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.

9 results for “disallowance”+ Section 253(1)(d)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,091Delhi703Chennai275Bangalore206Kolkata167Ahmedabad141Jaipur120Indore103Chandigarh96Pune81Surat77Lucknow60Allahabad52Cuttack37Panaji36Hyderabad34Cochin34Rajkot32Ranchi27Raipur22Telangana21Amritsar20Guwahati20Nagpur15Jodhpur13Agra12Varanasi12Visakhapatnam9SC6Patna6Karnataka4Jabalpur3A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Rajasthan1Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)10Section 36(1)(va)10Section 143(1)6Deduction6Section 1485Rectification u/s 1545Addition to Income5Disallowance5Section 253

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

4
Section 1544
Section 139(1)3
Section 271(1)(c)2

BHARAT HEAVY PLATE & VESSELS LIMITED, NOW KNOWN AS BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LIMITED (HPVP UNIT),VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue and both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 406/VIZ/2017[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam21 Mar 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Hon’Ble & Shri Duvvuru R.L. Reddy, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri I. Kama Sastry – CAFor Respondent: Shri Deba Kumar Sonawal – CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 253Section 36(1)(va)

1), vs. M/s. Bharat Heavy Plate & Visakhapatnam. Vessels Ltd., Visakhapatnam, now known as “Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd” (HPVP Unit), Nathayyapalem Post, Visakhapatnam. PAN No. AAACB 7076 N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri I. Kama Sastry – CA. Department By : Shri Deba Kumar Sonawal – CIT DR Date of hearing : 19/03/2018. Date of pronouncement : 21/03/2018. O R D E R PER B.R. BASKARAN

BHARAT HEAVY PLATE & VESSELS LIMITED, NOW KNOWN AS BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LIMITED (HPVP UNIT),VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue and both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 405/VIZ/2017[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam21 Mar 2018AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Hon’Ble & Shri Duvvuru R.L. Reddy, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri I. Kama Sastry – CAFor Respondent: Shri Deba Kumar Sonawal – CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 253Section 36(1)(va)

1), vs. M/s. Bharat Heavy Plate & Visakhapatnam. Vessels Ltd., Visakhapatnam, now known as “Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd” (HPVP Unit), Nathayyapalem Post, Visakhapatnam. PAN No. AAACB 7076 N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri I. Kama Sastry – CA. Department By : Shri Deba Kumar Sonawal – CIT DR Date of hearing : 19/03/2018. Date of pronouncement : 21/03/2018. O R D E R PER B.R. BASKARAN

ACIT, CIRCLE -1(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. BHARAT HEAVY PLATE AND VESSELS LTD, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue and both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 438/VIZ/2017[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam21 Mar 2018AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Hon’Ble & Shri Duvvuru R.L. Reddy, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri I. Kama Sastry – CAFor Respondent: Shri Deba Kumar Sonawal – CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 253Section 36(1)(va)

1), vs. M/s. Bharat Heavy Plate & Visakhapatnam. Vessels Ltd., Visakhapatnam, now known as “Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd” (HPVP Unit), Nathayyapalem Post, Visakhapatnam. PAN No. AAACB 7076 N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri I. Kama Sastry – CA. Department By : Shri Deba Kumar Sonawal – CIT DR Date of hearing : 19/03/2018. Date of pronouncement : 21/03/2018. O R D E R PER B.R. BASKARAN

ACIT, CIRCLE -1(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. BHARAT HEAVY PLATE AND VESSELS LTD, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue and both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 439/VIZ/2017[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam21 Mar 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Hon’Ble & Shri Duvvuru R.L. Reddy, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri I. Kama Sastry – CAFor Respondent: Shri Deba Kumar Sonawal – CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 253Section 36(1)(va)

1), vs. M/s. Bharat Heavy Plate & Visakhapatnam. Vessels Ltd., Visakhapatnam, now known as “Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd” (HPVP Unit), Nathayyapalem Post, Visakhapatnam. PAN No. AAACB 7076 N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri I. Kama Sastry – CA. Department By : Shri Deba Kumar Sonawal – CIT DR Date of hearing : 19/03/2018. Date of pronouncement : 21/03/2018. O R D E R PER B.R. BASKARAN

