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.

124 results for “disallowance”+ Section 15clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai12,779Delhi10,668Bangalore3,640Chennai3,541Kolkata3,160Ahmedabad2,512Pune2,013Hyderabad1,707Jaipur1,639Chandigarh989Surat941Indore862Cochin570Raipur568Visakhapatnam502Cuttack437Rajkot405Amritsar399Karnataka371Nagpur349Lucknow289Agra187Jodhpur180Guwahati164Panaji143Ranchi124Telangana118Allahabad110SC110Patna89Calcutta79Dehradun77Jabalpur53Kerala36Varanasi32Punjab & Haryana14Orissa9Rajasthan9A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN7Himachal Pradesh5Gauhati2ANIL R. DAVE AMITAVA ROY L. NAGESWARA RAO1D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1RANJAN GOGOI PRAFULLA C. PANT1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Tripura1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1Bombay1

Key Topics

Addition to Income77Section 143(3)70Disallowance58Section 80I37Section 234A35Section 14A33Depreciation33Section 26330Section 271(1)(c)26Section 35E

SURYA REALCON PRIVATE LIMITED,SARAIDHELA, DHANBAD vs. DCIT, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, DHANBAD

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4/RAN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)(a)Section 801Section 801B

disallowed on account of claim u/s 801B for non-filing the Return in due date. 2. That the return was filed on 31.03.2019, due date was 30.09.2018. That the order u/s 143(1)(a) is being enclosed. Please refer to the Annexure. 3. That the return has been filed delayed due to continuous treatment of the Director who looks after

Showing 1–20 of 124 · Page 1 of 7

26
Deduction25
Section 4022

SURYA REALCON PRIVATE LIMITED,SARAIDHELA, DHANBAD vs. DCIT, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, DHANBAD

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 5/RAN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)(a)Section 801Section 801B

disallowed on account of claim u/s 801B for non-filing the Return in due date. 2. That the return was filed on 31.03.2019, due date was 30.09.2018. That the order u/s 143(1)(a) is being enclosed. Please refer to the Annexure. 3. That the return has been filed delayed due to continuous treatment of the Director who looks after

ITO EXEMPTION WARD , JAMSHEDPUR vs. ALL INDIA WOMEN'S CONFERENCE , JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assesse are allowed

ITA 230/RAN/2017[11-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi29 Nov 2018

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Devesh Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri A.K.Mohanty, JCIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 215Section 271(1)(c)

Section 2(15) of the IT. Act, 1961, and accordingly the exemption as claimed by the assessee u/ s 11 of the act was disallowed

ITO WARD-1(40, JSR vs. M/S ANAND VIHAR CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD, JSR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross

ITA 335/RAN/2017[14-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi28 Nov 2018

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2014-2015 Ito, Ward-1(4), Jamshedpur Vs M/S Anand Vihar Construction Pvt. Ltd., 12A, Rajendra Nagar, Near Durga Puja Maidan, Sakchi, Jamshedpur- 831001 Pan No. : Aaacc 7476 R Respondent (Appellant) .. & Co No.02/Ran/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-2015 M/S Anand Vihar Construction Vs Ito, Ward-1(4), Pvt. Ltd., Jamshedpur 12A, Rajendra Nagar, Near Durga Puja Maidan, Sakchi, Jamshedpur-831001 Pan No. : Aaacc 7476 R Respondent (Appellant) .. Revenue By Shri A.K.Mohanty,Jcit(Jr. Dr) Assessee By Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv. Date Of Hearing : 27.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2018

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40

section 194C does not attract in this case and therefore consequential disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) is also not attracted. And CO No.02/Ran/2018 Therefore disallowance made for Rs. 2,15

JUSCO EDUCATION MISSION FOUNDATION ,JAMSHEDPUR vs. DCIT EXEMPTION CIRCLE , RANCHI

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2/RAN/2018[14-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi30 May 2025

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 144ASection 2(15)Section 234B

15) read with section 12A/12AA of the Act. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer added a sum of ₹ 1,71,97,154/- in the total income of the assessee. 3. Aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, the appellant-society filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) vide its impugned order, though, accepted the status of the appellant

NEPAL CHANDRA DEY,RANCHI vs. ASSITANT /DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, RANCHI, RANCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 63/RAN/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi15 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No.63/Ran/2022 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Nepal Chandra Dey.……....…...………………......................……...…..….. Appellant 58, Tatisilwai, Gandhi Nagar, Ranchi – 835103. [Pan: Agrpd0835D] Vs. Acit/Dcit, Circle-1, Ranchi.…..…..………..…….……….…………….. Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Pranob Kumar Koley, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 02, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 15, 2023 Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 15.06.2022 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’).

Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

disallowance after giving opportunity to the assessee to rebut the same. 15. We have come across of the another decision of the Coordinate ‘Chennai Bench’ of the Tribunal passed in bunch of appeals with the title case of “M/s Electrical India vs. ADIT, CPC” in ITA No.789/Chny/2022 and Ors vide order dated 04.11.2022, wherein, on the identical issue

JAMIPOL LTD,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ACIT, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, both the appeals of assessee being ITA Nos

ITA 68/RAN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi01 Mar 2018AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Ranjan Mittal, Advocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: S/Shri Sanjay Prasad, CIT(A), ld.Sr.DR
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 37(2)

15% of Rs.3,29,53,000/-. The CIT-A confirmed the addition made by the AO. 31. Before us the ld.AR referred to written submission and argued that the confirmation of addition by the CIT-A is unjustified, arbitrary and liable to be deleted and further submitted that the various Hon’ble High Courts and Tribunals held against adhoc disallowances

SHRI NAVNEET MODI,RANCHI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2, RANCHI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 106/RAN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi30 Oct 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.106/Ran/2019 & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.53/Ran/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2015-2016 & 2013-2014) Shri Navneet Modi, Vs. Dcit, Circle-2, Ranchi Modi House, Kanke Dam Side Road, Kanke, Ranchi स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan No. : Actpm 1511 F (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Inderjeet Singh, Cit(Dr)

For Appellant: Shri Devesh Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Inderjeet Singh, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

15 cessation of liability for the purpose of section 41(1) means irrevocable cessation so that there is no possibility of the liability being revived in future. If there is such a possibility, then the cessation is not complete and section 41 (1) is not attracted. In the case of Shri Vardhman Overseas Ltd. vs. Asstt

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

disallowed under Section 37 read with section 40A(2b) of the Act on estimate basis being 20% of the expenditure claimed. The Ld. AR, then placed reliance on the decision made by Hon'ble ITAT Cuttack Bench in the case of M/s Ravi Metallics Ltd Vs PCIT Sambalpur in ITA No. 34/CTK/2021 dated 30/05/2022, wherein it was held as under

MUSKAN HOSPITAL &RSEARVH CENTRE ,BOKARO vs. DCIT CIRCLE-3 , BOKARO

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 241/RAN/2017[14-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi26 Nov 2018

Bench: Shri N.S Sainiassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Nitin PaSARI, AdvFor Respondent: Shri A.K.Mohanty, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

disallowed under section 43B or under section 36(1)(va) - Whether SLP against said impugned order was to be dismissed - Held, yes [Para 2] [In favour of assessee]” 8. Respectfully following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan State Beverages Corporation Ltd. (supra), I set aside the orders of lower authorities and delete the addition

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)

Section 37(1) and deleting the disallowance of ₹ 20,36,75,000/- claimed as demurrage charges u/s 37(1) of the IT Act, 1961. (iii) That the applicant craves, leave to add, alter, delete and modify the grounds of appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT." 16. During the course of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative of the assessee has reiterated

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)

Section 37(1) and deleting the disallowance of ₹ 20,36,75,000/- claimed as demurrage charges u/s 37(1) of the IT Act, 1961. (iii) That the applicant craves, leave to add, alter, delete and modify the grounds of appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT." 16. During the course of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative of the assessee has reiterated

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

disallowance as made by the AO is deleted in its entirety. Consequently, additional grounds No.1.4 and 1.5 of the assessee stand allowed. 8. Coming to additional Ground No.1.6, same is against interest under section 244A of the Act. No arguments have been placed. Ground No.1.7 is against interest under section 234 B and 234D, theseare consequential in nature. Consequently, additional

JAISWAL STEEL INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ITO WARD 2(1), JAMSHEDPUR

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

ITA 284/RAN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi19 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.284/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Jaiswal Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd. ….…….…............................……….……Appellant Dropadi Bhawan, Station Road, Jugsalai, Jharkhand- 831006. [Pan: Aabcj4471C] Vs. Ito, Ward-2(1), Jamshedpur.….....…..…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Akshay Ringasia, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sumit Dasgupta, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 15, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 19, 2026 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”) Dated 02.04.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”).

