banking mode

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)

penalty by CIT (A) NFAC is wrong, illegal and unjustified on the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 6. For that the whole order is bad in fact and law of the case and is fit to be cancelled. 7. For that the other ground, if any, shall be urged at the time of hearing

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)

penalty by CIT (A) NFAC is wrong, illegal and unjustified on the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 6. For that the whole order is bad in fact and law of the case and is fit to be cancelled. 7. For that the other ground, if any, shall be urged at the time of hearing

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)

penalty by CIT (A) NFAC is wrong, illegal and unjustified on the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 6. For that the whole order is bad in fact and law of the case and is fit to be cancelled. 7. For that the other ground, if any, shall be urged at the time of hearing