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.

918 results for “disallowance”+ Natural Justiceclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai5,701Delhi5,296Bangalore1,993Chennai1,758Kolkata1,441Ahmedabad1,347Pune918Jaipur853Hyderabad713Surat487Indore376Chandigarh373Karnataka360Raipur355Cochin343Cuttack284Visakhapatnam266Lucknow262Amritsar238Rajkot231Nagpur169Agra164Telangana113Allahabad111Jodhpur108Panaji100Calcutta97Guwahati97Patna71Dehradun59Jabalpur54Ranchi47SC36Kerala31Varanasi31Punjab & Haryana19Orissa11Rajasthan8Himachal Pradesh4A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Andhra Pradesh1Gauhati1J&K1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1

Key Topics

Addition to Income67Section 143(3)60Disallowance58Section 80I52Deduction51Section 80P46Natural Justice44Section 25034Section 80P(2)(d)33Section 11

ANITA SANJAY AGRAWAL,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER ,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 2623/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2622 To 2624/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Agrawal
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

disallowance of purchases to 25% of purchases. 10. The assessee is in appeal against the order of CIT(A). 11. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee has pointed out that re-assessment proceedings were initiated against the assessee on account of information received from the Sales Tax Department in respect of certain persons who had not paid their

TRIMURTI FURNANCE PRIVATE LIMITED,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER ,, NASHIK

Showing 1–20 of 918 · Page 1 of 46

...
29
Section 12A24
Section 6824

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 2512/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2622 To 2624/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Agrawal
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

disallowance of purchases to 25% of purchases. 10. The assessee is in appeal against the order of CIT(A). 11. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee has pointed out that re-assessment proceedings were initiated against the assessee on account of information received from the Sales Tax Department in respect of certain persons who had not paid their

ANITA SANJAY AGRAWAL,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER ,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 2622/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2622 To 2624/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Agrawal
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

disallowance of purchases to 25% of purchases. 10. The assessee is in appeal against the order of CIT(A). 11. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee has pointed out that re-assessment proceedings were initiated against the assessee on account of information received from the Sales Tax Department in respect of certain persons who had not paid their

TRIMURTI FURNANCE PRIVATE LIMITED,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER ,, NASHIK

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 2511/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2622 To 2624/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Agrawal
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

disallowance of purchases to 25% of purchases. 10. The assessee is in appeal against the order of CIT(A). 11. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee has pointed out that re-assessment proceedings were initiated against the assessee on account of information received from the Sales Tax Department in respect of certain persons who had not paid their

SHRAWAN KESHAVLAL AGRAWAL HUF,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER ,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 2627/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2622 To 2624/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Agrawal
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

disallowance of purchases to 25% of purchases. 10. The assessee is in appeal against the order of CIT(A). 11. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee has pointed out that re-assessment proceedings were initiated against the assessee on account of information received from the Sales Tax Department in respect of certain persons who had not paid their

SANJAY SHRAWAN AGRAWAL HUF,,NASHIK vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 2630/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2622 To 2624/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Agrawal
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

disallowance of purchases to 25% of purchases. 10. The assessee is in appeal against the order of CIT(A). 11. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee has pointed out that re-assessment proceedings were initiated against the assessee on account of information received from the Sales Tax Department in respect of certain persons who had not paid their

SANJAY SHRAWAN AGRAWAL HUF,,NASHIK vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 2628/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2622 To 2624/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Agrawal
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

disallowance of purchases to 25% of purchases. 10. The assessee is in appeal against the order of CIT(A). 11. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee has pointed out that re-assessment proceedings were initiated against the assessee on account of information received from the Sales Tax Department in respect of certain persons who had not paid their

SHRAWAN KESHAVLAL AGRAWAL HUF,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER ,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 2626/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2622 To 2624/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Agrawal
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

disallowance of purchases to 25% of purchases. 10. The assessee is in appeal against the order of CIT(A). 11. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee has pointed out that re-assessment proceedings were initiated against the assessee on account of information received from the Sales Tax Department in respect of certain persons who had not paid their

ANITA SANJAY AGRAWAL,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER ,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 2624/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2622 To 2624/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Agrawal
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

disallowance of purchases to 25% of purchases. 10. The assessee is in appeal against the order of CIT(A). 11. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee has pointed out that re-assessment proceedings were initiated against the assessee on account of information received from the Sales Tax Department in respect of certain persons who had not paid their

