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 438clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai591Delhi427Bangalore148Kolkata113Chennai107Ahmedabad78Agra64Jaipur59Pune51Raipur38Hyderabad37Chandigarh27Allahabad23Indore20Surat17Cochin14Cuttack12Lucknow10Calcutta9Amritsar9Telangana7Jodhpur6Karnataka5Panaji5Rajkot4SC4Nagpur4Guwahati4Visakhapatnam2Kerala2Orissa2Jabalpur1Patna1Varanasi1Ranchi1

Key Topics

Section 80I48Section 14817Addition to Income17Reopening of Assessment11Deduction11Penalty10Section 254(1)9Section 1479Section 688Section 143(3)

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHARUCH CIRCLE,, BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1845/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 147Section 148Section 234DSection 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

438 ITR 301 (Mad), wherein the High Court has held that “interest under section 234D is leviable only if refund granted to assessee becomes collectable in order passed under regular assessment; hence, where assessment in pursuance to reassessment proceedings could not be termed as 'first assessment' so as to come within meaning of expression 'regular assessment' for purposes of section

8
Section 271(1)(c)8
Section 234D8

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHARUCH CIRCLE-2,, BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1474/AHD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 147Section 148Section 234DSection 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

438 ITR 301 (Mad), wherein the High Court has held that “interest under section 234D is leviable only if refund granted to assessee becomes collectable in order passed under regular assessment; hence, where assessment in pursuance to reassessment proceedings could not be termed as 'first assessment' so as to come within meaning of expression 'regular assessment' for purposes of section

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHARUCH CIRCLE-2,, BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1471/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 147Section 148Section 234DSection 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

438 ITR 301 (Mad), wherein the High Court has held that “interest under section 234D is leviable only if refund granted to assessee becomes collectable in order passed under regular assessment; hence, where assessment in pursuance to reassessment proceedings could not be termed as 'first assessment' so as to come within meaning of expression 'regular assessment' for purposes of section

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHARUCH CIRCLE-2,, BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1473/AHD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 147Section 148Section 234DSection 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

438 ITR 301 (Mad), wherein the High Court has held that “interest under section 234D is leviable only if refund granted to assessee becomes collectable in order passed under regular assessment; hence, where assessment in pursuance to reassessment proceedings could not be termed as 'first assessment' so as to come within meaning of expression 'regular assessment' for purposes of section

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LIMITED,,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ACIT.,BHARUCH CIRCLE,, BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2018/AHD/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 147Section 148Section 234DSection 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

438 ITR 301 (Mad), wherein the High Court has held that “interest under section 234D is leviable only if refund granted to assessee becomes collectable in order passed under regular assessment; hence, where assessment in pursuance to reassessment proceedings could not be termed as 'first assessment' so as to come within meaning of expression 'regular assessment' for purposes of section

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LIMITED,,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ACIT.,BHARUCH CIRCLE,, BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2019/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 147Section 148Section 234DSection 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

438 ITR 301 (Mad), wherein the High Court has held that “interest under section 234D is leviable only if refund granted to assessee becomes collectable in order passed under regular assessment; hence, where assessment in pursuance to reassessment proceedings could not be termed as 'first assessment' so as to come within meaning of expression 'regular assessment' for purposes of section

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 497/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 147Section 148Section 234DSection 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

438 ITR 301 (Mad), wherein the High Court has held that “interest under section 234D is leviable only if refund granted to assessee becomes collectable in order passed under regular assessment; hence, where assessment in pursuance to reassessment proceedings could not be termed as 'first assessment' so as to come within meaning of expression 'regular assessment' for purposes of section

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX., BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 498/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 147Section 148Section 234DSection 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

438 ITR 301 (Mad), wherein the High Court has held that “interest under section 234D is leviable only if refund granted to assessee becomes collectable in order passed under regular assessment; hence, where assessment in pursuance to reassessment proceedings could not be termed as 'first assessment' so as to come within meaning of expression 'regular assessment' for purposes of section

MURTUJA HUSAINBHAI HIRANI,NA vs. ARIVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3, , NAVSARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 196/SRT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.196/Srt/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Murtuja Hussainbhai Hirani, Vs. The Ito, Ward-3, Prop. Of R. K. Bullion, Navsari Shop No.5, Pranav Chamber Madhumati, Navsari – 396445, Gujarat. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aciph3680D Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr 09/06/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 26/06/2023

