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.

13 results for “disallowance”+ Section 271clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai3,738Delhi3,246Bangalore589Ahmedabad545Chennai503Kolkata474Jaipur316Pune236Hyderabad229Surat183Indore169Chandigarh131Raipur99Rajkot97Nagpur75Lucknow58Visakhapatnam53Amritsar51Cuttack49Allahabad47Calcutta39Guwahati37Cochin31Karnataka30Ranchi25Panaji24SC22Agra19Dehradun18Jodhpur18Telangana16Varanasi16Patna13Jabalpur11Punjab & Haryana4Rajasthan2ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1RANJAN GOGOI PRAFULLA C. PANT1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 80I14Section 271(1)(c)11Section 271(1)(b)10Section 25010Section 1479Section 36(1)(va)8Addition to Income7Section 143(3)6Section 142(1)5

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

SANJAY YADAV,JAHANABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

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

Penalty5
Disallowance5
Natural Justice5
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)

section 142(1) of the Income- tax Act which is wrong, illegal and unjustified on the facts of the case. 4. For that the Ld. CIT (A) NFAC has failed to appreciate that no penalty is livable sustainable u/s 271(1)(b) in view of order of the Jurisdictional Tribunal directly on the issue which has been followed in umpteen

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)

section 142(1) of the Income- tax Act which is wrong, illegal and unjustified on the facts of the case. 4. For that the Ld. CIT (A) NFAC has failed to appreciate that no penalty is livable sustainable u/s 271(1)(b) in view of order of the Jurisdictional Tribunal directly on the issue which has been followed in umpteen

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)

section 142(1) of the Income- tax Act which is wrong, illegal and unjustified on the facts of the case. 4. For that the Ld. CIT (A) NFAC has failed to appreciate that no penalty is livable sustainable u/s 271(1)(b) in view of order of the Jurisdictional Tribunal directly on the issue which has been followed in umpteen

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

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

ITA 329/PAT/2018[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Patna22 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

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

section 271(1)(c) based on the order passed initiated by the Ld. Officer is wholly misconceived, arbitrary, unjustifiable and illegal. 9. For that the CIT (Appeal) erred in passing ex-parte order by not following principal of natural justice and the Ld. assessing officer also erred in passing order by not following principal of natural justice. 10. For that

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)

section 271(1)(c) based on the order passed initiated by the Ld. Officer is wholly misconceived, arbitrary, unjustifiable and illegal. 9. For that the CIT (Appeal) erred in passing ex-parte order by not following principal of natural justice and the Ld. assessing officer also erred in passing order by not following principal of natural justice. 10. For that

ITO, WARD-4(1), PATNA vs. HEMANT KUMAR DAS, PATNA

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

ITA 97/PAT/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Patna28 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

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

Section 143(3)

disallowed with the aid of section 43B; (ii) the ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.62,14,944/- and Rs.3,84,271

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

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

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

disallowed and added to the total income of the appellant as income from other sources. 12. For that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) as well as the ld. assessing officer, without giving any opportunity, much less sufficient opportunity, has erred in holding that the appellant had sold immovable property for Rs.33,20,000 and taxed the same under

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

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is regional rural bank and had filed its return of income declaring Nil income after claiming deduction on account of brought forward losses and deductions u/s 80P of the Act. The deduction u/s 80P was withdrawn from the statute w.e.f Asst Year

RAKESH KUMAR,PATNA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4, PATNA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2012-13

ITA 86/PAT/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Patna23 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. Nos.85 & 86/Pat/2017 Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80I

disallowing the claim of deduction u/ s BOIC of the act.” 5. Aggrieved, assessee is now in appeal before this Tribunal. 6. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue is no longer res integra that assembling of goods is also held to be a manufacturing activity because it gives rise to a new product with a new name

RAKESH KUMAR,PATNA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4, PATNA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2012-13

ITA 85/PAT/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Patna23 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. Nos.85 & 86/Pat/2017 Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80I

disallowing the claim of deduction u/ s BOIC of the act.” 5. Aggrieved, assessee is now in appeal before this Tribunal. 6. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue is no longer res integra that assembling of goods is also held to be a manufacturing activity because it gives rise to a new product with a new name

AGLOWMED LIMITED,PATNA vs. ADIT(CPC), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 95/PAT/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Patna19 Apr 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 2Section 2(24)Section 2(24)(x)Section 3Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

disallowance made u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act in respect of delay in deposit of Employees’ Contribution of Provident Fund and Employees State Insurance (PF & ESI) totaling to Rs.3,82,386/-. The issue relating to ground taken by the assessee have come to rest by the recent verdict of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chekmate Services