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.

2 results for “disallowance”+ Section 153Dclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi590Mumbai198Bangalore126Chennai86Amritsar73Chandigarh66Cochin62Jaipur49Allahabad37Agra24Lucknow18Nagpur17Hyderabad17Raipur15Indore10Ahmedabad9Cuttack7Kolkata7Patna5Surat5Jodhpur4Karnataka4Dehradun4Visakhapatnam3Pune2Rajkot1Guwahati1

Key Topics

Section 1483Section 142(1)2Section 1322

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE vs. SAGAR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the CO filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1812/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Suhas Bora and Riya OswalFor Respondent: Shri S. Sadananda Singh, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 269SSection 37Section 68

disallowed the same u/s 37 of the Act. Thus, the Assessing Officer computed the total income of the assessee at Rs.2,22,86,304/-. 6. Before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the assessee submitted that the reasons for reopening were communited to the assessee after 11 months of issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act although the assessee

HETAL RAKESH MEHTA ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CC-1(2), PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1727/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19 Hetal Rakesh Mehta Acit, Central Circle 1(2), 9/10, Vidya Nagar, 60 Feet Road, Vs. Pune Ghatkopar East, Mumbai – 400077 Pan: Ammpm9670L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms Simran Dhawan (virtual)For Respondent: Shri Ravi Prakash
Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153A

disallowed by holding the same as bogus purchases. The A.O. has also held that the amount paid by BVG India Ltd. to the appellant as sale consideration was received back in the form of cash which was utilized by M/s. BVG India Ltd. elsewhere. It may also be mentioned that the appeal filed by M/s. BVG India Ltd. has been