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 69Section 69A

15, 2026 Date of pronouncing the order : January 19, 2026 ORDER Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”) dated 02.04.2024 passed under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). 2. Brief facts

ACIT, EXEMPTION CIRCLE, RANCHI vs. M/S. R.V.S. EDUCATIONAL TRUST, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 24/RAN/2020[16-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi21 May 2025

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Am (Through : Hybrid Mode) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.24/Ran/2020 (Ǔ""ȡ[""""[/ A.Y. :2016-2017) Acit, Exemption Circle, Ranchi Vs. M/S Rvs Educational Trust, C/O Binda Apartments (India) Private Limited, Siroman Nagar, Dimna Road, Mango, Jamshedpur-831012 ̾Ĉĭēıĕĸù Ĭĝń/Pan No. : Aaatr4456M (\ "Ȣ"ȡ"ȸ/Appellant) (Ĥ×""ȸ/ Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Shikesh Jha, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shiv Swaroop Singh, CIT-DR
Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 143(3)

section 11 and 12 of the said Act. (ii) Disallowance of Capital Expenditure of Rs.4,39,31,322/- (a) That the assesse trust has made capital expenditure for different units during the year which are as under:- R.V.S. College of Engineering & Technology Rs.2,48,23,302/- R.V.S. International School Rs.1,15

SHRI VINSHNU KUMAR JALAN,RANCHI vs. ACIT CIR-3, RANCHI

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

ITA 98/RAN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi21 May 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year: 2013-2014

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Poddar/Devesh Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Mondal, JCIT
Section 194(6)Section 194CSection 40

15. Freight to North Bihar 19.3.13 34,240/- Roadways Total: 4,84,980/- 4. The Assessing Officer observed that said amount could be allowed as deduction in absence of TDS only if the assessee had furnished Form 15J to the department within time. Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act calls for disallowance

ACIT CIR-2(1), JSR vs. KESHAVJI CHHAGANLAL JEWELLERS PVT LTD , JSR

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 195/RAN/2018[15-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi20 Mar 2019

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.)

For Respondent: Shri P.K. Mondal, JCIT/ld.DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 40Section 40A(2)(a)Section 40A(2)(b)

15% interest on unsecured loan of Rs.1,79,93,474/-, which was disallowed by AO on the ground of excess payment of interest over 12% of Rs.35,98,695/- u/s. 40A(2)(b) of the I.T Act 1961 given on the unsecured loans by the assessee? As per Section

M/S NEW PUNJAB MOTOR TRANSPORT ,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ITO WARD-1(2), JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, appeal of the assesse is partly allowed for

ITA 315/RAN/2017[12-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi16 Nov 2018

Bench: Shri N.S Sainiassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Devesh Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri A.K.Mohanty, JCIT
Section 194CSection 40

disallowed interest payment of Rs.4,36,006/- paid to M/s. SREI Equipments Finance Pvt Ltd., and M/s. Tata Capital Ltd., for non-deduction of TDS u/s.194C of the Act by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, which was confirmed in appeal by the CIT(A). 15

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

section 142(1) of the Act, dated 20.06.2016, which were furnished by the assessee during the original assessment proceedings, the copy of notice u/s 142(1) of the Act is reproduced below for ready reference: “Sub: Income Tax assessment in your case AY 2012-13 notice u/s 142(1) reg. Following details / explanations / clarifications may be furnished on or before

SRI ANAND KUMAR DHANUKA ,RANCHI vs. ITO WARD-1(1), RANCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 163/RAN/2018[11-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi31 Jul 2020

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.163/Ran/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Devesh Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Indrajit Singh, CIT DR
Section 10Section 22Section 263Section 54Section 54F

disallowing the impugned deduction claim for the sole reason that the assessee had not reinvested the impugned long term capital gains in his own name but in the name of his wife. The lower appellate discussion to this effect reads as under: [5.9] Section 54 refers to the assessee being an individual or a Hindu undivided family. Importantly, both