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.

3 results for “disallowance”+ Section 156clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,101Delhi948Bangalore286Chennai257Kolkata212Ahmedabad199Jaipur191Hyderabad154Pune136Raipur97Chandigarh93Cochin86Indore66Surat66Panaji47Calcutta38Lucknow35Visakhapatnam28Cuttack24Rajkot23SC21Nagpur21Allahabad19Ranchi17Amritsar15Karnataka15Varanasi13Agra12Guwahati11Jabalpur6Kerala5Patna3Himachal Pradesh2Telangana2Dehradun2Jodhpur2Punjab & Haryana2ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Rajasthan1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Disallowance2Addition to Income2

GANESH KUMAR KHEMKA,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD- 4(3), PATNA

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

ITA 237/PAT/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Patna28 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice- & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.237/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Ganesh Kumar Khemka..…………………...........................……….……Appellant B/46, Saraswati Apartment, S.P. Verma Road, Patna, Bihar – 800001. [Pan: Agwpk1726D] Vs. Ito, Ward-4(3), Patna…....……...…………………………………....…..Respondent

Section 156Section 250Section 36(1)(iii)

156 dated 10/01/2024 requiring the petitioner to pay the disputed tax of Rs.1.31 crore. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner has checked the e-portal of A.Y.2011-12 and found the impugned order and accordingly, the petitioner is filing this appeal which can be said to be a belated appeal, if limitation is counted from the date of its order. However

SUNYNA KUMAR GUPTA,PATNA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 90/PAT/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Patna16 Mar 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 90/Pat./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Sunyna Kumari Gupta, Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Prop: M/S Sona Drug Agency, Tax, Circle-4, Road No. 1, Lohanipur, Rajendra Patna Nagar, Patna-800016 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Addpg6521C Assessee By : Sh. K. N. Prasad, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Abhay Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2018 Date Of Pronouncement :16 .03.2018 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 09.02.2017 Of Ld. Cit(A)-2, Patna.

For Appellant: Sh. K. N. Prasad, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Abhay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 234ASection 234BSection 234D

disallowed the aforesaid amount. The case of the assessee has not been considered in proper perspective. b. That it is pertinent to mention here that the nature of business of assessee is supply of various type of medical device, kit, blood bags to the several government hospitals. The commission and brokerage relates to the purchase of goods through intermediary which

M/S KUMAR CONSTRUCTION,CHAPRA vs. I.T.O., WARD-CHAPRA, CHAPRA

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

ITA 201/PAT/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Patna23 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Kumar Construction Ito, Ward-Chapra P.O. Dumri Adda, P.S. Vs. Doriganj, Dist. Chapra. Pan: Aajfm 7295 G (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Smt. Archana Sharma, Ca Respondent By : Shri Rupesh Agrawal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.09.2022 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: The Captioned Appeals Preferred By The Assessee For The A.Y. 2008-09 Is Directed Against The Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Passed By Osd, Cit(A) Dated 27.06.2014. The Assessee Has Taken The Following Revised Ground Of Appeal For A.Y. 2008-09 As Under: “I. An Expenses Of 10% Including The Expenses On Purchase Of Material Amounting To Rs. 14,21,032/- Has Been Disallowed & The Same Has Been Added To Assessees Total Income While Computation Of Tax. Ii. Sundry Creditors Amounting To Rs. 69,73,159/- Including Outstanding Labour Charges/Payment & Others Have Been Disallowed & The Same Has Been Added To Assessees Total Income While Computation Of Tax. Iii. Tax Imposed Upon The Assessee Is Very Harsh & Unjustifiable As It Makes The Net Profit Of The Assessee Approximately 31% Of The Revenue Received During The Year & As Such Impugned Order Required To Be Set Aside. So, We Pray For Consider The Revised Grounds Stated Above & Grant Relief For Assessee’S Income @ 6% Of The Total Receipts Of Rs. 2,84,29,497/-.”

For Appellant: Smt. Archana Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rupesh Agrawal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

156/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny. The AO during the course of hearing found that no bills and vouchers were produced by the assessee except the copies of bills of bitumen and metal chips and the AO in absence of such bills and vouchers of material purchased and he added 10% of expenses