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.

35 results for “disallowance”+ Section 215clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai887Delhi709Chennai292Bangalore202Ahmedabad192Jaipur124Kolkata120Agra84Hyderabad80Chandigarh72Surat72Pune58Indore48Rajkot36Visakhapatnam35Raipur34Cochin22Amritsar20Lucknow18Cuttack17Karnataka15Jabalpur12Panaji11Jodhpur9SC8Guwahati6Dehradun5Telangana4Allahabad3Ranchi2Nagpur2Varanasi2ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Rajasthan1Calcutta1Patna1Orissa1Himachal Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)42Section 10A29Section 14820Addition to Income19Section 148A16Disallowance16Section 14A14Section 153A12Exemption12

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VIJAYAWADA vs. NS HEALTHCARE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, VIJAYAWADA

In the results, appeals filed by the revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 184/VIZ/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Veeravalli Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

Section 133Section 142(1)Section 148Section 148A

disallowed a sum of Rs.84,01,369/- as not allowable u/s.40A(3) of the Act. This sum of Rs.84,01,369/- also includes an amount of Rs.45,08,215/- which is inadmissible expenses u/s.37 of the Act. First, we will decide upon the issue involved in the sum of Rs.45,08,215/- which was added as inadmissible u/s.37

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VIJAYAWADA vs. NS HEALTHCARE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, VIJAYAWADA

In the results, appeals filed by the revenue in ITA Nos

Showing 1–20 of 35 · Page 1 of 2

Section 142(1)9
Section 1338
Survey u/s 133A8
ITA 185/VIZ/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Veeravalli Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

Section 133Section 142(1)Section 148Section 148A

disallowed a sum of Rs.84,01,369/- as not allowable u/s.40A(3) of the Act. This sum of Rs.84,01,369/- also includes an amount of Rs.45,08,215/- which is inadmissible expenses u/s.37 of the Act. First, we will decide upon the issue involved in the sum of Rs.45,08,215/- which was added as inadmissible u/s.37

NS HEALTHCARE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VIJAYAWADA

In the results, appeals filed by the revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 145/VIZ/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Veeravalli Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

Section 133Section 142(1)Section 148Section 148A

disallowed a sum of Rs.84,01,369/- as not allowable u/s.40A(3) of the Act. This sum of Rs.84,01,369/- also includes an amount of Rs.45,08,215/- which is inadmissible expenses u/s.37 of the Act. First, we will decide upon the issue involved in the sum of Rs.45,08,215/- which was added as inadmissible u/s.37

NS HEALTHCARE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VIJAYAWADA

In the results, appeals filed by the revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 147/VIZ/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Veeravalli Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

Section 133Section 142(1)Section 148Section 148A

disallowed a sum of Rs.84,01,369/- as not allowable u/s.40A(3) of the Act. This sum of Rs.84,01,369/- also includes an amount of Rs.45,08,215/- which is inadmissible expenses u/s.37 of the Act. First, we will decide upon the issue involved in the sum of Rs.45,08,215/- which was added as inadmissible u/s.37

NS HEALTHCARE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VIJAYAWADA

In the results, appeals filed by the revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 146/VIZ/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Veeravalli Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

Section 133Section 142(1)Section 148Section 148A

disallowed a sum of Rs.84,01,369/- as not allowable u/s.40A(3) of the Act. This sum of Rs.84,01,369/- also includes an amount of Rs.45,08,215/- which is inadmissible expenses u/s.37 of the Act. First, we will decide upon the issue involved in the sum of Rs.45,08,215/- which was added as inadmissible u/s.37

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VIJAYAWADA vs. NS HEALTHCARE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, VIJAYAWADA

In the results, appeals filed by the revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 187/VIZ/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Veeravalli Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

Section 133Section 142(1)Section 148Section 148A

disallowed a sum of Rs.84,01,369/- as not allowable u/s.40A(3) of the Act. This sum of Rs.84,01,369/- also includes an amount of Rs.45,08,215/- which is inadmissible expenses u/s.37 of the Act. First, we will decide upon the issue involved in the sum of Rs.45,08,215/- which was added as inadmissible u/s.37

NS HEALTHCARE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VIJAYAWADA

In the results, appeals filed by the revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 148/VIZ/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Veeravalli Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

