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.

7 results for “disallowance”+ Section 234Cclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,221Delhi847Bangalore572Ahmedabad269Kolkata158Jaipur139Pune133Hyderabad116Chennai116Nagpur53Indore51Surat35Raipur32Rajkot29Allahabad28Agra27Chandigarh23Lucknow22Karnataka14Jodhpur14Visakhapatnam14Dehradun10Amritsar10Ranchi7Cuttack6Cochin4Patna4SC3Jabalpur2Telangana2Calcutta1Punjab & Haryana1Guwahati1Panaji1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)9Section 1486Section 1475Addition to Income5Section 234C4Section 37(1)4Section 142(1)3Deduction3Disallowance3Section 54

SRI SAURABH TIWARY,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ACIT CIR-3 , JAMSHEDPUR

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 350/RAN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi16 Jul 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Assessment Year:2013-14 बनाम Sauravh Tiwary Acit, Circle-3, Jamshedpur / Banglow No.9999/287, Vijaya V/S. Garden, 5Th Phase, Baridih, Jamshedpur-831017. Pan No.Agfpt6115J अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent ..

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 234CSection 37(1)

disallowance of Rs.81,000/-. 4. Lastly comes section 234B and 234C interest disallowance of Rs.3,31,596/- and Rs.3,97,096/-; respectively

JAMIPOL LTD,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ACIT, JAMSHEDPUR

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

2
Section 234B2
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)

disallowance can be made on adhoc basis, which is not at all maintainable in the eye of law. Therefore, ground no.1 relating to addition of Rs. 49,42,950/- on account of Other expenses, Traveling expenses, Advertisement, Promotion & Selling of expenses made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT-A is deleted. 34. Ground no. 2 relating to confirmation

TATA CUMMINS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE DCIT CIRCLE-1-JAMSHEDPUR AND THE ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT, NFAC, DELHI, JAMSHEDPUR

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

ITA 430/RAN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi12 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaytata Cummins Private Limited, D.C.I.T., Cummins India Office, Tower-A, 7Th Circle-1, Vs. Floor, Survey No. 21, Balewadi, Pune, Jamshedpur. Maharashtra. Pan No. Aaact 6353 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

disallowed by the Assessing Officer stands deleted. 16 Tata Cummins Vs DCIT 6. Grounds No. 5, 6 and 7 of the appeal are consequential in nature in regard to levy of interest under Section 234A, 234B and 234C

SUNITA ADUKIA,RANCHI vs. DCIT CIR-2, RANCHI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 15/RAN/2018[13-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi30 Oct 2019

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Mohan Gargassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Ranjan Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Mondal, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 54

disallowing the deduction u/s 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 from the long term capital gain so determined in the assessment order and misinterpreted the provision of income tax act as stipulated in section 54. (x) For that the learned Assessing Officer was not justified in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C

OM PRAAKSH SINGH,RANCHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 361/RAN/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi10 Sept 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Om Prakash Singh Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Ranchi Sankalp, East Jail Road, Ranchi- 834001. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Agkps0300D (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""थ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Manjit Verma, A/RFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Mohanti, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234CSection 263Section 37(1)

234C wrongly imposed (detail point no.9) Rs.8,13,036/- 3. Brief facts qua the issue are that assessee under consideration is a Contractor and owns a proprietorship concern in the name of M/s Prakash Construction Company.In this case, the original assessment was made by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Act on 19.12.2011..Thereafter the Assessing Officer issued

SANJEEV SABLOK,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ITO WD-1(4), JSR

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

ITA 147/RAN/2018[10-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi29 Aug 2019

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.147/Ran/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Sanjeev Sablok, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(4), 4, I.C.Road, Circuit House Area Jamshedpur Bistupur, Jamshedpur-831001 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Adkps 4050 M (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. निर्धाऩिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri M.K.Choudhary, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.K.Mondal, Addl.Cit(Dr)

For Appellant: Shri M.K.Choudhary, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Mondal, Addl.CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 234A(3)Section 44ASection 80C

disallowance made on hearsay grounds is unjustified and illegal. 4. For that the interest U/s 234A and 234B should be charged on returned income and not on assessed income following the decision of Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court. In any view the same could have been charged u/s 234A(3) and 234B(3) only. 5. For that other grounds

M/S CHURCH SCHOOL,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ACIT, JAMSHEPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee being ITA No

ITA 103/RAN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi16 May 2018AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Anshul Ringasia, Advocate, ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mondal, JCIT, ld.Sr.DR
Section 10(23)(c)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 234B

234C of the Act. 5. Aggrieved by such order of AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT-A, who deleted the addition made on account of depreciation and sustained the additions made on account of income over expenditure and donation. 6. Being not satisfied with the order of the CIT-A, now the assessee and the revenue both