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.

50 results for “disallowance”+ Section 10(26)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai6,631Delhi6,345Bangalore2,203Chennai1,784Kolkata1,468Ahmedabad878Hyderabad727Jaipur686Pune445Indore418Chandigarh343Raipur262Surat189Karnataka187Lucknow166Cochin139Rajkot136Amritsar128Visakhapatnam125Nagpur101Guwahati74Allahabad69Telangana63Jodhpur60SC59Ranchi50Cuttack50Calcutta47Agra44Panaji39Patna32Dehradun23Kerala21Jabalpur17Varanasi15Punjab & Haryana7Rajasthan4Orissa4Himachal Pradesh3A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN3MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1Tripura1Gauhati1ANIL R. DAVE AMITAVA ROY L. NAGESWARA RAO1

Key Topics

Disallowance41Addition to Income33Depreciation33Section 14A32Section 234A29Section 35E28Section 143(3)15Section 32(2)13Section 6812Section 40

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, RANCHI vs. M/S A.K.TRANSPORT, RANCHI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 177/RAN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi20 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

section 68 for making addition of sundry creditors which are appearing as payable in the Balance Sheet. Therefore, the addition of Rs.4,36,89,102/- u/s 68 is hereby deleted. Accordingly, this ground of appeal is allowed.” 5. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the material on record, we find that the Ld. CIT(A), after taking into consideration

M/S ANJENEYA ISPAT LTD.,SARAIKELA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONE OF INCOME TAX, CIRCELE-1, JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 75/RAN/2022[2009-10]Status: Disposed

Showing 1–20 of 50 · Page 1 of 3

8
Section 270A6
Survey u/s 133A5
ITAT Ranchi
06 Jan 2026
AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.75/Ran/2022 Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Anjeneya Ispat Ltd.…………….…….…............................……….……Appellant 29, Rain Basera, Sanjay Nagar Colony, Adityapur, Saraikela, Jharkhand- 831013. [Pan: Aagca1031N] Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Jamshedpur.….....…..…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Kanhaiya Lal Kanak, Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 18, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 06, 2026 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Jamshedpur (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”) Dated 25.09.2017 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2019–20 Declaring A Total Income Of ₹62,64,116. The Case Was Selected For Complete Scrutiny. During The Relevant Previous Year, A Survey Operation Under Section 133A Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Was Conducted At The Business Premises Of The Assessee On 16.02.2019. Subsequently, Statutory Notices Under Sections 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act Were Issued. In Response Thereto, The Assessee Appeared From Time To Time & Furnished Various Details & Documents As Called For. The Same Were Examined & Discussed By The Assessing Officer During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings. During

Section 10(23)Section 133ASection 133A(3)Section 145ASection 14ASection 250Section 40Section 69Section 69C

10(23). Accordingly, the AO disallowed the amount under section 14A of the Act. The AO also observed that tax was not deducted at source on the said payment. The Assessing Officer further made the following additions: 1. Unexplained investment of ₹17,70,410 under section 69, as the assessee failed to produce supporting evidence. I.T.A. No.75/Ran/2022 M/s Anjeneya Ispat

DCIT CIR-1 , RANCHI vs. M/S CENTRAL COALFIELDS LTD, RANCHI

ITA 178/RAN/2017[12-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi05 Jan 2026
Section 14ASection 234ASection 35E

26,000\n23,16,60,000\n25,20,60,000\n26,19,00,000\nIICM Charges\n2,20,00,000\n2,16,22,000\n2,35,40,000\nProvisions Toward NCWA VIII\n2,13,49,00,000\nMine Closure Expenses\n19,85,73,000\n1,21,53,000\nCSR Expenses - Welfare\nu/s 14A\nPA\nDisallowance of Prior Period Expenses

K M MEMORIAL HOSPITAL & RESERCH CENTRE (P) LTD,BOKARO vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, HAZARIBAG

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

ITA 19/RAN/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi29 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 263Section 40

disallowance on account of non-deduction of TDS should be restricted to 30% of that amount under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Accordingly, we also hold that the assessee is entitled to pay 30% of the total amount claimed under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The Assessing Officer is accordingly directed to restrict the addition

M/S USHA MARTIN LTD,KOLKATA vs. ACIT CIR-3, RANCHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 68/RAN/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi12 Jun 2025AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: S/Shri Aditya Hans/Vishal Jain and Ashis JainFor Respondent: Smt. Rinku Singh, CIT DR
Section 234Section 244A

10 | 13 Assessment Year : 2007-08 19. In reply ld CIT DR submitted that as per the citations submitted by the assessee itself the Hon’ble Bombay High Court decision in the cased of . Everest Kanto Cylinder Ltd. vs. DCIT, clearly shows corporate guarantee is at 0.5%. It was the submission that the corporate guarantee may be fixed