Section 133Section 142(1)Section 148Section 148A

disallowed a sum of Rs.84,01,369/- as not allowable u/s.40A(3) of the Act. This sum of Rs.84,01,369/- also includes an amount of Rs.45,08,215/- which is inadmissible expenses u/s.37 of the Act. First, we will decide upon the issue involved in the sum of Rs.45,08,215/- which was added as inadmissible u/s.37

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VIJAYAWADA vs. NS HEALTHCARE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, VIJAYAWADA

In the results, appeals filed by the revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 186/VIZ/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Veeravalli Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

Section 133Section 142(1)Section 148Section 148A

disallowed a sum of Rs.84,01,369/- as not allowable u/s.40A(3) of the Act. This sum of Rs.84,01,369/- also includes an amount of Rs.45,08,215/- which is inadmissible expenses u/s.37 of the Act. First, we will decide upon the issue involved in the sum of Rs.45,08,215/- which was added as inadmissible u/s.37

MAHATI SOFTWARE PVT LTD.,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ACIT,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 67/VIZ/2016[20011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam07 Sept 2018

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.67/Viz/2016 & 68/Viz/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2011-12 & 2012-13) M/S Mahati Software Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of D.No.10-27-14A Income Tax Sivam, Kailashmetta Circle-3(1) Waltair Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aadcm9620J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Deba Kumar Sonowal, DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144Section 144C(1)Section 194JSection 40

section 2(24)(x) and accordingly disallowed a sum of Rs.9,77,039/- u/s 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act. The Ld.DRP upheld the addition made by the AO on objection filed before the DRP. 19. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. During the appeal hearing

M/S. MAHATI SOFTWARE PVT. LTD.,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ACIT,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 68/VIZ/2017[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam07 Sept 2018AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.67/Viz/2016 & 68/Viz/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2011-12 & 2012-13) M/S Mahati Software Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of D.No.10-27-14A Income Tax Sivam, Kailashmetta Circle-3(1) Waltair Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aadcm9620J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Deba Kumar Sonowal, DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144Section 144C(1)Section 194JSection 40

section 2(24)(x) and accordingly disallowed a sum of Rs.9,77,039/- u/s 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act. The Ld.DRP upheld the addition made by the AO on objection filed before the DRP. 19. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. During the appeal hearing

THE ETIKOPPAKA COOP AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY LIMITED,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 260/VIZ/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru R L Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Balakrishnan, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Pandi, Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)

disallowance could be made in view of the provisions of Section 43B as amended by Finance Act, 2003. 6. In the present case, the assessee had remitted the employees contribution beyond the due date for payment, but within the due date for filing the return of income. Hence, following the above said decisions, we find no reason to differ with

THE ARYAPURAM CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD.,,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 1, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes; and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 177/VIZ/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari – AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Deba Kumar Sonawal – CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 43Section 43B

section 116C of the Act is mandatory and is in the interest of the society which would enable the society to meet its requirements under other legislations. The ld. CIT(A) by following the same, directed the Assessing Officer to disallow the amount of Rs. 22,96,950/- and add the same to the total income of the assessee

THE ARYAPURAM CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD.,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE ACIT,, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes; and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 173/VIZ/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari – AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Deba Kumar Sonawal – CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 43Section 43B

section 116C of the Act is mandatory and is in the interest of the society which would enable the society to meet its requirements under other legislations. The ld. CIT(A) by following the same, directed the Assessing Officer to disallow the amount of Rs. 22,96,950/- and add the same to the total income of the assessee

ARYAPURAM CO=OP. URBANK LTD.,,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE ACIT,, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes; and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 517/VIZ/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari – AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Deba Kumar Sonawal – CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 43Section 43B

section 116C of the Act is mandatory and is in the interest of the society which would enable the society to meet its requirements under other legislations. The ld. CIT(A) by following the same, directed the Assessing Officer to disallow the amount of Rs. 22,96,950/- and add the same to the total income of the assessee