SANJAY SHRAWAN AGRAWAL HUF,,NASHIK vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 2629/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2622 To 2624/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Agrawal
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

disallowance of purchases to 25% of purchases. 10. The assessee is in appeal against the order of CIT(A). 11. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee has pointed out that re-assessment proceedings were initiated against the assessee on account of information received from the Sales Tax Department in respect of certain persons who had not paid their

TRIMURTI FURNANCE PRIVATE LIMITED,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER ,, NASHIK

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 2510/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2622 To 2624/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Agrawal
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

disallowance of purchases to 25% of purchases. 10. The assessee is in appeal against the order of CIT(A). 11. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee has pointed out that re-assessment proceedings were initiated against the assessee on account of information received from the Sales Tax Department in respect of certain persons who had not paid their

SHRAWAN KESHAVLAL AGRAWAL HUF,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER ,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 2625/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2622 To 2624/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Agrawal
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

disallowance of purchases to 25% of purchases. 10. The assessee is in appeal against the order of CIT(A). 11. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee has pointed out that re-assessment proceedings were initiated against the assessee on account of information received from the Sales Tax Department in respect of certain persons who had not paid their

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. SIDHARTH RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

In the result, all the above 6 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and

ITA 1565/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Suchek Anchaliya andFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

natural justice which the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC has examined thoroughly and deleted the addition for such violation. We, therefore, uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC on this issue also. 63. Even otherwise also, we find during the 153A assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer had specifically asked regarding the exempt long term capital gain to which

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. SIDHARTH RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

In the result, all the above 6 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and

ITA 1555/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Respondent: S/Shri Suchek Anchaliya and
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

natural justice which the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC has examined thoroughly and deleted the addition for such violation. We, therefore, uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC on this issue also. 63. Even otherwise also, we find during the 153A assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer had specifically asked regarding the exempt long term capital gain to which

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. TARADEVI RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

In the result, all the above 6 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and

ITA 497/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Suchek Anchaliya andFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

disallowed the exemption claimed u/s 10(38) on gains from sale of shares of the penny stock company namely, PFLIL and made addition of Rs.7,68,24,174/- to the total income of the assessee. The Assessing Officer also made the consequential addition on account of commission paid for acquiring the accommodation entries of Rs.23,04,725/- u/s 69C being

MARUTI NIVRUTTI NAVALE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in WTA No

ITA 1061/PUN/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jun 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl.

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P. BoraFor Respondent: Shri S. B. Prasad

justice.” 27 Maruti Nivrutti Navale 63. Grounds no.1 and 2 are being academic in nature and the same are dismissed as academic. 64. The issues raised by the assessee in grounds no.3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 are almost similar/identical to the issues raised in grounds no.3, 4 and 5 of the appeal in ITA No.701/PUN/2014

MARUTI N. NAVALE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in WTA No

ITA 703/PUN/2014[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jun 2020AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl.

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P. BoraFor Respondent: Shri S. B. Prasad

justice.” 27 Maruti Nivrutti Navale 63. Grounds no.1 and 2 are being academic in nature and the same are dismissed as academic. 64. The issues raised by the assessee in grounds no.3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 are almost similar/identical to the issues raised in grounds no.3, 4 and 5 of the appeal in ITA No.701/PUN/2014

MARUTI N. NAVALE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in WTA No

ITA 702/PUN/2014[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jun 2020AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl.

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P. BoraFor Respondent: Shri S. B. Prasad

justice.” 27 Maruti Nivrutti Navale 63. Grounds no.1 and 2 are being academic in nature and the same are dismissed as academic. 64. The issues raised by the assessee in grounds no.3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 are almost similar/identical to the issues raised in grounds no.3, 4 and 5 of the appeal in ITA No.701/PUN/2014

MARUTI N. NAVALE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in WTA No

ITA 701/PUN/2014[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jun 2020AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl.

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P. BoraFor Respondent: Shri S. B. Prasad

justice.” 27 Maruti Nivrutti Navale 63. Grounds no.1 and 2 are being academic in nature and the same are dismissed as academic. 64. The issues raised by the assessee in grounds no.3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 are almost similar/identical to the issues raised in grounds no.3, 4 and 5 of the appeal in ITA No.701/PUN/2014

MARUTI NIVRUTTI NAVALE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in WTA No

ITA 1060/PUN/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jun 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl.

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P. BoraFor Respondent: Shri S. B. Prasad

justice.” 27 Maruti Nivrutti Navale 63. Grounds no.1 and 2 are being academic in nature and the same are dismissed as academic. 64. The issues raised by the assessee in grounds no.3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 are almost similar/identical to the issues raised in grounds no.3, 4 and 5 of the appeal in ITA No.701/PUN/2014