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.

11 results for “disallowance”+ Section 275clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi699Mumbai619Ahmedabad174Bangalore163Chennai158Jaipur135Kolkata131Cochin115Chandigarh80Hyderabad59Surat50Pune44Indore42Raipur33Cuttack25Karnataka20Lucknow19Amritsar19Nagpur17Rajkot15Ranchi13Jodhpur11Visakhapatnam11Guwahati10Calcutta5Telangana5Jabalpur4Panaji4Allahabad3Agra3Varanasi3SC2Patna2Rajasthan1Dehradun1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)14Section 54F14Section 1479Section 2638Addition to Income7Section 271(1)(c)5Section 143(1)5Section 114Section 1484

THE ASST. CIT,, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. M/S. MARVEL ASSOCIATES,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 147/VIZ/2017[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam16 Mar 2018AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri T.Satyanandam, DRFor Respondent: Shri G.V.N. Hari, AR
Section 132Section 271ASection 40

disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act for an amount of Rs.3,35,000/- and penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act were initiated separately. During the penalty proceedings, the A.O. issued show cause notice as to why the penalty should not be levied u/s 271AAB of the Act. In reply, the assessee submitted that the assessee filed return

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), VIJAYAWADA vs. SRI SAI ENGINEERING AND DRILLING, VIJAYAWADA

Deduction4
Exemption4
Disallowance3

In the result, Cross Objection filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 63/VIZ/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam15 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.63/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Sri Sai Engineering & Drilling, Income Tax, D. No. 54-18-26, B-3, Circle-2(1), Second Lane, Lic Colony, Vijayawada. Vijayawada. Pan:Abafs0788A (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) C.O. No. 06/Viz/2025 (In आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.63/Viz/2025) (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Sri Sai Engineering & Drilling, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of D. No. 54-18-26, B-3, Second Income Tax, Lane, Lic Colony, Circle-2(1), Vijayawada. Vijayawada. Pan:Abafs0788A (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

disallowance of pit filling charges of Rs. 20,41,800/- to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 20/08/2019 upheld the additions made by the Ld. AO on the above two issues and accordingly worked out the revised total income of the assessee at Rs. 4,27,54,387/-. Thus, considering

SMT. L SUDHA BALA, L/R OF LATE SRI L.NARSA REDDY,GUNTUR vs. THE DCIT, SPECIAL RANGE GUNTUR, GUNTUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 260/VIZ/2012[1984-85]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam07 Dec 2018AY 1984-85

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.260 & 261/Viz/2012 (धििाारण िर्ा/ Assessment Years :1984-85 & 1985-86 Respectively) L.Sudha Bala Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of L/R Of Late Sri L Narasa Reddy Income Tax Prop.Sri Venkateswara Agro Chemicals Special Range Industries Guntur 2-14-101, Syamala Nagar 2Nd Lane, Guntur [Pan : Acgpl2351P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri C.Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)

disallowing the same creditors again. Accordingly confirmed the additions of bogus purchases and the interest thereon and allowed the appeal partly. 6. The assessee preferred appeal before the ITAT, and filed the additional ground agitating the validity of reopening of assessment. The 5 I.T.A. Nos260 & 261./Viz/2012 L Sudha Bala, L/R of Late Sri L Narasa Reddy, Guntur ITAT vide

SMT. L SUDHA BALA, L/R OF LATE SRI L.NARSA REDDY,GUNTUR vs. THE DCIT, SPECIAL RANGE GUNTUR, GUNTUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 261/VIZ/2012[1985-86]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam07 Dec 2018AY 1985-86

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.260 & 261/Viz/2012 (धििाारण िर्ा/ Assessment Years :1984-85 & 1985-86 Respectively) L.Sudha Bala Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of L/R Of Late Sri L Narasa Reddy Income Tax Prop.Sri Venkateswara Agro Chemicals Special Range Industries Guntur 2-14-101, Syamala Nagar 2Nd Lane, Guntur [Pan : Acgpl2351P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri C.Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)

disallowing the same creditors again. Accordingly confirmed the additions of bogus purchases and the interest thereon and allowed the appeal partly. 6. The assessee preferred appeal before the ITAT, and filed the additional ground agitating the validity of reopening of assessment. The 5 I.T.A. Nos260 & 261./Viz/2012 L Sudha Bala, L/R of Late Sri L Narasa Reddy, Guntur ITAT vide

THE DUPTY, CIT,, VIJAYAWADA vs. SRI RAVI RAMESH BABU,, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, the addition made of Rs