THE ACIT,CIRCLE - 1,, RAJAHMUNDRY vs. M/STHE ARYAPURAM CO-OPRATIVE URBAN BANK LTD.,, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes; and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 195/VIZ/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari – AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Deba Kumar Sonawal – CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 43Section 43B

section 116C of the Act is mandatory and is in the interest of the society which would enable the society to meet its requirements under other legislations. The ld. CIT(A) by following the same, directed the Assessing Officer to disallow the amount of Rs. 22,96,950/- and add the same to the total income of the assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS),, VIJAYAWADA vs. CARGO HANDLING PRIVATE WORKERS POOL TRUST,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 312/VIZ/2018[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Jun 2020AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Dr. C.P. Rama Swami, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.R.S. Narayan, CIT DR
Section 13(1)(c)Section 143(3)Section 164(2)

section 11 to 13 as the assessee being 12A registration granted by the ITAT. It is also directed that the assessee has to file all the relevant details before the Assessing Officer. Thus, this ground of appeal raised by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose. 36. So far as ground No.3 relates to disallowance of Rs.1,54,52,215

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS),, VIJAYAWADA vs. CARGO HANDLING PRIVATE WORKERS POOL TRUST,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 313/VIZ/2018[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Jun 2020AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Dr. C.P. Rama Swami, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.R.S. Narayan, CIT DR
Section 13(1)(c)Section 143(3)Section 164(2)

section 11 to 13 as the assessee being 12A registration granted by the ITAT. It is also directed that the assessee has to file all the relevant details before the Assessing Officer. Thus, this ground of appeal raised by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose. 36. So far as ground No.3 relates to disallowance of Rs.1,54,52,215

THE ACIT,, GUNTUR vs. TULASI SEEDS PVT,. LTD.,, GUNTUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 55/VIZ/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.167/Viz/2015 & I.T.A.No.55/Viz/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2012-13) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Tulasi Seeds Private Ltd. Circle-2(1) D.No.6-4-6, Tulasi House Guntur 4/5, Arundelpet Guntur [Pan :Aaact8054C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A.No.139/Viz/2015 & I.T.A.No.06/Viz/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2012-13) M/S Tulasi Seeds Private Ltd. Asst. Commissioner Of D.No.6-4-6, Tulasi House Income Tax 4/5, Arundelpet Circle-2(1) Guntur Guntur [Pan :Aaact8054C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr निर्धाऩरती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 28.06.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19 .07.2019

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT DR

section 201/201(1A) of the Act. The Ld.AR informed the bench that the department has not taken any action u/s 201/201(1A) to treat the assessee as assessee in default. In case, the department feels that the transaction in question is contract and the assessee failed to deduct tax at source, the department also required to take action against

THE ACIT,, GUNTUR vs. M/S TULASI SEEDS PVT. LTD.,, GUNTUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 167/VIZ/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.167/Viz/2015 & I.T.A.No.55/Viz/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2012-13) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Tulasi Seeds Private Ltd. Circle-2(1) D.No.6-4-6, Tulasi House Guntur 4/5, Arundelpet Guntur [Pan :Aaact8054C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A.No.139/Viz/2015 & I.T.A.No.06/Viz/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2012-13) M/S Tulasi Seeds Private Ltd. Asst. Commissioner Of D.No.6-4-6, Tulasi House Income Tax 4/5, Arundelpet Circle-2(1) Guntur Guntur [Pan :Aaact8054C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr निर्धाऩरती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 28.06.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19 .07.2019

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT DR

section 201/201(1A) of the Act. The Ld.AR informed the bench that the department has not taken any action u/s 201/201(1A) to treat the assessee as assessee in default. In case, the department feels that the transaction in question is contract and the assessee failed to deduct tax at source, the department also required to take action against

TULASI SEEDS PVT. LTD.,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ACIT,, GUNTUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 6/VIZ/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.167/Viz/2015 & I.T.A.No.55/Viz/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2012-13) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Tulasi Seeds Private Ltd. Circle-2(1) D.No.6-4-6, Tulasi House Guntur 4/5, Arundelpet Guntur [Pan :Aaact8054C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A.No.139/Viz/2015 & I.T.A.No.06/Viz/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2012-13) M/S Tulasi Seeds Private Ltd. Asst. Commissioner Of D.No.6-4-6, Tulasi House Income Tax 4/5, Arundelpet Circle-2(1) Guntur Guntur [Pan :Aaact8054C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr निर्धाऩरती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 28.06.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19 .07.2019

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT DR

section 201/201(1A) of the Act. The Ld.AR informed the bench that the department has not taken any action u/s 201/201(1A) to treat the assessee as assessee in default. In case, the department feels that the transaction in question is contract and the assessee failed to deduct tax at source, the department also required to take action against