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.

20 results for “disallowance”+ Reopening of Assessmentclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai5,749Delhi2,312Chennai1,419Kolkata834Bangalore706Ahmedabad499Jaipur386Surat380Hyderabad291Indore269Pune254Chandigarh220Rajkot184Raipur172Cochin122Visakhapatnam92Lucknow83Amritsar75Nagpur73Karnataka69Cuttack68Guwahati62Agra50Calcutta46Allahabad36Patna34Jodhpur31Dehradun26Telangana24Ranchi20Panaji16SC13Jabalpur12Kerala7Punjab & Haryana5Varanasi4Orissa3Himachal Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 14817Section 14716Addition to Income15Section 143(3)14Section 10(38)13Section 271(1)(c)12Disallowance11Section 2507Section 32(2)6Section 153A

SHAH BROTHERS,CHAIBASA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, Revenue's appeal stands allowed partly for statistical purpose

ITA 275/RAN/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 Jul 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.275/Ran/2023 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shah Brothers, Chaibasa……...................…...........................……….……Appellant Sadar Bazar, West Singhbhum, Jharkhand-833201. [Pan: Aazfs7498F] Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Ranchi..…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar & R. R. Mittal, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 26, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 07, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 28.11.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income U/S 139 Of The Act Declaring Total Income Of Rs.14,04,03,980/- For Assessment Year 2016-17. The Assessment Of The Assessee Was Completed U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 31.102.108 Accepting The Said Returned Income. Subsequently, Based On Information Received From Dcit, Cc-1(3), Mumbai, It Was Alleged That The Said Assessee Had Claimed A Bogus Contract Expenses Of Rs.2,69,14,526/- In Lieu Of The Bogus Work Order To M/S Pandhe Infracons Pvt. Ltd. During The F.Y 2015-16 Without Any Actual Work Had Been Performed. The Revenue Relied Upon Search Operation U/S 132 Of The Act Conducted On M/S

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139
6
Reopening of Assessment6
Penalty6
Section 143(3)
Section 147
Section 148
Section 150(1)
Section 250
Section 251

disallowance was warranted in 2016-17. However, while doing so, the ld. CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to reopen

M/S P.K.UPADHYAY vs. ITO WARD-3(5), PALAMAU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 105/RAN/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi03 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

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

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

reopened assessment, the ld. Assessing Officer perused the record and recorded a finding that the assessee has debited a sum of Rs.5,11,164/- in the assets side of the balance-sheet on account of time extension, whereas the total amount of time extension comes to Rs.10,66,443/-. He noticed a discrepancy of Rs.5,55,280/- and accordingly

SMT SAROJ AGARWAL,RANCHI vs. ITO WARD 3(1), RANCHI

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 80/RAN/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi01 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayit(Ss)A Nos.24 & 25/Ran/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2015-16 &

For Appellant: Shri Debesh Podder, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shadab Ahmed, CIT, DR
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 153ASection 250

assessment years i.e. AYs. 2013-14 and 2015-16 stand quashed. 6. In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed. Now, We take up ITA Nos. 80 to 82/Ran/2023. 7. It was submitted by the ld. AR that the issues in these appeals were against the confirmation of the addition made by disallowing the assessee

SMT SAROJ AGARWAL,RANCHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are\nallowed

ITA 81/RAN/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi01 May 2025AY 2012-13
For Respondent: Shri Shadab Ahmed, CIT, DR
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 153ASection 250

disallowing the assessee's\nclaim of exemption u/s. 10(38) of the Act in respect of shares in the case of\nM/s. Global Capital Market Ltd. It was the submission that in the case of\nthe assessee's son Shri Saurav Parliwal an order u/s. 147/143(3) of the Act\nwas passed

M/S. AMAN ENTERPRISES,RANCHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 134/RAN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi18 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaym/S Aman Enterprises, D.C.I.T., 22, Park Street, Near Doranda College, Circle-1, Vs. Ranchi-834002 (Jharkhand) Ranchi. Pan No. Aaifa 9921 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148

disallowances of expenses was made. 2. That subsequently proceeding U/s 148 was initiated vide notice dated 18/08/2017 i.e. beyond 4 years and an order U/s 147 rws 144 was passed on 26/11/2018. 3. That the legal issue which we intend to challenge is that this impugned proceedings has been initiated beyond a period of 4 years wherein an original assessment

MISRILALL JAIN & SONS,SINGHBHUM WEST vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 468/RAN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi21 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.468/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Misrilall Jain & Sons….…………….…….…............................……….……Appellant M. D. House, Chaibasa Singhbhum West, Jharkhand – 833201. [Pan: Aabfm2851Q] Vs. Acit, Cc-1, Ranchi.................……….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Kanhaiya Lal Kanak, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 18, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 21, 2026 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-3, Patna (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”) Dated 30.07.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”).

