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.

3 results for “disallowance”+ Section 275clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi714Mumbai631Bangalore172Chennai168Kolkata132Ahmedabad124Jaipur94Cochin85Chandigarh57Surat46Hyderabad39Raipur33Pune29Karnataka20Indore19Nagpur19Cuttack18Amritsar17Lucknow15Rajkot13Ranchi11Jodhpur10Guwahati10Visakhapatnam7Telangana5Calcutta5Patna4Panaji4Allahabad3Varanasi3Agra3Jabalpur2SC2Dehradun1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 69A4Section 69C4Section 50C4Addition to Income3Section 255(4)2Section 124(3)(a)2Section 124(2)2Section 250(1)2

CHAMRU RAM,CHANDAULI vs. DC/ACIT, CIRCLE - 3, VARANASI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 14/VNS/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi05 Jan 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 145(3)Section 255(4)Section 69ASection 69C

section 69C are not applicable as far as the additions of Rs.17,19,275/- and Rs.9,07,100/- are concerned. Consequently, ground No. 2 of appeal is allowed. As far as the disallowance

AWADHESH KUMAR,BALLIA vs. ITO, WARD - 2(4), BALLIA

ITA 179/VNS/2019[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi14 Oct 2022AY 2016-2017

Shri.Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2016-17 Awadhesh Kumar, V. Income Tax Officer, Arya Samaj Road, Ballia, Ward-2(4), Ballia, U.P. Uttar Pradesh Pan-Athpk1294N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.A. Respondent By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.10.2022 O R D E R

Bench:
For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 50C

disallowed by the Assessing Officer and his action confirmed by the CIT(A) is highly unjustified. 6. That in any view of the matter finding an observation of both the two lower authorities with regard to addition of Rs. 8,32,507/- and Rs. 84,000/- are incorrect and contrary to the actual facts of the case. 7. That

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2 (1),, VARANASI vs. PROMINENT DATAMATICS MARKETING PVT. LTD., , VARANASI

ITA 135/VNS/2020[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi05 Jan 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 124(1)(a)Section 124(2)Section 124(3)(a)Section 250(1)Section 255(4)Section 69A

disallowed the difference amount of Rs. 8,22,70,213/- and added to total income of the appellant. Appellant's main contention is that AO has made the said addition of Rs.2,64,90,092/- owing to difference of two figures i.e. Rs. 2,73,59,647/- Rs. 8,69,555/-. However, as per Note