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.

18 results for “disallowance”+ Section 149(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,300Delhi1,132Bangalore482Chennai391Kolkata221Hyderabad217Ahmedabad213Jaipur211Cochin118Chandigarh104Nagpur94Amritsar90Pune89Raipur84Surat61Lucknow57Indore53Cuttack44Calcutta40Rajkot33Agra30Guwahati30Karnataka29Allahabad24Visakhapatnam20Patna18Jodhpur17Telangana8SC8Ranchi7Dehradun7Kerala5Jabalpur3Rajasthan2Varanasi2Gauhati1Panaji1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1

Key Topics

Section 80I24Section 153A24Section 25017Section 13216Addition to Income16Section 801A12Survey u/s 133A10Section 139(1)8Section 1394Section 153C

KISHORI CAPITAL MARKETS PVT. LTD.,BBD BAGH (EAST) vs. ITO WARD 2(1), PATNA, LOK NAYAK BHAWAN

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

ITA 249/PAT/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna06 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 250

disallowance of Rs. 2,05,14,580/- has been dismissed but allowed the appeal of the assessee by allowing the credit for pre-assessment taxes paid and accordingly, the appeal has been dismissed. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order, the present appeal has been preferred. 1.1. The ld. Counsel for the assessee challenges the impugned order on various

4
Deduction4
Search & Seizure4

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, PATNA vs. BROADSON COMMODITIES PVT LTD, DHANBAD

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are dismissed, whereas the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 63/PAT/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna30 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

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

Section 132Section 153Section 153C

149 taxmann.com 399) and held that no addition is sustainable in the assessment under section 153A without discovery of any Assessment Years: 2016-2017 & 2017-2018 & C.O. Nos. 1 & 2/PAT/2022 (in ITA 62 & 63/PAT/2021) Assessment years: 2016-2017 & 2017-2018 Broadson Commodities Pvt. Limited incriminating material. This aspect was first considered by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, PATNA vs. BROADSON COMMODITIES PVT LTD, DHANBAD

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are dismissed, whereas the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 62/PAT/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna30 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

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

Section 132Section 153Section 153C

149 taxmann.com 399) and held that no addition is sustainable in the assessment under section 153A without discovery of any Assessment Years: 2016-2017 & 2017-2018 & C.O. Nos. 1 & 2/PAT/2022 (in ITA 62 & 63/PAT/2021) Assessment years: 2016-2017 & 2017-2018 Broadson Commodities Pvt. Limited incriminating material. This aspect was first considered by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court

ZAIMUR RAHMAN,EAST CHAMPARAN vs. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NFAC, DELHI

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

ITA 321/PAT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna07 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115BSection 144BSection 147Section 148Section 149Section 250Section 68Section 69A

1) passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Act for the Assessment Year 2015-16, by the ld. assessing officer at Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, is bad both in law and on facts. 4. For that the appellant was not given any opportunity, much less sufficient opportunity, to put forth his contentions and place evidences henceforth

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

149 taxmann.com 399 (SC), submitted that the additions made for Assessment Year 2013-14 to 2018-19, deserves to be deleted as they are not based on any incriminating material seized during the course of search. On the other hand, the ld. D/R vehemently argued supporting the orders of the lower authorities. I.T.A. Nos. 17 to 23/Pat/2023 Assessment Years

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

149 taxmann.com 399 (SC), submitted that the additions made for Assessment Year 2013-14 to 2018-19, deserves to be deleted as they are not based on any incriminating material seized during the course of search. On the other hand, the ld. D/R vehemently argued supporting the orders of the lower authorities. I.T.A. Nos. 17 to 23/Pat/2023 Assessment Years

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

149 taxmann.com 399 (SC), submitted that the additions made for Assessment Year 2013-14 to 2018-19, deserves to be deleted as they are not based on any incriminating material seized during the course of search. On the other hand, the ld. D/R vehemently argued supporting the orders of the lower authorities. I.T.A. Nos. 17 to 23/Pat/2023 Assessment Years

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

149 taxmann.com 399 (SC), submitted that the additions made for Assessment Year 2013-14 to 2018-19, deserves to be deleted as they are not based on any incriminating material seized during the course of search. On the other hand, the ld. D/R vehemently argued supporting the orders of the lower authorities. I.T.A. Nos. 17 to 23/Pat/2023 Assessment Years

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

149 taxmann.com 399 (SC), submitted that the additions made for Assessment Year 2013-14 to 2018-19, deserves to be deleted as they are not based on any incriminating material seized during the course of search. On the other hand, the ld. D/R vehemently argued supporting the orders of the lower authorities. I.T.A. Nos. 17 to 23/Pat/2023 Assessment Years

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

149 taxmann.com 399 (SC), submitted that the additions made for Assessment Year 2013-14 to 2018-19, deserves to be deleted as they are not based on any incriminating material seized during the course of search. On the other hand, the ld. D/R vehemently argued supporting the orders of the lower authorities. I.T.A. Nos. 17 to 23/Pat/2023 Assessment Years

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

ITA No. 17/Pat/2023;

ITA 21/PAT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna11 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

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

149 taxmann.com 399 (SC), submitted that the additions made for Assessment Year 2013-14 to 2018-19, deserves to be deleted as they are not based on any incriminating material seized during the course of search. On the other hand, the ld. D/R vehemently argued supporting the orders of the lower authorities. I.T.A. Nos. 17 to 23/Pat/2023 Assessment Years

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

149 taxmann.com 399 (SC), submitted that the additions made for Assessment Year 2013-14 to 2018-19, deserves to be deleted as they are not based on any incriminating material seized during the course of search. On the other hand, the ld. D/R vehemently argued supporting the orders of the lower authorities. I.T.A. Nos. 17 to 23/Pat/2023 Assessment Years

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

149 taxmann.com 399 (SC), submitted that the additions made for Assessment Year 2013-14 to 2018-19, deserves to be deleted as they are not based on any incriminating material seized during the course of search. On the other hand, the ld. D/R vehemently argued supporting the orders of the lower authorities. I.T.A. Nos. 17 to 23/Pat/2023 Assessment Years

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

149 taxmann.com 399 (SC), submitted that the additions made for Assessment Year 2013-14 to 2018-19, deserves to be deleted as they are not based on any incriminating material seized during the course of search. On the other hand, the ld. D/R vehemently argued supporting the orders of the lower authorities. I.T.A. Nos. 17 to 23/Pat/2023 Assessment Years

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

disallowed the claim of the appellant since the return of the appellant reveals the profession of the appellant as civil contractor. The appellant has declared its profession as civil contractor possibly because there is no better option allowed by the ITR form. Accordingly, such a choice cannot be stated to be evidence. It is only indicative. The work

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 294/PAT/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Patna15 Oct 2024AY 2021-22

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

disallowed the claim of the appellant since the return of the appellant reveals the profession of the appellant as civil contractor. The appellant has declared its profession as civil contractor possibly because there is no better option allowed by the ITR form. Accordingly, such a choice cannot be stated to be evidence. It is only indicative. The work

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

disallowed the claim of the appellant since the return of the appellant reveals the profession of the appellant as civil contractor. The appellant has declared its profession as civil contractor possibly because there is no better option allowed by the ITR form. Accordingly, such a choice cannot be stated to be evidence. It is only indicative. The work

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 299/PAT/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Patna15 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

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

disallowed the claim of the appellant since the return of the appellant reveals the profession of the appellant as civil contractor. The appellant has declared its profession as civil contractor possibly because there is no better option allowed by the ITR form. Accordingly, such a choice cannot be stated to be evidence. It is only indicative. The work