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.

10 results for “disallowance”+ Section 271(1)(c)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai3,596Delhi2,994Bangalore561Ahmedabad515Chennai448Kolkata434Jaipur300Pune231Hyderabad209Surat168Indore161Chandigarh127Raipur95Rajkot93Nagpur69Lucknow57Visakhapatnam52Allahabad47Amritsar45Calcutta39Guwahati37Cuttack33Cochin29Karnataka29Ranchi25Panaji23SC22Jodhpur17Dehradun17Varanasi16Telangana15Agra11Patna10Jabalpur9Punjab & Haryana4Rajasthan2Gauhati1RANJAN GOGOI PRAFULLA C. PANT1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1

Key Topics

Section 80I14Section 271(1)(c)11Section 271(1)(b)10Section 2508Addition to Income6Section 1475Penalty5Natural Justice5Section 142(1)4Section 143(3)

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)

c) of Rs. 5,47,559/- 2. For that the Ld. CIT (A) NFAC has failed to appreciate that imposing penalty without proper service of notice and adequate opportunity and thus has violated the principles of equity and natural justice. 3. For that the sustenance of penalty by CIT (A) NFAC is wrong, illegal and unjustified on the facts

SANJAY YADAV,JAHANABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

4
Limitation/Time-bar4
Section 143(2)3

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)

c) of Rs. 5,47,559/- 2. For that the Ld. CIT (A) NFAC has failed to appreciate that imposing penalty without proper service of notice and adequate opportunity and thus has violated the principles of equity and natural justice. 3. For that the sustenance of penalty by CIT (A) NFAC is wrong, illegal and unjustified on the facts

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 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)

c) of Rs. 5,47,559/- 2. For that the Ld. CIT (A) NFAC has failed to appreciate that imposing penalty without proper service of notice and adequate opportunity and thus has violated the principles of equity and natural justice. 3. For that the sustenance of penalty by CIT (A) NFAC is wrong, illegal and unjustified on the facts

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)

271(1)(b) for non-compliance of the notices at the end of the assessee. Ultimately the ld. Assessing Officer gone through the books of account submitted before her and made these two additions by recording the following finding:- “Addition u/s 40A(3) for payments exceeding Rs.20,000/- through bearer cheques:- On perusal of Books of A/c of the assessee

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

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

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

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

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

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