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.

5 results for “disallowance”+ Revision u/s 263clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,420Delhi766Kolkata617Chennai440Bangalore420Ahmedabad300Pune252Jaipur234Hyderabad165Indore156Chandigarh151Visakhapatnam124Cochin113Surat112Rajkot101Raipur72Cuttack51Panaji43Nagpur40Jodhpur28Karnataka27Lucknow26Amritsar23Agra22Allahabad21Patna12Jabalpur9Dehradun6Ranchi5Telangana4Kerala3Guwahati3Calcutta2Varanasi2SC1Rajasthan1Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Section 26322Section 143(3)12Section 80I9Section 153A7Section 142(1)5Revision u/s 2633Section 143(2)2Natural Justice2Disallowance2

PADAM KUMAE JAIN,RANCHI vs. CIT, CENTRAL, PATNA

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

ITA 289/RAN/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi08 Jul 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.289/Ran/2019 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Padam Kumar Jain Vs. Cit, Central, Cr Building, Beer Chand Patel Marg, Patna – 800001. Ratanlalsurajmal Compound, Main Road, Ranchi – 834001, Jharkhand "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abrpj 0001 E (Assessee) .. (Revenue)

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Chaudhury & Shri Devesh Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Inderjeet Singh, CIT (DR)
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

263 should not be invoked to revise the order u/s 153A/143(3) dated 28.12.2016, wherein the AO is found to have omitted to properly examine the above issues in the case. In response to the show-cause notice, the assessee filed his written submission and some related details of the case through e-mail on 25.03.2019. After a thorough examination

DEVPRABHA CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LTD.,,DHANBAD vs. PCIT, DHANBAD

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 27/RAN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi30 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay(Virtual Hearing) Devprabha Construction Private Ltd., P.C.I.T., Dev Villa, Behind Radha Swamy Arcade, Dhanbad, Vs. Saraidhela, Dhanbad-828127. Aayakar Bhawan, Luby Pan No. Aaecb 2652 A Circular Road, Dhanbad-826001 (Jharkhand) Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263

revision of a valid order which was again pending in appeal before NFAC. 4. That the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Dhanbad was wrong to conclude that all the fixed assets of the Appellant company were eligible for depreciation at the rate of 15 percent and not 30 percent when the depreciation at the rate of thirty percent

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

revision under Section 263 by the ld. Pr.CIT, Ranchi wherein the ld. Pr.CIT has taken the stand that the Assessing Officer has not done proper enquiry in regard to the quantification of the loss and that the Assessing Officer has only collected documents and the submissions on record and has not done any verification. It was a submission that

M/S. CCOMMERCIAL CARRIERS LTD,BALLYGUNGE, KOLKATA vs. PR. CIT, RANCHI, RANCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 28/RAN/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.28/Ran/2021 Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S Commercial Carriers Ltd.....................…...........................……….……Appellant 1F & G, Swinhoe Castle, Swinhoe Street, Ballygunge, W.B – 700019. [Pan:Aaacc6949F] Vs. Pcit, Ranchi……………..…..…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri C M Roy, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Rajib Jain, Cit- Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 04, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 07, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 18.03.2021 Of The Principal Cit, Ranchi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Pcit’] Exercising Revision Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Revising The Original Assessment Order Dated 26.12.2018 Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case That The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Transport & Infrastructure Business. During Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer (Ao) Passed An Order Under Section 143(3), Determining The Total Income At ₹9,95,690, After Making Disallowances, Including ₹3 Lakhs On Trip Expenses & ₹6,95,692 Under Section 37 Of The Act. However, On Examination Of The Assessment Records, The Ld. Pcit Ranchi, Observed That Sundry Creditors Amounting To ₹2,42,35,736 Were Shown In The Audited Balance Sheet, But No Enquiry Or Verification Was Made During Assessment Proceeding & Similarly Issue Relating To Investment In Purchase Of Trucks & Trailers Amounting To ₹5,10,44,030 Was Recorded; However, The Assessee Had

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37

u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) revising the original assessment order dated 26.12.2018 passed under Section 143(3) of the Act. 2. Brief facts of the case that the assessee is a company engaged in the transport and infrastructure business. During assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) passed an order under section

AADHAR RICE MILL PVT. LTD.,,RANCHI vs. ITO,WARD-1(1), RANCHI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 294/RAN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi24 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargआयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.294/Ran/2018 & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.201/Ran/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014 & 2014-2015) M/S Aadhar Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Ranchi C/O Sri Vinay Kumar Jalan, M/S O.P.Jalan & Associates Consultants Llp, 48 Cart Sarai Road, Upper Bazaar, Ranchi, Jharkhand, Pin-834001 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aahca 6463 B (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Vinay Kumar Jalan, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.K.Mondal, Acit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 23/05/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 24/05/2019 आदेश / O R D E R The Assessee Has Filed Above Two Appeals Out Of Which Ita No.294/Ran/2018 Has Been Filed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Ranchi, Dated 09.11.2017, Passed In First Appeal No.Cit(A), Ranchi/10058/2016-17 For The Assessment Year 2013-2014, Arising Out Of Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S.143(3) Of The Act, Dated 30.03.2016, Whereas Ita No.201/Ran/2019 Has Been Filed By The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2014-2015 Against The Order Passed By The Pr.Cit, Ranchi, Dated 31.03.2019 U/S.263 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Vinay Kumar Jalan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Mondal, ACIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80I

u/s. 143(2)/142(1) of the Act were issued. On examination of the books of accounts the Ld. Assessing Officer came to the conclusion that the assessee's business was not eligible for deduction u/s.80IB(11A) of the Act and disallowed the claim of the assessee of Rs.16,74,407/- along with disallowance of 10% of the oil loss