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

disallowance can be made. We note that assessee`s case under consideration relates to assessment year 2014-15, where purchase in cash to the extent of Rs.20,000/- is allowed. We have gone through the assessee`s paper book and noted that each cash payment against each cash purchase, does not exceed Rs.20,000/-. Therefore, we note that cash purchase

M/S SACHIN UDYOG NAGAR SAHKARI MANDLI LTD.,,SURAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(2), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 439/SRT/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat07 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.438 & 439/Srt/2022 Assessment Years: (2017-18 & 2018-19) (Virtual Court Hearing) Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahkari Mandli Vs. The Acit, Circle -1(2), Ltd., Surat. 2Nd Floor, Vivekanand Chambers, Beside Rajehree Hall, Sangrampura, Surat – 395006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacts7414C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Kamlesh Bhatt, Ar Respondent By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) & Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr 07/02/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 07/02/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Years (Ays) 2017-18 & 2018-19, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Surat [In Short “The Ld. Cit(A)”], Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Assessment Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”).

Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

section doesn’t bar the deduction of interest received by cooperative society from a cooperative bank. The deduction was being allowed for several preceding assessment years in the case of the appellant society. The AR has referred to decisions of the 438 & 439/SRT/2022/AY.2017-18 & 2018-19 Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahkari Mandli Ltd. jurisdictional High Court and jurisdiction ITAT Benches wherein

MANJULABEN MADHUBHAI HAPANI,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD3(2)(5), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 543/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat04 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.543/Srt/2024 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Manjulaben Madhubhai Hapani, Vs. The Ito, 12, D. M. Park, Opp. Jkp Nagar Ward – 3(2)(5), Katargam, Singanpore Road, Surat Surat – 395004, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aciph8744A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Minal Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 04/02/2025

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 234Section 250Section 271ASection 68

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) dated 20.03.2024 by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short, ‘CIT(A)’] for the assessment year (AY) 2017-18. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances

ITO, WARD-7, , VAPI vs. M/S. PARASMANI TUBES PVT. LTD, VALSAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 230/SRT/2020[A.Y- 2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Aug 2022

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 230/Srt/2020 Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) The Ito, Ward-7, Vs. M/S. Parasmani Tubes Pvt. Ltd., Vapi. Shed No.J-1803/4, Gidc, Umbergaon, Valsad. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcp 7664 D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Kamlesh Bhatt, Ar Respondent By Shri H. P. Meena, Cit-Dr 01/06/2022 Date Of Hearing 22/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

disallowance of bogus/unverifiable purchases. Considering these facts and court decisions, it will be reasonable if 5% of, the unverifiable purchases of Rs.13,31,08,755/- (Rs.3,45.92,120 + Rs.9,85,16,635/-) i.e. Rs.66,55,438/- can be considered as suppressed profits on unverifiable purchases. This will take care of suppression in GP due to purchases made from different parties

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, SURAT vs. M/S. KEJRIWAL INDUSTRIES LTD.,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1509/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat04 May 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena

Section 131Section 143Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 68

disallowance of PF and ESIC of Rs.23,20,130/- and addition of Rs.12,89,25,938/- u/s.68 of the Act. However, the addition made u/s.68 was left out to be added in computation of income hence, same was later added by the AO vide order u/s.154 dated 09.04.2014 of the Act. The AO noticed that the assessee has taken total

FARHA S. KADRI,BILIMORA vs. ITO, WARD-2, NAVSARI

In the result, the original ground No

ITA 331/SRT/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Farha S Kadri, I.T.O. 762, Bazar Street, Bunder Road, Ward-2, Vs. Bilimora (Gujarat)-396321 Navsari. Pan No. Annpk 8150 B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)

438/-. The assessee made deposit of Rs. 6,75,000/- and Rs. 85,000/- on 02/07/2009 and 03/07/2009. The assessee received ITA 331/Srt/2019 Farha S Kadri Vs ITO remittance of Rs. 3,44,250/- on 02/06/2009 from her son Asmat Saiyad who is British Citizen. On the basis of such contention, the assessee justified the cash deposit which was either