ITA 52/VIZ/2017[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Feb 2018AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bledcit, Circle-2(1), Vs. Ravi Ramesh Babu, Vijayawada. D.No.24-16-12/28, F.F.2, Vasantha Apartments, Near Loyola College, Vijayawada Pan No. Adtpr 1314 G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri M.S.R. Prasad – CAFor Respondent: Shri P.S. Murthy – Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "Act"). In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has noted that the assessee has claimed expenditure of Rs.1,14,71,033/- under the head ‘other expenditure’, which was in fact the expenditure incurred on E-cards. As the said expenditure was in the nature of capital expenditure

KARUMANCHI NALINI,GUNTUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), , GUNTUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 101/VIZ/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.100/Viz/2021 & 101/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-14) Dr. Karumanchi Nalini Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.10-3-37 Ward 1(3) Sambasiva Peta Guntur Guntur [Pan : Aaypn5886F] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri MN Murthy Naik, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54F

275/- u/s 54F of the Act. 4. The learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax ought to have appreciated that the assessing officer conducted enquiries in respect of the above issue and as such it is not a case of lack of inquiry to enable the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax to invoke the provisions of section

KARUMANCHI NALINI,GUNTUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3),, GUNTUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 100/VIZ/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.100/Viz/2021 & 101/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-14) Dr. Karumanchi Nalini Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.10-3-37 Ward 1(3) Sambasiva Peta Guntur Guntur [Pan : Aaypn5886F] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri MN Murthy Naik, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54F

275/- u/s 54F of the Act. 4. The learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax ought to have appreciated that the assessing officer conducted enquiries in respect of the above issue and as such it is not a case of lack of inquiry to enable the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax to invoke the provisions of section

SRI SEETARAMANJANENYA SORTEX,KAKINADA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VISAKHAPATNAM

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

ITA 147/VIZ/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam29 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.147/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Sri Seetaramanjaneya Sortex Vs. Principal Commissioner Of 1-2015/A, Uppalanka Income Tax Kakinada Visakhapatnam [Pan : Abdfs4641P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Paradeep Tayal & OrsFor Respondent: Dr.Satyasai Rath, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 194A(3)(i)Section 194A(3)(iii)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 40

disallowed. 1. Commission Rs.86,16,730 2. Contract Rs.4,46,16,749 3. Prof. Charges Rs.14,54,820 The Ld.PCIT held that the assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Act dated 12.03.2021 for the A.Y.2018-19 was prima facie erroneous in law and prejudicial to the interest of revenue, therefore, proposed for revision

VADDADI MADHUSUDANA RAO,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 423/VIZ/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam21 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Balakrishnan Sआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.423/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2020-21)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR
Section 143(2)Section 69Section 9(1)

275/- after deducting tax at source at Rs.14,35,169/- from the total benefits of Rs.1,22,50,444/-. Assessee filed return of income for assessment year 2020-21 on 25/11/2020 admitting income of Rs.52,31,590/- and claimed exemption of Rs.13,21,198/- in respect of gratuity. 3. The return of income filed by the assessee was taken

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRLCE-1(1),, GUNTUR vs. CCL PRODUCTS(INDIA) LIMITED, DUGGIRALA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 433/VIZ/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam07 Feb 2020AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri K. Ramesh Babu, CAFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Sonawal, CIT (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 92BSection 92C

disallowance of notional interest on delayed payments and accordingly, we set aside the orders of the authorities below and delete the addition. The appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed. 7.2 The facts of the assessee‟s case are similar. In the instant case also it is established that the transactions with the AEs are at arms length

YENUGUVANI LANKA RURAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,YENUGUVANI LANKA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, PALAKOL

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 265/VIZ/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अऩीऱ सं./ I.T.A. No.265/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year :2018-19) Yenuguvani Lanka Rural Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Educational Society, Income Tax Buildings, D.No.2-76, New Harijana Peta, Near Govt. College, Yenuguvani Lanka. Doddipatla Road, Palakol, Andhra Pradesh. Pan: Aaaay 2757 K (अऩीऱधथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) अऩीऱधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri I. Kama Sastry प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Sri Spg Mudaliar, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Sri I. Kama SastryFor Respondent: Sri SPG Mudaliar, Sr. AR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 164(2)Section 167BSection 167B(1)Section 288

disallowed the gross receipts due to failure on the part of the assessee to furnish the requisite Form No.10B along with return of income as required under Rule 17B of the IT Rules, 1962. The CPC, Bangalore taxed the entire gross receipt at the maximum marginal rate. Aggrieved by the intimation, the assessee filed an appeal before