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

In the result, this appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 95/RAN/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

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

26. It is not in dispute that those judgments are today impugned before us in connected matters. The overloading charges or under loading charges are payable in terms of contract between the parties and it is not an offence. It is purely a commercial transaction. In this situation, we do not find any substantial question of law arising

DCIT CIRCLE-1, DHANBAD vs. BHARAT COKING COAL LTD.,, DHANBAD

In the result, this appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 103/RAN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

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

26. It is not in dispute that those judgments are today impugned before us in connected matters. The overloading charges or under loading charges are payable in terms of contract between the parties and it is not an offence. It is purely a commercial transaction. In this situation, we do not find any substantial question of law arising

CCL LTD ,RANCHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

ITA 32/RAN/2018[14-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi05 Jan 2026
Section 14ASection 234ASection 35E

26,000\n23,16,60,000\n25,20,60,000\n26,19,00,000\n2,20,00,000\n2,13,49,00,000\n19,85,73,000\n2,16,22,000\n2,35,40,000\n1,21,53,000\nDisallowance of Prior Period Expenses\n1 Prior Period Expenses as per Note 32 of\nAnnual Report\n12 Prior period

CCL,RANCHI vs. DCIT CIR-1, RANCHI

ITA 165/RAN/2017[07-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi05 Jan 2026
Section 14ASection 234ASection 35E

26,000\nPA\nAY 2007-08\n165/RAN/2017\nBy Assessee\n17,33,32,000\n74,48,000\n23,16,60,000\nPA\nAY 2008-09\n166/RAN/2017\nBy Assessee\n2,80,62,000\n25,20,60,000\nAY 2009-10\n167/RAN/2017\nBy Assessee\n26,65,86,000\n26,19,00,000\nAY 2010-11\n168/RAN/2017\nBy Assessee

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

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 134/RAN/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi10 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayshah Brothers, A.C.I.T., Thana Lane, Chaibasa-833201 Central Circle-1, Vs. (Jharkhand) Ranchi. Pan No. Aazfs 7498 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 143(3)

10 /06/2025 O R D E R PER: BENCH 1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the learned CIT(A),Patna-3, Patna in appeal No. CIT(A), Patna-3/10246/2017-18 dated 30/05/2023 for the A.Y. 2013-14. 2. Shri R.R. Mittal, ld. A.R. is represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri Khub

ITO, TDS, RANCHI, RANCHI vs. M/S. CHHINAMASTIKA CEMENT & ISPAT PVT. LTD.,, RAMGARH

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 18/RAN/2022[16-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi27 May 2025

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 133Section 133A

10 vehicles/ carriers were collected. He also admitted that this non-deduction of IDS was not reported in Form 26Q as statutorily required. Subsequently, when these facts were confronted to the petitioner assessee vide the show-cause dated 04.02.2019 issued by the Assessing Officer, no reply was submitted on this point by the assessee. Ld. CIT(A) also failed

ITO, TDS,, RANCHI vs. M/S. CHINNAMASTIKA CEMENT & ISPAT LTD.,, RAMGARH

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 17/RAN/2022[15-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi27 May 2025

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 133Section 133A

10 vehicles/ carriers were collected. He also admitted that this non-deduction of IDS was not reported in Form 26Q as statutorily required. Subsequently, when these facts were confronted to the petitioner assessee vide the show-cause dated 04.02.2019 issued by the Assessing Officer, no reply was submitted on this point by the assessee. Ld. CIT(A) also failed

DCIT CIRCLE-1 , RANCHI vs. CCL LTD , RANCHI

ITA 37/RAN/2018[14-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi05 Jan 2026
Section 14ASection 234ASection 35E

Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Business expenditure\nAllowability of (Welfare expenses of employees) - Assessee-\ncompany was engaged in business of coal mining It claimed\nexpenses incurred towards welfare of of its employees like canteen,\nhostels, etc. business expenditure Commissioner disallowed same\non ground that said expenditures had not been properly explained\nand that assessee

DCIT CIR-1, RANCHI vs. CCL, RANCHI

ITA 176/RAN/2017[10-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi05 Jan 2026
Section 14ASection 234ASection 35E

26,000\n23,16,60,000\n25,20,60,000\n26,19,00,000\nIICM Charges\n2,20,00,000\n2,35,40,000\nProvisions Toward NCWA VIII\n2,13,49,00,000\n2,16,22,000\nMine Closure Expenses\n19,85,73,000\n1,21,53,000\nCSR Expenses - Welfare\nDisallowance of Prior Period Expenses\nPrior Period Expenses

