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.

4 results for “disallowance”+ Section 142Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Chandigarh35Delhi33Chennai22Agra17Mumbai15Jaipur14Hyderabad10Bangalore9Indore7Nagpur7Raipur6Kolkata5Visakhapatnam4Lucknow4Ahmedabad1Jabalpur1Surat1Pune1

Key Topics

Section 143(1)4Section 142A4Addition to Income4Section 143(3)2Section 143(2)2Section 2502Section 1482Survey u/s 133A2Limitation/Time-bar2

AAYUSH NRI LEPL HEALTH CARE PVT.LTD,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee allowed

ITA 135/VIZ/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos. 135 & 136/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14)) Aayush Nri Lepl Healthcare Private Limited V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 2(3) No. 48-13-3 & 3A Aayush Vijayawada Ring Road, Sri Ramachandra Nagar Vijayawada – 520008 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aadcn4865A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 142ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

142A of the IT Act was made by DCIT, Circle 2(1), whohas no authority to make such reference. 6. The finding of the Ld. CIT(A) that the amended provisions of section142A of the IT Act operate from 01-10-2014, and thus do not apply to the present case, is misconceived and based on an erroneous interpretation

Unexplained Investment2

AAYUSH NRI LEPL HEALTH CARE PVT.LTD,VIJAYAWADA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee allowed

ITA 136/VIZ/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos. 135 & 136/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14)) Aayush Nri Lepl Healthcare Private Limited V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 2(3) No. 48-13-3 & 3A Aayush Vijayawada Ring Road, Sri Ramachandra Nagar Vijayawada – 520008 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aadcn4865A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 142ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

142A of the IT Act was made by DCIT, Circle 2(1), whohas no authority to make such reference. 6. The finding of the Ld. CIT(A) that the amended provisions of section142A of the IT Act operate from 01-10-2014, and thus do not apply to the present case, is misconceived and based on an erroneous interpretation

CHAMARTHI MOUNIKA,,ELURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, , ELURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 308/VIZ/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.308/Viz/2018 & 309/Viz/2018 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2012-13 & 2013-14) Chamarthi Mounica Vs. Income Tax Officer Prop.Surya Ganesh Electricals Ward-2 D.No.22C-12-21 Eluru Ch.Ranga Rao Street Powerpet, Eluru [Pan : Apupc4598L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Smt. Suman Malik, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14 .08.2019 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik, DR
Section 142ASection 143(1)Section 148

142A of the Act on 13.06.2016. Before the DVO, the assessee had stated that the cost of construction incurred was Rs.1,11,10,744/- from 2011-12 to 2015-16 as under : F.Y. Amount (Rs.) 2011-12 31,77,838 2012-13 14,47,308 2013-14 52,96,193 2014-15 2,64,205 2015-16 (The said accounts

CHAMARTHI MOUNIKA,ELURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, ELURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 309/VIZ/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam07 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.308/Viz/2018 & 309/Viz/2018 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2012-13 & 2013-14) Chamarthi Mounica Vs. Income Tax Officer Prop.Surya Ganesh Electricals Ward-2 D.No.22C-12-21 Eluru Ch.Ranga Rao Street Powerpet, Eluru [Pan : Apupc4598L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Smt. Suman Malik, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14 .08.2019 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik, DR
Section 142ASection 143(1)Section 148

142A of the Act on 13.06.2016. Before the DVO, the assessee had stated that the cost of construction incurred was Rs.1,11,10,744/- from 2011-12 to 2015-16 as under : F.Y. Amount (Rs.) 2011-12 31,77,838 2012-13 14,47,308 2013-14 52,96,193 2014-15 2,64,205 2015-16 (The said accounts