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.

42 results for “disallowance”+ Section 10(31)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai6,797Delhi5,939Bangalore2,091Chennai1,756Kolkata1,670Ahmedabad986Jaipur671Hyderabad654Pune453Indore387Chandigarh322Surat292Rajkot232Raipur226Karnataka170Nagpur163Cochin149Amritsar142Visakhapatnam134Lucknow131Cuttack76Guwahati71Allahabad65Telangana59Ranchi56SC54Calcutta54Panaji49Jodhpur47Patna42Agra41Dehradun30Kerala25Varanasi11Jabalpur8Punjab & Haryana6Orissa4Rajasthan4Himachal Pradesh3A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1Tripura1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1ANIL R. DAVE AMITAVA ROY L. NAGESWARA RAO1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)38Section 25035Addition to Income26Section 26325Section 153A20Disallowance14Deduction13Section 13210Section 14710Survey u/s 133A

I.T.O. vs. M/S KUMAR CONSTRUCLTION,

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 10/PAT/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Patna17 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

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

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(b)Section 40A(3)

disallowance under these sections, the profit of the assessee deserves to be estimated. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a firm derives income as a civil contractor. It has filed its return of income on 12.10.2009 showing total income of Rs.36,09,014/- on a total turnover of Rs.9,71,11,489/-. The case

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

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

Showing 1–20 of 42 · Page 1 of 3

10
TDS10
Section 54F8
ITA 329/PAT/2018[2014-15]Status: Heard
ITAT Patna
22 Jul 2022
AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

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

disallowed and added as per Para G of the order passed by the Ld. assessing officer without allowing benefit of indexation available to the assesses ignoring the facts available on record. 9. For that the CIT (Appeal) erred in passing ex-parte confirming adoption of higher valuation Rs. 33,10,200/- & Rs.33,10,200/- i.e Page 4 of 7 I.T.A

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

Bench: Sri Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

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

disallowed and added as per Para G of the order passed by the Ld. assessing officer without allowing benefit of indexation available to the assesses ignoring the facts available on record. 9. For that the CIT (Appeal) erred in passing ex-parte confirming adoption of higher valuation Rs. 33,10,200/- & Rs.33,10,200/- i.e Page 4 of 7 I.T.A

RAVI LOCHAN SINGH,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD-5(1), PATNA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2/PAT/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Patna17 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 194HSection 40

31,140/-. This amount has been disallowed to the assessee on the ground that while making commission payment to Assessment Years: 2012-2013 & 2013-2014 Ravi Lochan Singh Monisha Rao Saraswati, Ankita Saikia and Surya Narayan Mishra, the assessee did not deduct the TDS. The assessee has filed copies of their income tax return and submitted that the recipients have

RAVI LOCHAN SINGH,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD-5(1), PATNA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1/PAT/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Patna17 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 194HSection 40

31,140/-. This amount has been disallowed to the assessee on the ground that while making commission payment to Assessment Years: 2012-2013 & 2013-2014 Ravi Lochan Singh Monisha Rao Saraswati, Ankita Saikia and Surya Narayan Mishra, the assessee did not deduct the TDS. The assessee has filed copies of their income tax return and submitted that the recipients have

BIHAR STATE ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED,PATNA vs. ITO WARD 2(1) PATNA, PATNA

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

ITA 330/PAT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Patna24 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37Section 80I

31-3-2014 was to be allowed as deduction under section 37(1)" Copy of judgments is enclosed. 7. That the appellant states that in the above order of assessment, the Id assessing officer, without giving the appellant any opportunity much less sufficient opportunity, held that the amount of Rs.66,47,34,169/- claimed as deduction under Section

BIHAR STATE ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPN. LTD.,PATNA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 2, PATNA

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

ITA 331/PAT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Patna24 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37Section 80I

31-3-2014 was to be allowed as deduction under section 37(1)" Copy of judgments is enclosed. 7. That the appellant states that in the above order of assessment, the Id assessing officer, without giving the appellant any opportunity much less sufficient opportunity, held that the amount of Rs.66,47,34,169/- claimed as deduction under Section

