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.

23 results for “disallowance”+ Section 92clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,713Delhi1,249Chennai455Bangalore337Ahmedabad326Hyderabad264Jaipur243Kolkata198Chandigarh179Pune136Rajkot120Visakhapatnam98Surat92Indore86Cochin76Raipur58Lucknow45Guwahati45Amritsar41Nagpur36Allahabad32SC29Patna23Ranchi21Cuttack19Jodhpur17Panaji14Dehradun14Agra10Varanasi8Jabalpur5MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1

Key Topics

Section 153A24Section 80I24Section 25023Addition to Income19Section 13214Section 801A12Survey u/s 133A10Section 139(1)8Deduction7Section 263

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, PATNA, PATNA vs. SMT. SIPRA GUPTA, PATNA

ITA 71/PAT/2023[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Patna09 Dec 2025AY 2017-18
Section 148

disallowing deduction under section 80TTA\nat Rs.263 whereas in fact he has accepted the bank interest as income from other\nSources.\nFor that the charming of interest under section 234A is bad in law as original return as\nwell as return filed under section 148 is well within time. The consequential relief\nunder section 234B may be allowed in case

LAKSHMI MANDAL,MADHUBANI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MADHUBANI

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

ITA 204/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna17 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI RAKESH MISHRA (Accountant Member)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

Showing 1–20 of 23 · Page 1 of 2

6
Section 116
Cash Deposit5
Section 250
Section 263
Section 43B

section 263 of the Act. He observed that statutory liability of ₹92,734/- under the head “tax payable” was wrongly allowed and not disallowed

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.84,035/-. We notice that the gross professional receipt for the year under consideration is Rs .4,92,509/-and the assessee has claimed indirect expenditure at Rs.3,30,289/- and declared professional income at Rs.1,62,220/- which is less than 50% of the professional receipt which the assessee was required to declare

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.84,035/-. We notice that the gross professional receipt for the year under consideration is Rs .4,92,509/-and the assessee has claimed indirect expenditure at Rs.3,30,289/- and declared professional income at Rs.1,62,220/- which is less than 50% of the professional receipt which the assessee was required to declare

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.84,035/-. We notice that the gross professional receipt for the year under consideration is Rs .4,92,509/-and the assessee has claimed indirect expenditure at Rs.3,30,289/- and declared professional income at Rs.1,62,220/- which is less than 50% of the professional receipt which the assessee was required to declare

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.84,035/-. We notice that the gross professional receipt for the year under consideration is Rs .4,92,509/-and the assessee has claimed indirect expenditure at Rs.3,30,289/- and declared professional income at Rs.1,62,220/- which is less than 50% of the professional receipt which the assessee was required to declare

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.84,035/-. We notice that the gross professional receipt for the year under consideration is Rs .4,92,509/-and the assessee has claimed indirect expenditure at Rs.3,30,289/- and declared professional income at Rs.1,62,220/- which is less than 50% of the professional receipt which the assessee was required to declare

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.84,035/-. We notice that the gross professional receipt for the year under consideration is Rs .4,92,509/-and the assessee has claimed indirect expenditure at Rs.3,30,289/- and declared professional income at Rs.1,62,220/- which is less than 50% of the professional receipt which the assessee was required to declare

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.84,035/-. We notice that the gross professional receipt for the year under consideration is Rs .4,92,509/-and the assessee has claimed indirect expenditure at Rs.3,30,289/- and declared professional income at Rs.1,62,220/- which is less than 50% of the professional receipt which the assessee was required to declare

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.84,035/-. We notice that the gross professional receipt for the year under consideration is Rs .4,92,509/-and the assessee has claimed indirect expenditure at Rs.3,30,289/- and declared professional income at Rs.1,62,220/- which is less than 50% of the professional receipt which the assessee was required to declare

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.84,035/-. We notice that the gross professional receipt for the year under consideration is Rs .4,92,509/-and the assessee has claimed indirect expenditure at Rs.3,30,289/- and declared professional income at Rs.1,62,220/- which is less than 50% of the professional receipt which the assessee was required to declare

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.84,035/-. We notice that the gross professional receipt for the year under consideration is Rs .4,92,509/-and the assessee has claimed indirect expenditure at Rs.3,30,289/- and declared professional income at Rs.1,62,220/- which is less than 50% of the professional receipt which the assessee was required to declare

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, MUZAFFARPUR vs. M/S UTTAR BIHAR GRAMIN BANK, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 30/PAT/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna25 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 250Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(vila)

disallowance of the provisional expenditure as per para 11 of the assessment order at ₹44,70,128/- were made and the total income was assessed at ₹176,92,74,630/-. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who considered in detail the provisions of section

SANOJ KUMAR SINGH ,HAJIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(3) , VAISHALI

The appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 366/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna05 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68

disallowance merely on an estimation basis, the As- sessing Officer noted that total turnover/sales of the assessee during the year were Rs. 5,07,59,673/- out of which the assessee has deposited cash to the tune of Rs. 1,87,00,900/- during the year meaning thereby that the average deposit per month worked

PRABHAKAR JHA,MADHUBANI vs. PR.CIT-1, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 178/PAT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna12 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

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

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

disallowances out of salary to staff, miscellaneous expenses, travelling expenses etc. The ld. Commissioner took cognizance under section 263 of the Income Tax Act and observed that a perusal of the assessment record 2 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Prabhakar Jha would reveal that the assessee received contractual income of Rs.15,84,602/- from Indian Oil Corporation Limited. This contractual receipt

SHASHI KRISHNA EDUCATIONAL AVAM WELFARE SOCIETY,PATNA vs. AO, PATNA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

ITA 428/PAT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna29 Jan 2026AY 2018-19
Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 143(1)Section 250

92,441/- (within the 15% permissible limit u/s\nU(l)(a)) for charitable purposes, and therefore the conditions of section 11\nwere duly complied with.\n\n6. That the demand of Rs. 53,13,260/- is unjustified, arbitrary, and\ndeserves to be quashed.\n\n7. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter or withdraw any ground of\nappeal

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, PATNA, PATNA vs. YASHI FILMS PRIVATE LIMITED, PATNA

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

ITA 462/PAT/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Patna28 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 194JSection 250

disallowance of expenditure amounting to Rs. 8,30,23,893/- made under professional and technical services without verify the facts that large payment made under section 194J to the person who have not filed return of income in comparison to total payments on TAN corresponding to PAN in form 26A for section code 194J. (ii) Whether on the facts

SUDHANSHU SHEKHAR,GAYA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GAYA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 434/PAT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna04 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115BSection 147Section 250Section 69A

disallowed in a single stroke mechanically, without applying any mind and has travelled on the same track as was created by the Ld. AO. Thus there was gross violation off the principles of natural justice, hence, the order u/s 250 of Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is liable to be deleted. 7. That the notices

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

section 801A could not be audited as the assessee failed to claim the same while filing return u/s 139. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A)-3, Patna failed to appreciate the fact that the auditor in his audit report did not confirmed eligibility of deduction u/s 80IA

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

section 801A could not be audited as the assessee failed to claim the same while filing return u/s 139. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A)-3, Patna failed to appreciate the fact that the auditor in his audit report did not confirmed eligibility of deduction u/s 80IA