DCIT CIR-1, RANCHI vs. CCL, RANCHI

ITA 173/RAN/2017[07-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi05 Jan 2026
Section 14ASection 234ASection 35E

26,000\n23,16,60,000\n25,20,60,000\n26,19,00,000\n2,20,00,000\n2,13,49,00,000\n19,85,73,000\n2,16,22,000\n2,35,40,000\n1,21,53,000\nDisallowance of Prior Period Expenses\nPrior Period Expenses as per Note 32 of\nAnnual Report\nPrior period exp. not exceeding

DCIT CIR-1,, RANCHI vs. CCL, RANCHI

ITA 174/RAN/2017[08-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi05 Jan 2026
Section 14ASection 234ASection 35E

26,000\n23,16,60,000\n25,20,60,000\n26,19,00,000\nIICM Charges\n2,20,00,000\n2,16,22,000\n2,35,40,000\nProvisions Toward NCWA VIII\n2,13,49,00,000\nMine Closure Expenses\n19,85,73,000\n1,21,53,000\nCSR Expenses - Welfare\nu/s 14A\nPA\nDisallowance of Prior Period Expenses

CCL,RNCHI vs. ACIT CIR-1 , RANCHI

ITA 167/RAN/2017[09-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi05 Jan 2026
Section 14ASection 234ASection 35E

26,000\n23,16,60,000\n25,20,60,000\n26,19,00,000\nIICM Charges\n2,20,00,000\n2,13,49,00,000\n2,35,40,000\nProvisions Toward NCWA VIII\nMine Closure Expenses\n19,85,73,000\n2,16,22,000\n1,21,53,000\nCSR Expenses - Welfare\nu/s 14A\nPA\nDisallowance of Prior Period Expenses\nPrior

CCL,RANCHI vs. ACIT CIR-1, RANCHI

ITA 166/RAN/2017[08-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi05 Jan 2026
Section 14ASection 234ASection 35E

26,000\n23,16,60,000\n25,20,60,000\n26,19,00,000\nIICM Charges\n2,20,00,000\n2,35,40,000\nProvisions Toward NCWA VIII\n2,13,49,00,000\n2,16,22,000\nMine Closure Expenses\n19,85,73,000\n1,21,53,000\nCSR Expenses - Welfare\nDisallowance of Prior Period Expenses\nPrior Period Expenses

M/S. CENTRAL COALFIELDS LTD.,,RANCHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1,, RANCHI

ITA 74/RAN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi05 Jan 2026AY 2020-21
Section 14ASection 234ASection 35E

26,000\n23,16,60,000\n2,20,00,000\n2,13,49,00,000\n19,85,73,000\nPA\nAY 2007-08\n165/RAN/2017\nBy Assessee\n17,33,32,000\n74,48,000\n25,20,60,000\n26,19,00,000\n2,16,22,000\nPA\nAY 2008-09\n166/RAN/2017\nBy Assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, RANCHI, RANCHI vs. CENTRAL COAL FIELDS LIMITED, RANCHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 47/RAN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi05 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.164,165,166,167,168,169,170&266/Ran/2017 (A.Y :2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.32/Ran/2018 (Ay : 2014-2015) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.190 & 191/Ran/2019 (Ay:2015-16 & 2016-17) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.119, 120, 74/Ran/2024 (Ay: 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21) M/S Central Coalfields Limited, Vs. Addl.Cit, Range-1, Ranchi Darbhanga House, Office Of Gm Finance-A, Opp. Governor House Ranchi-834001 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aaacc 7476 R & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.172,173,174,175,176,177,178 & 235/Ran/2017 (A.Y :2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.37/Ran/2018 (Ay : 2014-2015) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.174 & 175/Ran/2019 (Ay:2015-16 & 2016-17) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.47, 203, 204, 128/Ran/2024 (Ay: 2017-2018, 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21) Addl.Cit, Range-1, Ranchi Vs. M/S Central Coalfields Limited, Darbhanga House, Office Of Gm Finance-A, Opp. Governor House Ranchi-834001 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aaacc 7476 R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्ाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri M.K.Chowdhary & Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocates राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Rajib Jain, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 05/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05/01/2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld.Cit(A), Ranchi/Nfac, Delhi, Dated 12.04.2017, 26.04.2017, 25.04.2027, 28.04.2017, 08.11.2017

For Appellant: Shri M.K.ChowdharyFor Respondent: Shri Rajib Jain, CIT-DR

Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Business expenditure - Allowability of (Welfare expenses of employees) - Assessee- company was engaged in business of coal mining - It claimed expenses incurred towards welfare of of its employees like canteen, hostels, etc. business expenditure Commissioner disallowed same on ground that said expenditures had not been properly explained and that assessee