BIHAR STATE ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPN. LTD.,PATNA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 2, PATNA

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

ITA 332/PAT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna24 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37Section 80I

31-3-2014 was to be allowed as deduction under section 37(1)" Copy of judgments is enclosed. 7. That the appellant states that in the above order of assessment, the Id assessing officer, without giving the appellant any opportunity much less sufficient opportunity, held that the amount of Rs.66,47,34,169/- claimed as deduction under Section

BIHAR STATE ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD,PATNA vs. ACIT, CIR-2, P)ATNA

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

ITA 333/PAT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna24 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37Section 80I

31-3-2014 was to be allowed as deduction under section 37(1)" Copy of judgments is enclosed. 7. That the appellant states that in the above order of assessment, the Id assessing officer, without giving the appellant any opportunity much less sufficient opportunity, held that the amount of Rs.66,47,34,169/- claimed as deduction under Section

BIHAR STATE ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED,PATNA vs. ACIT, COR-2, PATNA

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

ITA 334/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna24 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37Section 80I

31-3-2014 was to be allowed as deduction under section 37(1)" Copy of judgments is enclosed. 7. That the appellant states that in the above order of assessment, the Id assessing officer, without giving the appellant any opportunity much less sufficient opportunity, held that the amount of Rs.66,47,34,169/- claimed as deduction under Section

BIHAR STATE ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPN.LTD.,PATNA vs. CIT (APPEAL), DELHI

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

ITA 335/PAT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna24 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37Section 80I

31-3-2014 was to be allowed as deduction under section 37(1)" Copy of judgments is enclosed. 7. That the appellant states that in the above order of assessment, the Id assessing officer, without giving the appellant any opportunity much less sufficient opportunity, held that the amount of Rs.66,47,34,169/- claimed as deduction under Section

SUNITA KUMARI,GAYA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

ITA No. 17/Pat/2023;

ITA 22/PAT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna11 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. Nos. 17 To 23/Pat/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2019-20 Sunita Kumari Acit, Central Circle-2, Patna Mir Abu Saleh Road Vs Kotwali Bihar - 823001 [Pan: Aoupk1552K] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Rinku Singh, CIT, D/R
Section 132Section 153ASection 250

10 source of deposit in the bank account but Id. Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the explanation of deposit of opening cash on hand at Rs.65,195/-. Considering the income declared by the assessee and also considering the withdrawals made in the past and the balance sheet and income and expenditure account filed before us, the source of cash

SUNITA KUMARI,GAYA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

ITA No. 17/Pat/2023;

ITA 23/PAT/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Patna11 Aug 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. Nos. 17 To 23/Pat/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2019-20 Sunita Kumari Acit, Central Circle-2, Patna Mir Abu Saleh Road Vs Kotwali Bihar - 823001 [Pan: Aoupk1552K] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Rinku Singh, CIT, D/R
Section 132Section 153ASection 250

10 source of deposit in the bank account but Id. Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the explanation of deposit of opening cash on hand at Rs.65,195/-. Considering the income declared by the assessee and also considering the withdrawals made in the past and the balance sheet and income and expenditure account filed before us, the source of cash

UDAY SHANKAR ARUN,GAYA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

ITA No. 17/Pat/2023;

ITA 25/PAT/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna11 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. Nos. 17 To 23/Pat/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2019-20 Sunita Kumari Acit, Central Circle-2, Patna Mir Abu Saleh Road Vs Kotwali Bihar - 823001 [Pan: Aoupk1552K] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Rinku Singh, CIT, D/R
Section 132Section 153ASection 250

10 source of deposit in the bank account but Id. Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the explanation of deposit of opening cash on hand at Rs.65,195/-. Considering the income declared by the assessee and also considering the withdrawals made in the past and the balance sheet and income and expenditure account filed before us, the source of cash

