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 161(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai486Delhi321Jaipur123Bangalore115Chennai109Kolkata88Hyderabad85Ahmedabad73Cochin70Pune62Raipur53Panaji40Chandigarh40Indore39Allahabad21Nagpur17Surat17Lucknow15Agra11SC10Amritsar8Patna7Rajkot5Guwahati4Jodhpur3Visakhapatnam3Cuttack2Ranchi2Jabalpur1Dehradun1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 80P3Section 1472Section 249(4)2Section 143(1)2Section 652Section 143(3)2Exemption2

SRI KANAKA MAHALAKSHMI AMMAVARI TEMPLE,BURUJUPETA vs. CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 358/VIZ/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam29 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.358/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year: 2015-16) Sri Kanaka Mahalakshmi Ammavari Temple V. Centralized Processing Center D.No. 22-71-26/B, Skml Temple Bangalore. Kotha Road, Burujupeta Visakhapatnam – 530001, Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aaajs1861M] (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""थ"/ Respondent)

Section 11Section 143(1)Section 154Section 65

disallowing the capital receipts amounting to Rs.7,09,44,112/- stating that there is a mistake apparent from the record while passing the giving effect order to the Ld. CIT(A) dated 26.06.2024. Page No. 2 I.T.A.No.358/VIZ/2024 Sri Kanaka Mahalakshmi Ammavari Temple 3. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before

GMEDAPADU PACS,GMEDAPADU vs. ITO, WARD-1, KAKINADA

ITA 574/VIZ/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.574/Viz/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21) G Medapadu Pacs, Vs. Income Tax Officer, East Godavari District, Ward-1, Andhra Pradesh. Kakinada. Pan: Aaaag8455A (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Sri Kss Sarma, Ca राज" व "वारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of 16/10/2025 Hearing: घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 14/11/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M:

For Appellant: Sri KSS Sarma, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

disallowances and dismissed the 4 G MEDAPADU PACS vs. ITO appeal. For the sake of clarity, we deem it apposite to cull out the observations of the CIT(A), as under: 5.0 Findings and Decision: - 5.1 Ground 1: 1. The assessing officer has erred in treating the paddy procurement commission received by the assessee-society, as the income from

THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE HANDLOOM WEAVERS CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE ASSISTANT OR DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 98/VIZ/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.98/Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16) The Andhra Pradesh State Handloom Vs. Asst. / Dy.Commissioner Of Weavers Co-Operative Society Ltd. Income Tax D.No.29-11-9/1, Apco Bhavan, Circle-1(1) Venkateswara Rao Street Vijayawada Governorpet, Vijayawada [Pan : Aabat3780A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Satyasai Rath, CIT(DR)
Section 147Section 249(4)

1) dated 14.02.2024, arising out of order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) dated 22.03.2022 for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2015-16. 2 I.T.A. No.98/Viz/2024, A.Y.2015-16 The Andhra Pradesh State Handloom Weavers Co-op Society Ltd., Vijayawada 2. Brief facts of the case are that as per the assessment order under section