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.

28 results for “disallowance”+ Section 55clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai4,664Delhi3,866Bangalore1,466Chennai1,264Ahmedabad1,049Kolkata1,019Hyderabad716Jaipur658Pune604Indore445Chandigarh419Surat307Raipur274Cochin244Rajkot174Visakhapatnam165Lucknow154Nagpur153Cuttack136Amritsar127Karnataka108Panaji99Agra84Ranchi77Guwahati70Allahabad50Calcutta43Jodhpur40SC32Telangana31Patna28Jabalpur19Varanasi19Dehradun17Kerala13Rajasthan5Orissa3Punjab & Haryana2ANIL R. DAVE AMITAVA ROY L. NAGESWARA RAO1Gauhati1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1

Key Topics

Addition to Income22Section 153A20Section 25019Section 14717Section 143(3)16Section 80I14Section 40A(3)13Survey u/s 133A11Disallowance11Section 132

SANJAY KUMAR SHAH,ARARIA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, PURNIA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 222/PAT/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna12 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri Rupesh Agrawal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

section 40A(3) is to restrict the bogus payment. Then, the disallowance of 16,55,900/­ and its confirmation by the learned

SIS LIMITED,PATNA vs. ACIT, DELHI

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

ITA 341/PAT/2024[2018-19]Status: Disposed

Showing 1–20 of 28 · Page 1 of 2

10
Section 143(2)9
Deduction7
ITAT Patna
16 Jan 2026
AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SONJOY SARMA (Judicial Member)

Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law in not appreciating that the amount of Rs. 3,55,74,642/- that the appellant had taken active steps to deposit the employee contribution before

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)

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act and disallowed this amount. The second addition amounting to Rs.3,55,95,280/- has been

RAJESH SINGH,HAJIPUR vs. ADDL/JCIT, DELHI, DELHI

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

ITA 573/PAT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna28 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz)

55,216/- was disallowed as concealed income, which was taken as income from other sources. 4.1. The assessee claimed Rs.4,28,444/- as agriculture income from sale of wheat, potato and onion during the period September to April. During the assessment proceeding, the assessee was asked to produce name and address of the parties to whom wheat, potato and onion

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 194C(6). All the compliance had been complied ITA No.: 205/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Bijay Kumar Saraf. by the appellant during the year under consideration as per the prevailing law during the said period. 11. For that the learned commissioner of income tax (Appeals) had failed to appreciate the fact that the payment made in respect

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

disallowance of indirect expenditure at Rs.2,11,877/-. We notice that the assessee has earned gross professional income at Rs.7,35,083/-and has claimed indirect expenditure at Rs.5,79,419/-. Assessee declared professional income at Rs.1,55,664/-. We observe that the special provision of computing profit and gains on presumptive basis for the assessee being an individual

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

disallowance of indirect expenditure at Rs.2,11,877/-. We notice that the assessee has earned gross professional income at Rs.7,35,083/-and has claimed indirect expenditure at Rs.5,79,419/-. Assessee declared professional income at Rs.1,55,664/-. We observe that the special provision of computing profit and gains on presumptive basis for the assessee being an individual

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

disallowance of indirect expenditure at Rs.2,11,877/-. We notice that the assessee has earned gross professional income at Rs.7,35,083/-and has claimed indirect expenditure at Rs.5,79,419/-. Assessee declared professional income at Rs.1,55,664/-. We observe that the special provision of computing profit and gains on presumptive basis for the assessee being an individual

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

disallowance of indirect expenditure at Rs.2,11,877/-. We notice that the assessee has earned gross professional income at Rs.7,35,083/-and has claimed indirect expenditure at Rs.5,79,419/-. Assessee declared professional income at Rs.1,55,664/-. We observe that the special provision of computing profit and gains on presumptive basis for the assessee being an individual

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

disallowance of indirect expenditure at Rs.2,11,877/-. We notice that the assessee has earned gross professional income at Rs.7,35,083/-and has claimed indirect expenditure at Rs.5,79,419/-. Assessee declared professional income at Rs.1,55,664/-. We observe that the special provision of computing profit and gains on presumptive basis for the assessee being an individual

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

disallowance of indirect expenditure at Rs.2,11,877/-. We notice that the assessee has earned gross professional income at Rs.7,35,083/-and has claimed indirect expenditure at Rs.5,79,419/-. Assessee declared professional income at Rs.1,55,664/-. We observe that the special provision of computing profit and gains on presumptive basis for the assessee being an individual