UDAY SHANKAR ARUN,GAYA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

ITA No. 17/Pat/2023;

ITA 26/PAT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna11 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. Nos. 17 To 23/Pat/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2019-20 Sunita Kumari Acit, Central Circle-2, Patna Mir Abu Saleh Road Vs Kotwali Bihar - 823001 [Pan: Aoupk1552K] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Rinku Singh, CIT, D/R
Section 132Section 153ASection 250

10 source of deposit in the bank account but Id. Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the explanation of deposit of opening cash on hand at Rs.65,195/-. Considering the income declared by the assessee and also considering the withdrawals made in the past and the balance sheet and income and expenditure account filed before us, the source of cash

UDAY SHANKAR ARUN,GAYA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

ITA No. 17/Pat/2023;

ITA 27/PAT/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Patna11 Aug 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. Nos. 17 To 23/Pat/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2019-20 Sunita Kumari Acit, Central Circle-2, Patna Mir Abu Saleh Road Vs Kotwali Bihar - 823001 [Pan: Aoupk1552K] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Rinku Singh, CIT, D/R
Section 132Section 153ASection 250

10 source of deposit in the bank account but Id. Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the explanation of deposit of opening cash on hand at Rs.65,195/-. Considering the income declared by the assessee and also considering the withdrawals made in the past and the balance sheet and income and expenditure account filed before us, the source of cash

SUNITA KUMARI,GAYA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

ITA No. 17/Pat/2023;

ITA 17/PAT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Patna11 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. Nos. 17 To 23/Pat/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2019-20 Sunita Kumari Acit, Central Circle-2, Patna Mir Abu Saleh Road Vs Kotwali Bihar - 823001 [Pan: Aoupk1552K] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Rinku Singh, CIT, D/R
Section 132Section 153ASection 250

10 source of deposit in the bank account but Id. Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the explanation of deposit of opening cash on hand at Rs.65,195/-. Considering the income declared by the assessee and also considering the withdrawals made in the past and the balance sheet and income and expenditure account filed before us, the source of cash

SUNITA KUMARI,GAYA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

ITA No. 17/Pat/2023;

ITA 18/PAT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna11 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. Nos. 17 To 23/Pat/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2019-20 Sunita Kumari Acit, Central Circle-2, Patna Mir Abu Saleh Road Vs Kotwali Bihar - 823001 [Pan: Aoupk1552K] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Rinku Singh, CIT, D/R
Section 132Section 153ASection 250

10 source of deposit in the bank account but Id. Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the explanation of deposit of opening cash on hand at Rs.65,195/-. Considering the income declared by the assessee and also considering the withdrawals made in the past and the balance sheet and income and expenditure account filed before us, the source of cash

SUNITA KUMARI,GAYA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

ITA No. 17/Pat/2023;

ITA 19/PAT/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna11 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. Nos. 17 To 23/Pat/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2019-20 Sunita Kumari Acit, Central Circle-2, Patna Mir Abu Saleh Road Vs Kotwali Bihar - 823001 [Pan: Aoupk1552K] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Rinku Singh, CIT, D/R
Section 132Section 153ASection 250

10 source of deposit in the bank account but Id. Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the explanation of deposit of opening cash on hand at Rs.65,195/-. Considering the income declared by the assessee and also considering the withdrawals made in the past and the balance sheet and income and expenditure account filed before us, the source of cash

SUNITA KUMARI,GAYA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

ITA No. 17/Pat/2023;

ITA 20/PAT/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna11 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. Nos. 17 To 23/Pat/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2019-20 Sunita Kumari Acit, Central Circle-2, Patna Mir Abu Saleh Road Vs Kotwali Bihar - 823001 [Pan: Aoupk1552K] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Rinku Singh, CIT, D/R
Section 132Section 153ASection 250

10 source of deposit in the bank account but Id. Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the explanation of deposit of opening cash on hand at Rs.65,195/-. Considering the income declared by the assessee and also considering the withdrawals made in the past and the balance sheet and income and expenditure account filed before us, the source of cash