Search: disallowance | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

239 results for “disallowance”+ Unexplained Moneyclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,037 Delhi1,716 Chennai715 Kolkata642 Jaipur448 Ahmedabad401 Bangalore398 Hyderabad358 Pune239 Indore214 Chandigarh210 Surat160 Rajkot141 Visakhapatnam117 Cochin111 Nagpur108 Raipur83 Cuttack73 Amritsar61 Guwahati59 Lucknow59 Agra47 Allahabad44 Jodhpur39 Calcutta38 Panaji33 Patna26 Dehradun16 Varanasi10 Ranchi10 Jabalpur9 Karnataka7 Telangana5 SC3 Orissa2 ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1 H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1 Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)94 Addition to Income79 Section 6863 Section 14851 Section 69A48 Disallowance47 Section 143(2)38 Section 14737 Section 115B32 Section 10(38)

DASHRATH KISHANRAO CHOUDHARY,GANGAKHED vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA

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

ITA 2750/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa Khare, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Madhan Thirmanpalli, Addl.CIT

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

disallowed as unexplained money. 4. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of the Ld. AO due to the assessee

ROASHAN VISHNU PATHARE, L/H OF VISHNU TUKARAM PATHARE,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 4(4),, PUNE

Showing 1–20 of 239 · Page 1 of 12

...

30

Reopening of Assessment23

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 221/PUN/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.221/Pun/2018 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri M.G.Jasnani

Section 143(3)Section 54FSection 68

disallowance in principle. 4. The fact also remains that we have prime facie notice assessee have executed his corresponding sale deed (registered documents) on 24.12.2010 whether as the Assessing Officer’s remand report stated the same have been acted upon on 30.04.2011 ( in the relevant previous year). We are therefore of the view that the instant clinching issue regarding

DR PAMOD EKNATHRAO JADHAV,AURANGABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1(6), AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

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

ITA 2381/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2381/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Dr. Pramod Eknathrao Vs. Ito, Ward-1(6), Jadhav, Aurangabad. Row House No.1, Samarth Heritage, Opp. Marathwada Sanskrity Mandal Khadkeshwar, Aurangabad- 431001. Pan : Adfpj4882K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pratikh Jha Revenue By : Shri Umesh Phade Date Of Hearing : 26.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.06.2025 Passed By Ld. Addl./Jcit(A)-1, Gurugram [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. There Is Delay In Filing Of The Present Appeal. We Are Satisfied

For Appellant: Shri Pratikh JhaFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Phade

Section 10(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

disallowance of agricultural income, unexplained money deposited during de monetisation u/s 69A, disallowance of business promotion expenses and disallowance on account

DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1,, JALGAON vs. M/S. MAHARASHTRA SOLVENT EXTRACTION PVT. LTD.,, JALGAON

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1640/PUN/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Sept 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1434/Pun/2013 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jha

Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 68

unexplained share application money. 2. On the facts and in law the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition to the extent of Rs.1,81,389/- on account of disallowance

DCIT,JALGAON vs. MAHARASHTRA SOLVENT EXTRACTION P.LTD, JALGAON

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1434/PUN/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Sept 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1434/Pun/2013 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jha

Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 68

unexplained share application money. 2. On the facts and in law the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition to the extent of Rs.1,81,389/- on account of disallowance

ACIT, CIRCLE-2, PUNE, PUNE vs. BHIKSHU GRANIMART, PUNE

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

ITA 1158/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: S/Shri Nikhil S Pathak & P D KudvaFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 270A

unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and taxed accordingly. Penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC are hereby initiated since the income of the assessee includes income chargeable to tax under the provisions of section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 7. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC deleted all the additions made by the Assessing Officer

MRS NEHA VITTHAL DIMBLE,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD-3(3), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

ITA 1223/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: \nShri Abhay A AvchatFor Respondent: \nShri Vidya Ratan Kishore

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 69ASection 69C

money under\nsection 69A r. w. s.115BBE and the learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in\nconfirming the same.\n2. The learned AO has erred in making addition of Rs.14,08,073/- in respect\nof purchase of motor vehicle as unexplained expenditure under section 69C\nr. w. s.115BBE and the learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in confirming the\nsame

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 PANDHARPUR, PANDHARPUR vs. MOHOL NAGARI SAHAKARI PATPURVATHA SANSTHA MARYADIT , MOHOL

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 1146/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoresl.

For Appellant: Shri S. N. PuranikFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69ASection 80P(2)

unexplained money u/s 69A of the IT Act, deposited in the shape of SBN in Bank during the demonetisation period. Apart from above addition, another addition was also made to the income of the assessee on account of disallowance

MOHOL NAGARI SAHAKARI PATPURVATHA SANSTHA MARYADIT,SOLAPUR vs. ITO WARD 2, PANDHARPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 1332/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoresl.

For Appellant: Shri S. N. PuranikFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69ASection 80P(2)

unexplained money u/s 69A of the IT Act, deposited in the shape of SBN in Bank during the demonetisation period. Apart from above addition, another addition was also made to the income of the assessee on account of disallowance

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 PANDHARPUR, PANDHARPUR vs. MOHOL NAGARI SAHAKARI PATPURAVATHA SASTHA MARYADIT, MOHOL

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 717/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoresl.