THE TENALI PT EMPLOYEES MUTUALLY AIDED CO OP THRIFT CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,TENALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TENALI

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

ITA 361/VIZ/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआईटीए. नं. / Ita No. 361/Viz/2025 (A.Y. 2019-20) The Tenali P & T Employees V. Income Tax Officer - Ward – 1 Mutually Aided Co-Op Thrift & Income Tax Office Credit Society Limited Opp. Sai Baba Temple, Bose Road D.No. 22-5-60, Sarojini Naidu Street Tenali – 522201, Andhra Pradesh Tanali – 522201 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aacat9757E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

d) of the Act towards dividend/interest received from other cooperative societies. In the Intimation passed on 01.05.2020, the deduction towards dividend was allowed but the interest received from members was disallowed. It was mentioned in the Intimation that the deduction u/s 80P shall not be allowed unless the relevant schedules were filled properly. The appellant filled all the schedules correctly

THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE - 2(1),, VIJAYAWADA vs. SRI C.D.S.PRAKASA RAO, L/H. C.D.V. SUBBA RAO,, VIJAYAWADA

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

ITA 44/VIZ/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam04 Jul 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.44/Viz/2013 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2006-07) Dy.Cit, Circle-2(1) Vs. C.D.V. Subba Rao Vijayawada Lr Of Late C.D.S. Prakasa Rao Prop.Prakash Arts, [Pan :Adapc2488D] Museum Road Governorpet Vijayawada [Pan : Adkpc7450P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri R.S.Aravindakshan, Dr प्रत्यार्थी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar

For Appellant: Shri R.S.Aravindakshan, DRFor Respondent: Shri G.V.N.Hari, AR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 436oSection 43B

D’ Bench in the case of Dy.CIT Vs. Bifora Watch Co. Ltd. The decision of Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Dahod Sahakari Kharid Vechan Sangh Ltd. Vs. CIT 282 ITR 0321 supports the view that the assessee is entitled to defend his case under Rule 27 on the issues decided by the CIT(A) against

ITO, WARD-3(3),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SIRIPURAPU CHINATALLI,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 375/VIZ/2017[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 Feb 2019AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.375/Viz/2017 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2008-09) Income Tax Officer Vs. Smt.Siripurapu Chinatalli Ward-3(3) D.No.9-16-37/2 Visakhapatnam Gurajada Enclave Cbm Compound Visakhapatnam [Pan : Agrpc1150E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.457/Viz/2017 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2008-09) Income Tax Officer Vs. Shri K.V.V.Prasad Ward-3(3) Plot No.301, Vytla Residency Visakhapatnam Balajinagar Siripuram Visakhapatnam (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr प्रत्यधथी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 24.01.2019 : 13.02.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri G.V.N.Hari, AR
Section 271(1)(c)

D activity by disclosing all the necessary particulars in the audit report. The facts that the car was purchased by the assessee and also used for the purpose of the business had not been controverted by the Assessing Officer. Further, the granting of depreciation at 20 per cent instead of hundred per cent deduction claimed by the assessee showed that

ITO, WARD-3(3),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SHRI K V V PRASAD,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 457/VIZ/2017[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 Feb 2019AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.375/Viz/2017 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2008-09) Income Tax Officer Vs. Smt.Siripurapu Chinatalli Ward-3(3) D.No.9-16-37/2 Visakhapatnam Gurajada Enclave Cbm Compound Visakhapatnam [Pan : Agrpc1150E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.457/Viz/2017 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2008-09) Income Tax Officer Vs. Shri K.V.V.Prasad Ward-3(3) Plot No.301, Vytla Residency Visakhapatnam Balajinagar Siripuram Visakhapatnam (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr प्रत्यधथी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 24.01.2019 : 13.02.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri G.V.N.Hari, AR
Section 271(1)(c)

D activity by disclosing all the necessary particulars in the audit report. The facts that the car was purchased by the assessee and also used for the purpose of the business had not been controverted by the Assessing Officer. Further, the granting of depreciation at 20 per cent instead of hundred per cent deduction claimed by the assessee showed that