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

disallowance of indirect expenditure at Rs.2,11,877/-. We notice that the assessee has earned gross professional income at Rs.7,35,083/-and has claimed indirect expenditure at Rs.5,79,419/-. Assessee declared professional income at Rs.1,55,664/-. We observe that the special provision of computing profit and gains on presumptive basis for the assessee being an individual

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

disallowance of indirect expenditure at Rs.2,11,877/-. We notice that the assessee has earned gross professional income at Rs.7,35,083/-and has claimed indirect expenditure at Rs.5,79,419/-. Assessee declared professional income at Rs.1,55,664/-. We observe that the special provision of computing profit and gains on presumptive basis for the assessee being an individual

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

disallowance of indirect expenditure at Rs.2,11,877/-. We notice that the assessee has earned gross professional income at Rs.7,35,083/-and has claimed indirect expenditure at Rs.5,79,419/-. Assessee declared professional income at Rs.1,55,664/-. We observe that the special provision of computing profit and gains on presumptive basis for the assessee being an individual

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

disallowance of indirect expenditure at Rs.2,11,877/-. We notice that the assessee has earned gross professional income at Rs.7,35,083/-and has claimed indirect expenditure at Rs.5,79,419/-. Assessee declared professional income at Rs.1,55,664/-. We observe that the special provision of computing profit and gains on presumptive basis for the assessee being an individual

ASHOK KUMAR,BHOJPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1, ARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 259/PAT/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Patna10 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 40

disallowance of Rs.76,191/- @20% out of expenses claimed under various heads. (8) For that the sustenance of addition/disallowances of Rs.7,26,001/-, Rs. 10,56,328/-, Rs.32,71,379/-, Rs.3,00,000/- and Rs.76.191/- by the Ld. CIT(A) are wrong, illegal and unjustified on the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. (9) For that

PRASHANT PACKAGING PVT.LTD,PATNA vs. DCIT/ACIT, CIR-2, PATNA, PATNA

ITA 644/PAT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna21 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar& Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey] Ι.Τ.Α. No. 644/Pat/2024

Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)Section 43B

55,050/-. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny on the issue of payment of bonus or commission to the employee and assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act was passed by AO making disallowance u/s 40A(3) amounting to Rs. 5,15,169/- on account of cash bonus paid to the employees. 3. Aggrieved

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

disallowed nor any addition was made. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) quashed the reassessment proceedings holding that the assessee had disclosed all the facts and no new fact was available to the Assessing Officer. Therefore, it was mere change of opinion on the part of the Assessing Officer and as such, the reassessment proceedings could not have been validly initiated

ITO, WARD-2(1), BEGUSARAI vs. SHRI PREM CHAND KESHRI, LAKHISARAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 99/PAT/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna13 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Rajesh Kumar

Section 131Section 133Section 40A(3)

Section 40A(3) of the Act. The assessee explained before the appellate authority that all the payments were made otherwise than in cash except only Rs. 1,50,000/- as detailed above was made exceeding the prescribed limit. We note that Ld. CIT(A) has recorded a finding that Ld. AO has acted arbitrarily making the disallowance to this effect

AMITESH RANJAN,PATNA vs. I.T.O., WARD-4(1), PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and Stay Application is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 27/PAT/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Patna15 Mar 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava, Jm Ita No. 27/Pat./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Sh. Amitesh Ranjan, Vs Income Tax Officer, Near Sona Palace, Sheikhpura, Ward-4(1), Patna-14 Patna (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ahipr3978B Sa No. 02/Pat./2018 (In Ita No. 27/Pat./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13) Sh. Amitesh Ranjan, Vs Income Tax Officer, Near Sona Palace, Sheikhpura, Ward-4(1), Patna-14 Patna (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ahipr3978B Assessee By : Sh. Manish Rastogi, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Kausik Kumar Das, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.03.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 24.01.2017 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Patna. The Assessee Also Moved Stay Application For The Stay Of Outstanding Demand Of Rs.12,59,355/-.

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Kausik Kumar Das, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, (‘the Act) at an income of Rs.50,06,010/-, as against returned income of Rs.8,88,990/-. 2 ITA No. 27/Pat./2017 SA No. 02/Pat./2018 Amitesh Ranjan 2. For that the learned CIT(A) has erred in not going in the merits of the addition made by the assessing officer