For Appellant: Shri S. N. PuranikFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69ASection 80P(2)

unexplained money u/s 69A of the IT Act, deposited in the shape of SBN in Bank during the demonetisation period. Apart from above addition, another addition was also made to the income of the assessee on account of disallowance

MOHOL NAGARI SAHAKARI PATPURVATHA SANSTHA MARYADIT,SOLAPUR vs. ITO WARD 2, PANDHARPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 1331/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoresl.

For Appellant: Shri S. N. PuranikFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69ASection 80P(2)

unexplained money u/s 69A of the IT Act, deposited in the shape of SBN in Bank during the demonetisation period. Apart from above addition, another addition was also made to the income of the assessee on account of disallowance

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 PANDHARPUR, PANDHARPUR vs. MOHOL NAGARI SAHAKARI PATPURAVATHA SANSTHA MARYADIT, MOHOL

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 718/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoresl.

For Appellant: Shri S. N. PuranikFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69ASection 80P(2)

unexplained money u/s 69A of the IT Act, deposited in the shape of SBN in Bank during the demonetisation period. Apart from above addition, another addition was also made to the income of the assessee on account of disallowance

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 PANDHARPUR, PANDHARPUR vs. MOHOL NAGARI SAHAKARI PATPURVAGHA SANSTHA MARYADIT, MOHOL

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 695/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoresl.

For Appellant: Shri S. N. PuranikFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69ASection 80P(2)

unexplained money u/s 69A of the IT Act, deposited in the shape of SBN in Bank during the demonetisation period. Apart from above addition, another addition was also made to the income of the assessee on account of disallowance

CONSTRUCTION PROTAL PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1607/PUN/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jun 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 1607 & 1608/Pun/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2005-06 & 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Nilesh Khandelwal & Shri Rajiv ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi, JCIT

Section 133ASection 69A

disallow such benefit of set off stating that the additional income offered by the assessee constitutes “deemed income” and not the “eligible business income” for such set off. After giving reasonable opportunity and also after considering the reply of the assessee, the AO extracted the relevant questions and answers from the sworn statement of Mr. K.P. Gera, MD, disposed during

CONSTRUCTION PROTAL PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1608/PUN/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jun 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 1607 & 1608/Pun/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2005-06 & 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Nilesh Khandelwal & Shri Rajiv ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi, JCIT

Section 133ASection 69A

disallow such benefit of set off stating that the additional income offered by the assessee constitutes “deemed income” and not the “eligible business income” for such set off. After giving reasonable opportunity and also after considering the reply of the assessee, the AO extracted the relevant questions and answers from the sworn statement of Mr. K.P. Gera, MD, disposed during

NANCHAND BHOGILAL SHAH,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, impugned order is set aside and the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 1523/PUN/2015[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2018AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 29B

Unexplained Unaccounted Disallowance Disallowance year investment in interest income (Property Tax) of expenses money lending business u/s. 29B of the Act 1998-99 - 5,13,000 3,660 - 1999-00 - 5,13,000 3,660 - 2000-01 7,00,000 6,39,000 - 3,723 2002-03 5,00,000 17,91,000 - - 2003-04 - 17,91,000 - - 2004-05

NANCHAND BHOGILAL SHAH,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, impugned order is set aside and the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 1525/PUN/2015[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2018AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 29B

Unexplained Unaccounted Disallowance Disallowance year investment in interest income (Property Tax) of expenses money lending business u/s. 29B of the Act 1998-99 - 5,13,000 3,660 - 1999-00 - 5,13,000 3,660 - 2000-01 7,00,000 6,39,000 - 3,723 2002-03 5,00,000 17,91,000 - - 2003-04 - 17,91,000 - - 2004-05

NANCHAND BHOGILAL SHAH,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, impugned order is set aside and the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 1528/PUN/2015[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2018AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 29B

Unexplained Unaccounted Disallowance Disallowance year investment in interest income (Property Tax) of expenses money lending business u/s. 29B of the Act 1998-99 - 5,13,000 3,660 - 1999-00 - 5,13,000 3,660 - 2000-01 7,00,000 6,39,000 - 3,723 2002-03 5,00,000 17,91,000 - - 2003-04 - 17,91,000 - - 2004-05

NANCHAND BHOGILAL SHAH,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, impugned order is set aside and the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 1524/PUN/2015[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2018AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 29B

Unexplained Unaccounted Disallowance Disallowance year investment in interest income (Property Tax) of expenses money lending business u/s. 29B of the Act 1998-99 - 5,13,000 3,660 - 1999-00 - 5,13,000 3,660 - 2000-01 7,00,000 6,39,000 - 3,723 2002-03 5,00,000 17,91,000 - - 2003-04 - 17,91,000 - - 2004-05

NANCHAND BHOGILAL SHAH,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, impugned order is set aside and the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 1526/PUN/2015[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2018AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 29B

Unexplained Unaccounted Disallowance Disallowance year investment in interest income (Property Tax) of expenses money lending business u/s. 29B of the Act 1998-99 - 5,13,000 3,660 - 1999-00 - 5,13,000 3,660 - 2000-01 7,00,000 6,39,000 - 3,723 2002-03 5,00,000 17,91,000 - - 2003-04 - 17,91,000 - - 2004-05