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.

12 results for “disallowance”+ Section 263clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,497Delhi1,623Kolkata1,087Bangalore832Chennai735Ahmedabad398Pune300Jaipur222Hyderabad217Rajkot177Chandigarh163Indore161Surat156Raipur152Karnataka87Visakhapatnam79Cochin63Cuttack62Lucknow62Panaji60Calcutta57Nagpur57Jodhpur40Amritsar38Agra28Patna28Telangana27Allahabad25Guwahati23Jabalpur13Ranchi12SC11Dehradun10Punjab & Haryana4Kerala4Varanasi4Orissa2Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 26339Section 143(3)18Section 142(1)7Section 43B7Addition to Income7Disallowance6Section 405Section 36(1)(va)5Section 364Deduction

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

section 263 dated 28/03/2025 and no addition was made except some expenditure was disallowed under Section 37 read with section

SANJAY CHAWLA,CHAIBASA vs. PR. CIT, RANCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

4
Section 2503
TDS3
ITA 135/RAN/2025[20-21]Status: Disposed
ITAT Ranchi
07 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

Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, can be exercised by the Commissioner of Income Tax, but by going into the merits and making an addition, and not by way of a remand, recording that there was failure to investigate. There is a distinction between the failure or absence of investigation and a wrong decision/conclusion. A wrong decision/conclusion

ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY,DHANBAD vs. PR. CIT, DHANBAD

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 11/RAN/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi24 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

disallowance made, no tax is payable on the same and that is why the same is not prejudicial to the interest of revenue, thus in the present case, the twin conditions as required under Section 263

M/S CENTRAL COALFIELDS LTD..,RANCHI vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, , RANCHI

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

ITA 57/RAN/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi30 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

section 263 is that the ld. Assessing Officer failed to disallow an amount of Rs.8.51 crore, which represents employees contribution

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

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

M/S PINNACLE CAPITAL SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,RANCHI vs. PCIT, RANCHI, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, 5, MAIN ROAD, RANCHI-834004

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 130/RAN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaym/S Pinnacle Capital Solutions (P) Ltd., P.C.I.T., Virdi Niwas, Jamshedpur, East Ranchi. Vs. Singhbhum, Jharkhand-831001. Pan No. Aaacp 9726 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(2)

disallowed while passing the order under Section 143(3) of the Act. Since the Assessing Officer has failed to do so, the said omission resulted in short computation of income of Rs. 2,00,93,041 and consequential tax effect of Rs. 65,42,767/-. 4. Aggrieved by the order passed by the ld. PCIT under Section 263

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

263 of the Act vide its order dated 23/03/2018. During the consequential assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee has made payment of ₹ 3.00 lacs to one Sri Sudhanshu Ojha but no TDS under Section 194C of the Act was deducted. The Assessing Officer, therefore, disallowed

BKB TRANSPORT PRIVATE LIMITED,RANCHI vs. PCIT, RANCHI, RANCHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 24/RAN/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi09 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri R.R.Mittal, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Rinku Singh, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

disallow the PF and ESIC in respect of the delayed payment. It was the submission that admittedly, as on today, there is a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd., vs CIT (2022), 448 ITR 518, It was the submission that the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Courtin the case of Checkmate

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)

Section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 wherein the Assessing Officer took the stand that Rajshila Nirman Pvt. Ltd. was not existent at the given address and Rajshila Nirman Pvt. Ltd. did not have the machinery/excavation machinery to carryout the development of mining area. It was a submission that consequently the Assessing Officer disallowed

JITENDRA KUMAR SINGH,JAMSHEDPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 64/RAN/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi27 Jul 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 139Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

263/- on the ground that employees contribution to employees provident fund (EPF) and ESI fund has been deposited beyond the due date applicable under the provision of ESI Act, 1948 and EPF Act by invoking the provision of Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. Aggrieved by this disallowance

JITENDRA KUMAR SINGH,JAMSHEDPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 65/RAN/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi27 Jul 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 139Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

263/- on the ground that employees contribution to employees provident fund (EPF) and ESI fund has been deposited beyond the due date applicable under the provision of ESI Act, 1948 and EPF Act by invoking the provision of Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. Aggrieved by this disallowance

THE SINGHBHUM DISTRICT CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK,CHAIBASA vs. ACIT, NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 177/RAN/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi30 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.177/Ran/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Singhbhum District Central Cooperative Bank, Chaibasa...……….……Appellant Represented By Jsbs, Madhubazar, Chaibasa, Jharkhand – 833201. [Pan: Aaajt2036K] Vs. Acit, Nfac, Delhi……….............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Md. Shadab Ahmed, Sr. Cit, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 26, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 30, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 13.06.2023 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 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 292BSection 36(1)(vi)Section 80P

disallowing claim of deduction of Rs.5,15,43,257/- u/s 80P of the Act. On examination of assessment record, it was observed that the assessee made provision of Rs.11,46,24,925/- for bad & doubtful debts against non-performing assets in P & L A/c. As per provision of section 36(1)(vi) of the Act, the assessee is eligible