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 801Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai228Delhi64Rajkot36Ahmedabad28Indore24Kolkata23Pune22Hyderabad20Guwahati18Chennai15Bangalore13Chandigarh11Jaipur10Lucknow8Cochin5Jodhpur4Visakhapatnam4Nagpur4Raipur3Surat3Ranchi2Amritsar2Dehradun2Karnataka1Agra1Kerala1Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 80I16Section 143(3)10Section 1486Section 801B(10)6Deduction4Section 8O3Section 801B3Section 133A3Reassessment3Survey u/s 133A

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (OSD), CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. CREATIVE ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTIONS,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue as well as cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 311/VIZ/2018[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam11 Jan 2019AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Blejcit, Central Circle-2, Vs. M/S. Creative Engineering Visakhapatnam. Constructions, D.No. 1-113- 20/1, Mig-165 & 166, Sector-8, Mvp Colony, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aaefc 8121 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari – AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Appala Raju – Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80I

section 80-IB." In light of the above, we agree with the contention of the Id AR that while filing of the audit report is mandatory, the further condition that it should be filed with the return or income is directory in nature and so long as the audit report has been filed during the course of assessment proceedings, substantial

3

ABHILASH SYNERGETIC CONSTRUCTIONS & EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 104/VIZ/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 Jul 2019AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Shri C. Subrahmanyam, FCAFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik,Sr.DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 801BSection 801B(10)Section 80ISection 8O

disallowed. The assessee filed explanation objecting for reopening of assessment stating the project was completed within four years period as specified in the act and after verification of the fact of completion of the project, the Assessing Officer had allowed the deduction u/sec. 80IB in the original assessment, thus, objected for reopening of the assessment which was rejected

ABHILASH SYNERGETIC CONSTRUCTIONS & EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(5),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 108/VIZ/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri C. Subrahmanyam, FCAFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik,Sr.DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 801BSection 801B(10)Section 80ISection 8O

disallowed. The assessee filed explanation objecting for reopening of assessment stating the project was completed within four years period as specified in the act and after verification of the fact of completion of the project, the Assessing Officer had allowed the deduction u/sec. 80IB in the original assessment, thus, objected for reopening of the assessment which was rejected

ABHILASH SYNERGETIC CONSTRUCTIONS & EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), , VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 109/VIZ/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri C. Subrahmanyam, FCAFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik,Sr.DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 801BSection 801B(10)Section 80ISection 8O

disallowed. The assessee filed explanation objecting for reopening of assessment stating the project was completed within four years period as specified in the act and after verification of the fact of completion of the project, the Assessing Officer had allowed the deduction u/sec. 80IB in the original assessment, thus, objected for reopening of the assessment which was rejected