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.

17 results for “disallowance”+ Section 94(4)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai3,509Delhi2,829Bangalore1,016Chennai835Ahmedabad791Kolkata741Hyderabad495Jaipur475Pune455Indore330Surat288Chandigarh241Cochin154Visakhapatnam142Raipur134Rajkot112Cuttack102Lucknow80Amritsar62Nagpur55Guwahati45Calcutta42Karnataka42Allahabad40Agra31Telangana28Jodhpur27Patna23Panaji22Dehradun21SC17Ranchi17Jabalpur14Varanasi6Punjab & Haryana4Kerala3Rajasthan2Gauhati1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Orissa1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)24Section 143(1)16Section 143(3)14Section 1010Section 153A10Section 26310Section 10(27)10Section 54F9Addition to Income9Deduction

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)

94,57,76,454 16,91,23,914 4,27,873 0 No disallowance 2009-10 1,09,55,91,905 15,00,26,314 3,60,151 0 No disallowance 2010-11 1,35,05,13,693 19,01,57,253 3,75,809 0 No disallowance 2011-12 1,35,66,57,068 19,12,07,659 4

M/S MANIKARAN POWER LTD,RANCHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, RANCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

7
Disallowance7
Exemption5
ITA 471/RAN/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi08 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayit(Ss)A No. 01/Ran/2025 (Assessment Year: 2022-23) A.C.I.T., Manikaran Power Limited, Central Circle-2, Manikaran Tower, Kilburn Colony, Vs. Ranchi. P.O. Hinoo, Ranchi-834002 (Jharkhand) J.C.I.T. (In Situ), Pan No. Aaecm 4555 F Ranchi. Revenue/ Appellant Respondent/ Assessee Manikaran Power Limited, A.C.I.T., Manikaran Tower, Kilburn Colony, Central Circle-2, Vs. P.O. Hinoo, Ranchi-834002 Ranchi. (Jharkhand) Pan No. Aaecm 4555 F Revenue/ Appellant Respondent/ Assessee

4 | 10 IT(SS)A 01/Ran/2025 & ITA 471/Ran/2025 JCIT Vs. Manikaran Power Ltd. 35,77,52,226/- as bogus purchases. It was a submission that the Assessing Officer had also made the disallowance by invoking the provisions of Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) wherein it was stated that these were the payments made

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

94,55,000/-, M/s Dev Multicom Pvt Ltd has disclosed a turnover of Rs. 6,50,05,714/-. (Audited account of M/s Dev Multicom Pvt Ltd is at Page 131 - 140 of the paper book.) Moreover Form 26A of M/s Dev Multicom Pvt Ltd was also in on record with the AO as stated above. d) That similar

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

94, the Apex Court's following declaration supports the view we have taken based upon the principle of interpretation of revenue/taxation status : - "39. When a case of obvious intent on the part of the Legislature is made out, a meaning which subserves the legislative intent must be given effect to. It is however also well known that when a word

JOKHIRAM DURGADUTT,RANCHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 400/RAN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayjokhiram Durgadutt, D.C.I.T., 9, J.D. Corporate, Behind J.D. High Circle-1, Vs. Street, Main Road, Ranchi-834001 Ranchi. (Jharkhand) Pan No. Aabfj 2200 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

94,38,209/- Income from gaming zone amounting ITA 400/Ran/2024 Jokhiram Durgadutt Vs DCIT to Rs. 25,45,651/-. Receipt from advertisement space amounting to Rs. 2,33,500/-, receipts from events amounting to Rs. 5,70,000/-, total amount comes to Rs. 2,27,87,360/-. From the above facts, the Assessing Officer held that the above receipts aggregating

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMSHEDPUR vs. M/S SURAJ SOLUTION PVT LTD, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, both appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the

ITA 72/RAN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi29 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

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

Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

disallowed Clinker handling expenses of Rs. 94,62,598/- on the ground that the expenditure on this account is nothing but the accommodation entry for the purposes of inflation of expenses to reduce the taxable income of the appellant. In coming to this conclusion, the AO has referred to the search operation in the case of one Sri Praveen Aggrawal

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE , JAMSHEDPUR vs. M/S SURAJ SOLUTIONS PVT LTD , JAMSHDPUR

In the result, both appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the

ITA 184/RAN/2017[11-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi29 Nov 2018

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

Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

disallowed Clinker handling expenses of Rs. 94,62,598/- on the ground that the expenditure on this account is nothing but the accommodation entry for the purposes of inflation of expenses to reduce the taxable income of the appellant. In coming to this conclusion, the AO has referred to the search operation in the case of one Sri Praveen Aggrawal

ST PATRICKS EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,GUMLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER W3(1), RANCHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 70/RAN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi26 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan(Through Hybrid Mode) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.70/Ran/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2018-2019) St Patricks Educational Vs. Ito, Ward-3(1), Ranchi Society, Sisai Road, Gumla, Jharkhand-835207 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aakas 7872 B (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Naveen Dokania, CAFor Respondent: Shri Khubchand T Pandya, Sr
Section 10Section 12ASection 139Section 139(1)Section 148

4. Ld. AR drew my attention to the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal Jaipur Bench in the case of Institute Management Committee ITI Jhalawar, in ITA No.39 & 41 /JP/2025 for A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15, order dated 05.05.2025, wherein, the Co-ordinate Bench has held as follows: ‘”11. We have heard the rival contentions and perused

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)

section 148 of the Act was issued to assessee on 31.12.2016. In the assessee`s case the relevant assessment year is 2009-10, therefore the assessee`s case was reopened after the expiry of 4 Years from the end of the relevant assessment year. The settled position of law is that if an assessment for any year has been completed

