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.

4 results for “disallowance”+ Section 193clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai898Delhi854Kolkata284Bangalore201Ahmedabad191Jaipur156Chennai154Pune111Hyderabad102Indore76Chandigarh74Surat66Amritsar59Cuttack44Cochin42Raipur36Lucknow34Visakhapatnam25Telangana25Rajkot17Guwahati16Nagpur15Karnataka12Agra11SC10Kerala7Allahabad6Ranchi4Calcutta3Dehradun2Panaji2Rajasthan2Varanasi2ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Punjab & Haryana1Jabalpur1Patna1Jodhpur1Orissa1

Key Topics

Section 548Section 143(1)(a)5Section 1485Section 113Disallowance3Addition to Income3Section 143(1)2Section 148A2Exemption2Business Income

SHREE SREE BALANANDA TRUST,DEOGHAR vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD,, DHANBAD

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 16/RAN/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi04 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryshree Sree Balananda Trust, I.T.O., Sri Sri Balananda Ashram, Karinabad, Exemption Ward, Vs. Deoghar, Dist.- Deoghar, Dhanbad. Jharkhand-841112 Pan No. Aabts 0579 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 11Section 13(9)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 154

193 ITR 95, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that as per the provisions of Section 143(1)(a) of the Act the Assessing Officer could allow or disallow

2

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

disallowed related business expenses. Such issues were never part of the show cause notice issued under section 148A(b) of the Act. It was contended that the Assessing Officer had clearly travelled beyond the scope of jurisdiction conferred by the notice under section 148A(b), and therefore, no addition or reclassification could have been made on issues which were

M/S JOKHIRAM DURGADUTT,RANCHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1 , RNC

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 47/RAN/2018[14-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi30 Aug 2019

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.47/Ran/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Jokhiram Durgadutt, Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Ranchi Sarawgi House, J.J.Road, Upper Bazar, Ranchi-834001 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aabfj 2200 Q (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. निर्धाऩिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.S.Paul, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.K.Mondal, Addl.Cit(Dr)

For Appellant: Shri P.S.Paul, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Mondal, Addl.CIT(DR)

193 ITR 321. Now, coming to the issue of rent receipt treated by the Assessing Officer as business receipts instead of House Property income and thereby disallowing 30% of standard deduction, the CIT(A) relying on the various judicial decisions has observed as under :- “[8.22 Keeping the above principles in mind, the facts as stated by the appellant need

DR. JAYA NARAYAN NAIK vs. THE JOINT C.I.T.,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 250/RAN/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi30 Oct 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2010-2011

For Appellant: Shri Taraknath Jaiswal Adv & Akshaya Ringasia, AdvFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Mondal, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 54

section 37(1) of the Act clearly provide that the business expenditure or personal expenses are inadmissible in providing freebees to medical practitioner by Pharmaceutical and allied health sector industry. He also referred to CBDT Circular No.4/.2012 dated 1.8.2012. Lastly, ld D.R. submitted that the claim may kindly be dismissed. 11. On careful consideration of rival submissions