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.

13 results for “disallowance”+ Section 275clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi699Mumbai619Ahmedabad174Bangalore163Chennai158Jaipur135Kolkata131Cochin115Chandigarh80Hyderabad59Surat50Pune44Indore42Raipur33Cuttack25Karnataka20Lucknow19Amritsar19Nagpur17Rajkot15Ranchi13Jodhpur11Visakhapatnam11Guwahati10Calcutta5Telangana5Jabalpur4Panaji4Allahabad3Agra3Varanasi3SC2Patna2Rajasthan1Dehradun1

Key Topics

Section 271C24Section 271(1)(c)12Disallowance10Addition to Income9Penalty9Section 143(3)6Section 194A6Section 2016Section 2756Section 271

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

275 Taxman 408 (Karnataka) [16-09-2020] wherein it was held that inadequacy of enquiry conducted by the Assessing Officer wherein the assessee has filed all the ITA 27/Ran/2024 Devprabha Construction P Ltd. Vs PCIT details as required by the Assessing Officer, the Commissioner could not have set aside the assessment order merely on the ground of inadequacy of enquiry

M/S. BHARAT COKING COAL LIMITED,,DHANBAD vs. JCIT, TDS CIRCLE,, DHANBAD

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

6
Section 2746
Search & Seizure6
ITA 76/RAN/2024[09-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi29 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 194ASection 201Section 271CSection 273BSection 40

disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia). At that time there was no intention of the department to start proceeding u/s 201 or u/s 271C. This also shows the bonafide and reasonable action on the part of the assessee. e) That whatsoever, later on after filing of the return for AY 2014-15, adding back the aforesaid provision of interest, as cessation

M/S. BHARAT COKING COAL LIMITED,DHANBAD vs. JCIT TDS, DHANBAD

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

ITA 77/RAN/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi29 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 194ASection 201Section 271CSection 273BSection 40

disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia). At that time there was no intention of the department to start proceeding u/s 201 or u/s 271C. This also shows the bonafide and reasonable action on the part of the assessee. e) That whatsoever, later on after filing of the return for AY 2014-15, adding back the aforesaid provision of interest, as cessation

M/S. BHARAT COKING COAL LIMITED,DHANBAD vs. JT. CIT, TDS,, DHANBAD

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

ITA 75/RAN/2024[08-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi29 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 194ASection 201Section 271CSection 273BSection 40

disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia). At that time there was no intention of the department to start proceeding u/s 201 or u/s 271C. This also shows the bonafide and reasonable action on the part of the assessee. e) That whatsoever, later on after filing of the return for AY 2014-15, adding back the aforesaid provision of interest, as cessation

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)

section 234B and 234C interest disallowance of Rs.3,31,596/- and Rs.3,97,096/-; respectively. The Revenue’s case in tune with the lower authorities’ discussion is that such interest expenses are not allowable for business expenses. This tribunal’s coordinate bench’s decision in Bihar Foundry and Casting Ltd. vs. DCIT ITA No.112/Ran/2015 dated 16.09.2016 has declined Revenue

NEERAJ KUMAR SINHA,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ITO WARD-1(1), JAMSHEDPUR

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

ITA 291/RAN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi08 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayneeraj Kumar Sinha, I.T.O., Prop.-M/S Neeraj Engineering, Chota Ward-1(1), Vs. Ghamaria, Saraikela-Kharsawan, Jamshedpur. Jamshedpur-832108 (Jharkhand) Pan No. Bopps 2885 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 154

disallowances of the PF and ESI. It was a submission that the issue is now squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services Private Limited Vs CIT reported in (2022) 143 taxmann.com 178 (SC). 5. A perusal of the written submission filed by the assessee shows that the assessee's claim

M/S BHARAT COKING COAL LTD ,DHANBAD vs. ACIT CIR-1 , DHANBAD

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 124/RAN/2018[09-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 275

section 275 since appeal filed for quantum was pending before Hon'ble ITAT for hearing. U. A.O. Imposed penalty without considering merits of the addition. 2. For that Ld. A.O. initiated penalty proceeding as per assessment order which states that - "that the penalty proceeding U/s 271 (1) (C) initiated". In the notice BCCL Vs ACIT & ors 5 appeals of penalty

M/S BHARAT COKING COAL LTD ,DHANBAD vs. ACIT CIR-1 , DHANBAD

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 128/RAN/2018[12-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 275

section 275 since appeal filed for quantum was pending before Hon'ble ITAT for hearing. U. A.O. Imposed penalty without considering merits of the addition. 2. For that Ld. A.O. initiated penalty proceeding as per assessment order which states that - "that the penalty proceeding U/s 271 (1) (C) initiated". In the notice BCCL Vs ACIT & ors 5 appeals of penalty

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

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 125/RAN/2018[10-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 275

section 275 since appeal filed for quantum was pending before Hon'ble ITAT for hearing. U. A.O. Imposed penalty without considering merits of the addition. 2. For that Ld. A.O. initiated penalty proceeding as per assessment order which states that - "that the penalty proceeding U/s 271 (1) (C) initiated". In the notice BCCL Vs ACIT & ors 5 appeals of penalty

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

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 122/RAN/2018[08-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 275

section 275 since appeal filed for quantum was pending before Hon'ble ITAT for hearing. U. A.O. Imposed penalty without considering merits of the addition. 2. For that Ld. A.O. initiated penalty proceeding as per assessment order which states that - "that the penalty proceeding U/s 271 (1) (C) initiated". In the notice BCCL Vs ACIT & ors 5 appeals of penalty

M/S BHARAT COKING COAL LTD ,DHANBAD vs. ACIT CIR-1 , DHANBAD

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 121/RAN/2018[07-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 275

section 275 since appeal filed for quantum was pending before Hon'ble ITAT for hearing. U. A.O. Imposed penalty without considering merits of the addition. 2. For that Ld. A.O. initiated penalty proceeding as per assessment order which states that - "that the penalty proceeding U/s 271 (1) (C) initiated". In the notice BCCL Vs ACIT & ors 5 appeals of penalty

M/S BHARAT COOKING COAL LTD ,DHANBAD vs. ACIT CIR-1, DHANBAD

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 127/RAN/2018[11-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 275

section 275 since appeal filed for quantum was pending before Hon'ble ITAT for hearing. U. A.O. Imposed penalty without considering merits of the addition. 2. For that Ld. A.O. initiated penalty proceeding as per assessment order which states that - "that the penalty proceeding U/s 271 (1) (C) initiated". In the notice BCCL Vs ACIT & ors 5 appeals of penalty

DCIT CIRCLE-3 vs. SURJIT MUKHERJEE, RANCHI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 61/RAN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi26 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2012-2013 Dcit, Circle-3, Ranchi Vs Surjit Mukherjee 73, North Office Para, Doranda, Ranchi-834002 Pan/Gir No. : Abgpm 4839 C (Appellant) .. Respondent Revenue By : Shri A.K.Mohanty, Jcit(Jr. Dr) Assessee By : Shri P.C.Paul, Ca Date Of Hearing : 22.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.11.2018 O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed This Appeal Against The Order Of Cit(A)

For Appellant: Shri P.C.Paul, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.K.Mohanty, JCIT(Jr. DR)
Section 143(3)Section 260A

275 ITR 30 (Guj.), it was observed that, "the provision, therefore, specifically provides that the choice of method of accounting lies with the assessee, the only caveat being that it has to show that the chosen method has been regularly followed. The section is couched in mandatory terms and the Department is bound to accept the assessee's choice