M/S JHARKHAND STATE CO-OPERATIVE LAC MARKETING & PROCUREMENT FED.LTD.,RANCHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3, RANCHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue i

ITA 199/RAN/2017[12-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi29 Nov 2018

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2011-2012 Dcit, Cirlce-1, Ranchi Vs M/S The Jharkhand State Co-Operative Lac Marketing & Procurement Fed. Ltd. Jhascolampf Building Purulia Road, Bharatpuri, Ranchi-834001 Pan No. : Aaacc 7476 R Respondent (Appellant) .. & Assessment Year : 2012-2013 M/S The Jharkhand State Co- Vs Dcit, Cirlce-3, Ranchi Operative Lac Marketing & Procurement Fed. Ltd. Jhascolampf Building Purulia Road, Bharatpuri, Ranchi-834001 Pan No. : Aaacc 7476 R Respondent (Appellant) .. Revenue By Shri A.K.Mohanty,Jcit(Jr. Dr) Assessee By Shri Nitin Pasari, Adv. Date Of Hearing : 27.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.11.2018

Section 10(27)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

94,300/- vide intimation u/s.143(1) of the Act, dated 30.03.2013. 4. Aggrieved by the demand raised by the AO, assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). In the appellate proceedings, the AR of the assessee appeared and argued the grounds and reiterated the submissions made before the AO. The CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee

DCIT CIR-1, RANCHI vs. M/S JHARKHAND STATE CO-OPERATIVE LAC MARKETING AND PROCUREMENT FEDRATION LTD., RANCHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue i

ITA 236/RAN/2017[11-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi29 Nov 2018

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2011-2012 Dcit, Cirlce-1, Ranchi Vs M/S The Jharkhand State Co-Operative Lac Marketing & Procurement Fed. Ltd. Jhascolampf Building Purulia Road, Bharatpuri, Ranchi-834001 Pan No. : Aaacc 7476 R Respondent (Appellant) .. & Assessment Year : 2012-2013 M/S The Jharkhand State Co- Vs Dcit, Cirlce-3, Ranchi Operative Lac Marketing & Procurement Fed. Ltd. Jhascolampf Building Purulia Road, Bharatpuri, Ranchi-834001 Pan No. : Aaacc 7476 R Respondent (Appellant) .. Revenue By Shri A.K.Mohanty,Jcit(Jr. Dr) Assessee By Shri Nitin Pasari, Adv. Date Of Hearing : 27.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.11.2018

Section 10(27)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

94,300/- vide intimation u/s.143(1) of the Act, dated 30.03.2013. 4. Aggrieved by the demand raised by the AO, assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). In the appellate proceedings, the AR of the assessee appeared and argued the grounds and reiterated the submissions made before the AO. The CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee

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

Section 263 of the Act on the ground that the Assessing Officer failed to enquire into the expenses claimed by the assessee regarding major expenses claimed in the books to arrive at the correct assessment of the income of the assessee with 3 Ashok Kr. Pandey Vs PCIT regard to (i) real estate business with high closing stock, (ii) enquiries

PADAM KUMAR JAIN,RANCHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and copy of common order passed is to be placed on respective case files

ITA 16/RAN/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi17 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274Section 80G

section 271(1)(c) penalty proceedings had been initiated, i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 4. For that ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming penalty on alleged addition of Rs. 54,00,000/- as undisclosed income of the appellant. It is admitted fact the addition related to the expenditure

PADAM KUMAR JAIN,RANCHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and copy of common order passed is to be placed on respective case files

ITA 17/RAN/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi17 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274Section 80G

section 271(1)(c) penalty proceedings had been initiated, i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 4. For that ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming penalty on alleged addition of Rs. 54,00,000/- as undisclosed income of the appellant. It is admitted fact the addition related to the expenditure

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)

94 to 96/Kol/2018 vide an order dated 28/02/2020 had held that the expenditure in respect of payment of Rajshila Nirman Pvt. Ltd. was an allowable expenditure. In the decision of the Coordinate Bench, the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal Kolkata Benches in para 26 at pages 35 to 38 of its order has held as follows: "26. Next comes disallowance

NISHA SARAWGI,RANCHI vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-2, RANCHI

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 137/RAN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi21 Feb 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 2(47)(iii)Section 45(2)Section 54ESection 54F

94,982/- in assessment as upheld in the lower appellate proceedings. The assessee ITA No.137/Ran/2019 A.Y. 2015-16 Nisha Sarawgi Vs. ACIT Cir-2, Ranchi Page 2 had converted the alleged capital asset as stock-in-trade in the year 2012. i.e.09.01.2012 as per Assessing Officer and 29.11.2012 as per the taxpayer she sold the same on 21.05.2014 relevant

MANU KUMAR SHAHI,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ITO WARD-2(3), JAMSHEDPUR

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

ITA 8/RAN/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi28 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No.8/Ran/2022 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Manu Kumar Shahi…….…..…………..…...…......................……...…..….. Appellant 94, East Plant Basti, Burmanines, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand-831007. [Pan: Barps6204E] Vs. Ito, Ward-2(3), Jamshedpur.……………………….……….…………….. Respondent Appearances By: Shri Nitin Pasari, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Pranob Kumar Koley, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 01, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 28, 2023 Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 16.12.2021 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 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 40

94, East Plant Basti, Burmanines, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand-831007. [PAN: BARPS6204E] vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Jamshedpur.……………………….……….…………….. Respondent Appearances by: Shri Nitin Pasari, Adv., appeared on behalf of the appellant. Shri Pranob Kumar Koley, Sr. DR, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : March 01, 2023 Date of pronouncing the order : April 28, 2023 ORDER Per Sanjay