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148ASection 250

reopening. Consequently, another notice under section 148 dated 21.07.2022 was issued. In response, the assessee again filed its return declaring total income of ₹1,32,63,010, which was accepted as returned income. However, while completing the reassessment, the Assessing Officer proceeded to make further additions and assessed ₹4,75,23,253 as interest income from other sources

ACIT CIR-1 , DHANBAD vs. M/S BHARAT COOKING COAL LTD , DHANBAD

In the result, all the captioned appeals are hereby dismissed

ITA 299/RAN/2017[09-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 Jul 2023

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.299/Ran/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Acit,Central-1, Dhanbad............................................................……Appellant Vs. M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd........................................……...…..…..Respondent Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagara, Dhanbad—826005 [Pan: Aaacb7934M] I.T.A No.123/Ran/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd........................................................…… Respondent Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagara, Dhanbad—826005 [Pan: Aaacb7934M] Vs. Acit,Central-1, Dhanbad..............................................……...…..….. Appellant C.O No.08/Ran/2018 (In Ita No.299/Ran/2017) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd..................................................... …Cross-Objector Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagara, Dhanbad—826005 [Pan: Aaacb7934M] Vs. Acit,Central-1, Dhanbad..............................................……...…..….. Appellant Appearances By: Shri Rinku Singh, Cit- Dr., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri M. K. Choudhary With Devesh Poddar, Adv Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 23, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 07, 2023

Section 250Section 32(2)

reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act and consequential additions made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) relating to contractual expenses of Rs.23,22,00,000/-, provision for contractual expenses of Rs.29,00,00,000/- and addition of Rs.70,25,00,000/- on account of disallowance

M/S BHARAT COKING COAL LTD ,DHANBAD vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1 , DHANBAD

In the result, all the captioned appeals are hereby dismissed

ITA 123/RAN/2018[09-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 Jul 2023

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.299/Ran/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Acit,Central-1, Dhanbad............................................................……Appellant Vs. M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd........................................……...…..…..Respondent Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagara, Dhanbad—826005 [Pan: Aaacb7934M] I.T.A No.123/Ran/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd........................................................…… Respondent Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagara, Dhanbad—826005 [Pan: Aaacb7934M] Vs. Acit,Central-1, Dhanbad..............................................……...…..….. Appellant C.O No.08/Ran/2018 (In Ita No.299/Ran/2017) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd..................................................... …Cross-Objector Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagara, Dhanbad—826005 [Pan: Aaacb7934M] Vs. Acit,Central-1, Dhanbad..............................................……...…..….. Appellant Appearances By: Shri Rinku Singh, Cit- Dr., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri M. K. Choudhary With Devesh Poddar, Adv Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 23, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 07, 2023

Section 250Section 32(2)

reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act and consequential additions made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) relating to contractual expenses of Rs.23,22,00,000/-, provision for contractual expenses of Rs.29,00,00,000/- and addition of Rs.70,25,00,000/- on account of disallowance

SMT. SAROJ AGARWAL,RANCHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are\nallowed

ITA 82/RAN/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi01 May 2025AY 2013-14
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 153ASection 250

disallowing the assessee's\nclaim of exemption u/s. 10(38) of the Act in respect of shares in the case of\nM/s. Global Capital Market Ltd. It was the submission that in the case of\nthe assessee's son Shri Saurav Parliwal an order u/s. 147/143(3) of the Act\nwas passed

ACIT, CENTRALC CIRCLE-1, RANCHI, RANCHI vs. IMPERIAL AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 171/RAN/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi09 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: BEFORES/SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri R.R.Mittal, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Rinku Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 156Section 288A

disallowed and added to the income of the assessee. Add: Rs.,7,73,726/- 6. As discussed above, the total income of the assessee is recomputed as under: Returned loss : Rs.47,70,928/- Add: as discussed in para 5 : Rs.7,73,727/- --------------------------------- Taxable total income: Rs.39,97,202/- `Loss round u/s.288A : Rs.39,97,210/- Assessed fu/s.143(3) at a total

KUMAR PRATIK,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SAHIBGANJ

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 132/RAN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi09 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay(Virtual Hearing) Kumar Pratik, I.T.O., Tower C2, Flat 1402, Eden City, Sahibganj. Vs. Mahestala, Kolkata-700137. Pan No. Buapp 7990 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

Disallowance under Section 69C of the Income Tax Act. (Addition Rs. 3,08,005/- towards stamp duty and registration charges of Flat. This amount was received from sister, Kumari Sonali for payment of stamp duty and registration. She is my sister and received the amount as gift which is not taxable as received from relative. Kumari Sonali, Doner

SANJAY CHAWLA,CHAIBASA vs. PR. CIT, RANCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 135/RAN/2025[20-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaysanjay Chawla, Pr.C.I.T., Sentola, Chaibasa-833201 (Jharkhand) Ranchi. Vs. Pan No. Acmpc 6808 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263Section 63

disallowance. There may be cases where the Assessing Officer undertakes a superficial and random investigation that may justify a remit, albeit the Commissioner of Income Tax must record the abject failure and lapse on the part of the Assessing Officer to establish both the error and the prejudice caused to the Revenue. Recording the aforesaid, the special leave petition

