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.

6 results for “disallowance”+ Section 151(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,342Delhi1,301Chennai369Bangalore355Jaipur287Ahmedabad236Hyderabad160Kolkata158Pune146Chandigarh134Indore131Raipur81Cochin79Surat77Amritsar60Lucknow51Rajkot49Guwahati48Nagpur39Visakhapatnam38Calcutta37Panaji33Cuttack30Karnataka26Agra25Allahabad24Jodhpur21Telangana18Ranchi11Jabalpur8SC7Patna6Orissa4Varanasi2Gauhati1Andhra Pradesh1Dehradun1Kerala1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 80I24Section 801A12Section 139(1)8Section 2505Addition to Income5Section 1394Section 1324Section 153A4Deduction4Search & Seizure

M/S MANISH FINLEASE (P) LTD,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), PATNA

ITA 25/PAT/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Patna09 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2010-2011 Manish Finlease Pvt Ltd., Vs. Ito, Ward 2(1), Patna Chandi House Exhibition Road, Patna Pan/Gir No.Aaccm 6252 B (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K.Rastogi & Rakesh Kumar, Ars Revenue By : Shri Indrajeet Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 20/06/ 2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 09/08/ 2019 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-1, Patna Dated 27.9.2018 For The Assessment Year 2010-2011. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 51 Days. The Assessee Has Filed Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons For Not Filing The Appeal In Time Before The Tribunal. After Hearing The Submissions Of The Parties, We Are Satisfied That The Assessee Had A Bonafide Reason For Not Filing The Appeal In Time. Therefore, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Decide The Appeal Of The Assessee On Merits.

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Rastogi & Rakesh Kumar, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Indrajeet Singh, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148(1)Section 68
4
Section 143(3)3

151 clearly leads to the conclusion that the Board or the Commissioner of Income-tax, while according sanction for issuance of notice under section 148 and for coming to an objective conclusion authorising the Income-tax Officer to take action under section 147(a), are required to confine themselves only to the reasons recorded by the Income-tax Officer

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

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

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, 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