BHADRABALA DHIMANTRAI JOSHI,SURAT vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1(3), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 126/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.126/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 (Hybrid Hearing) Bhadrabala Dhimantrai Joshi Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम/ 6Th Shree Nagar Society, Ghod Income-Tax, Circle-1(3), Surat, Vs. Dod Road, Surat-395 001 Anavil Business Centre, Adajan, Surat-395 007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aazpj 4561 G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Appellant By Shri P.M. Jagasheth, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 04/08/2025 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 26/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bijayananda Pruseth, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Emanates From The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, 'The Act’) Dated 20.01.2025 By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, (Nfac), Delhi /Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) [In Short, The ‘Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017- 18, Which In Turn Arises Out Of Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (In Short, ‘Ao’) U/S. 143(3) Of The Act On 03.12.2019. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee For The Appeal Are As Under: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Making Addition Of Rs.1,21,92,898/- On Account Of Alleged Disallowing Immunity Claimed U/S.2(14) Of Income-Tax Act, 1961 By Treating Again As Business Income, Which Ground Has Never Been Conveyed And/Or Initiated To Respond & Revealed Through Assessment Order Only. As No Opportunity Is Afforded Either Through Any Notice And/Or More

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(8)

disallowing immunity claimed u/s.2(14) of Income-tax Act, 1961 by treating again as business income, which ground has never been conveyed and/or initiated to respond and revealed through Assessment order only. As no opportunity is afforded either through any notice and/or more ITA No.126/Srt/2025 A.Y 17-18 Bhadrabala D Joshi importantly under show cause notice about the said ground

PRANAV D. DESAI,SURAT vs. ITO VAPI WARD, 7 VAPI, VAPI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessees is partly allowed

ITA 557/SRT/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat24 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.557/Srt/2019 Assessment Year: (2010-11) (Physical Court Hearing) Pranav Dolatrai Desai, Vs. The Ito, Ward-7, Desai Bunglow, Gautam Colony, Vapi. Balakhadi, Killa Pardi, Valsad-396125. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Airpd2160R (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.558/Srt/2019 Assessment Year: (2010-11) (Physical Court Hearing) Archana Pranav Desai, Vs. The Ito, Ward-7, Pranav Bunglos, Gautam Colony, Vapi. Balakhadi, Killa Pardi, Valsad-396125. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Airpd2161Q (Appellant ) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Suresh K. Kabra, Ca Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 30/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 24/08/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: Captioned Two Appeals Filed By Different Assessees, Pertaining To The Assessment Years (Ay) 2010-11, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Valsad [In Short “The Ld. Cit(A)”], Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Assessment Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”).

Section 143(3)Section 148

section 148 of the Act, the assessee filed letter of authority and also filed return of income (ROI), declaring income of Rs.1,39,530/-, after claiming deduction of Rs.1,00,000/- under Chapter VI-A of the Act. In view of the return filed by the assessee, reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment were provided to assessee, vide letter

ARCHANA PRANAV DESAI,VALSAD vs. ITO, WARD-1, VAPI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessees is partly allowed

ITA 558/SRT/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat24 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.557/Srt/2019 Assessment Year: (2010-11) (Physical Court Hearing) Pranav Dolatrai Desai, Vs. The Ito, Ward-7, Desai Bunglow, Gautam Colony, Vapi. Balakhadi, Killa Pardi, Valsad-396125. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Airpd2160R (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.558/Srt/2019 Assessment Year: (2010-11) (Physical Court Hearing) Archana Pranav Desai, Vs. The Ito, Ward-7, Pranav Bunglos, Gautam Colony, Vapi. Balakhadi, Killa Pardi, Valsad-396125. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Airpd2161Q (Appellant ) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Suresh K. Kabra, Ca Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 30/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 24/08/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: Captioned Two Appeals Filed By Different Assessees, Pertaining To The Assessment Years (Ay) 2010-11, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Valsad [In Short “The Ld. Cit(A)”], Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Assessment Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”).

Section 143(3)Section 148

section 148 of the Act, the assessee filed letter of authority and also filed return of income (ROI), declaring income of Rs.1,39,530/-, after claiming deduction of Rs.1,00,000/- under Chapter VI-A of the Act. In view of the return filed by the assessee, reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment were provided to assessee, vide letter