M/S BHARAT COKING COAL LTD ,DHANBAD vs. ACIT CIR-1 , DHANBAD

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

ITA 121/RAN/2018[07-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 275

disallowed for want of party wise details at the time of assessment is unjustified. As stated above, the party wise details of Rs 7.53 Cr were already furnished to CIT (A) on 19.06.20 17 during the course of hearing. The expenses incurred were verified by internal auditor, statutory auditor and CAG thereafter only accounts were finalised and passed by board

M/S BHARAT COKING COAL LTD ,DHANBAD vs. ACIT CIR-1 , DHANBAD

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

ITA 124/RAN/2018[09-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 275

disallowed for want of party wise details at the time of assessment is unjustified. As stated above, the party wise details of Rs 7.53 Cr were already furnished to CIT (A) on 19.06.20 17 during the course of hearing. The expenses incurred were verified by internal auditor, statutory auditor and CAG thereafter only accounts were finalised and passed by board

M/S BHARAT COKING COAL LIMITED ,DHANBAD vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1 , DHANBAD

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

ITA 122/RAN/2018[08-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 275

disallowed for want of party wise details at the time of assessment is unjustified. As stated above, the party wise details of Rs 7.53 Cr were already furnished to CIT (A) on 19.06.20 17 during the course of hearing. The expenses incurred were verified by internal auditor, statutory auditor and CAG thereafter only accounts were finalised and passed by board

M/S BHARAT COOKING COAL LTD ,DHANBAD vs. ACIT CIR-1, DHANBAD

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

ITA 127/RAN/2018[11-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 275

disallowed for want of party wise details at the time of assessment is unjustified. As stated above, the party wise details of Rs 7.53 Cr were already furnished to CIT (A) on 19.06.20 17 during the course of hearing. The expenses incurred were verified by internal auditor, statutory auditor and CAG thereafter only accounts were finalised and passed by board

M/S BHARAT COKING COAL LTD ,DHANBAD vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1 , DHANBAD

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

ITA 125/RAN/2018[10-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 275

disallowed for want of party wise details at the time of assessment is unjustified. As stated above, the party wise details of Rs 7.53 Cr were already furnished to CIT (A) on 19.06.20 17 during the course of hearing. The expenses incurred were verified by internal auditor, statutory auditor and CAG thereafter only accounts were finalised and passed by board

M/S BHARAT COKING COAL LTD ,DHANBAD vs. ACIT CIR-1 , DHANBAD

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

ITA 128/RAN/2018[12-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 275

disallowed for want of party wise details at the time of assessment is unjustified. As stated above, the party wise details of Rs 7.53 Cr were already furnished to CIT (A) on 19.06.20 17 during the course of hearing. The expenses incurred were verified by internal auditor, statutory auditor and CAG thereafter only accounts were finalised and passed by board

GOLDEN GOENKA COMMERCE PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ACIT CIRCLE-2(1),, JAMSHEDPUR

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

ITA 11/RAN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi10 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.11/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Golden Goenka Commerce Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier Known As Rajgaj Traders Pvt. Ltd.)............................……….……Appellant 25A, S.P Mukherjee Road, 4Th Floor, Bhawanipore, Kol-25, [Pan: Aabcr7503F] Vs. Acit, Circle-2(1), Jamshedpur..…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Kumar Pranab, Cit- Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 4, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 10, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [“Cit(A)”], Dated 21.12.2018, Arising Out Of Assessment Framed Under Section 147 Read With Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (The “Act”) For The Assessment Year 2011–12. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Multiple Grounds, The Sum & Substance Of Which Is That The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Addition Of ₹4,73,00,000 Made By The Assessing Officer (“Ao”) Under Section 68 Of The Act Towards Share Capital & Share Premium, Ignoring The Documentary Evidences Placed On Record & Without Conducting Any Independent Enquiry. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Company Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2011–12 Declaring Total Income Of ₹16,67,088. Subsequently, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

reopened I.T.A. No.11/Ran/2024 Golden Goenka Commerce Pvt. Ltd. under section 147 of the Act on the ground that the assessee had raised share capital of ₹4,73,00,000 by issuing 4,73,000 equity shares of ₹10 each at a premium of ₹90 per share, which according to the AO was not satisfactorily explained. Notice under section

SHIV PRASAD RAM,BOKARO vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, BOKARO

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

ITA 393/RAN/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi16 Feb 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay(Virtual Hearing) Shiv Prasad Ram, I.T.O., Near Petrol Pump, Sector-9/A, Basanti Ward 3(1), Vs. More, Sector-Ix, S.O. Alkusa, Bokaro. Bokaro-827009 (Jharkhand) Pan No. Aqepr 2909 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 10(12)Section 142(1)Section 148Section 192Section 194ASection 69Section 80C

disallowing the deduction under Chapter VI-A (Section 80C). The Appellant claimed a deduction of ₹1,50,000, which is allowable under the law. However, only ₹51,547 was allowed based on the employer's Form 16. Fixed deposits (FDs) made for a tenure of 5 years or more with a scheduled bank were eligible for deduction under Section