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.

9,558 results for “disallowance”+ Section 133(6)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai3,521Delhi2,088Kolkata846Bangalore564Ahmedabad365Chennai333Jaipur296Surat189Chandigarh157Pune148Indore143Hyderabad122Raipur98Cochin81Lucknow76Rajkot72Visakhapatnam54Cuttack51Nagpur45Calcutta41Guwahati37Agra36Amritsar33Karnataka27Allahabad27Patna20Telangana19Ranchi16Varanasi11SC11Dehradun11Jodhpur6Panaji4Jabalpur4Punjab & Haryana2ANIL R. DAVE AMITAVA ROY L. NAGESWARA RAO1Kerala1Rajasthan1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Addition to Income72Section 143(3)62Section 6856Section 14740Section 153A39Disallowance38Section 14836Section 133(6)31Section 13226Section 250

M/S MYSORE POLYMERS & RUBBER PRODUCTS LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES

In the result, writ appeal No

STRP/112/2008HC Karnataka17 Jun 2013

Bench: D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR,B.S.INDRAKALA

Section 23(1)Section 24(1)Section 4Section 6

133 STC 356 is nearer home that it was clearly held in this case that the liability under Section 6-B when it was turnover tax but analogous and the charge under Section 6-B being on par with the charge as of now though it is named as resale tax and the case being one of supplier of goods

PRAYAG POLYTECH PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 7, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Showing 1–20 of 9,558 · Page 1 of 478

...
23
Deduction19
Search & Seizure18
ITA 6015/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: Disposed
ITAT Delhi
18 Jun 2019
AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & Sh. Ashish Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Surender Pal, Sr. DR
Section 127(1)Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

disallowance u/s. 68 actually comes to RS. 10,46,00,000/-. In appeal filed by the Assessee, Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition of RS. 1,10,00,000/- in respect of I World Business Solutions 2 Pvt. Ltd. and Rs. 15,00,000/- in respect of KG Embroidery Mills Ltd. vide order dated 28.6.2017. Aggrieved with the aforesaid action

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 7, NEW DELHI vs. PRAYAG POLYTECH PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5970/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & Sh. Ashish Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Surender Pal, Sr. DR
Section 127(1)Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

disallowance u/s. 68 actually comes to RS. 10,46,00,000/-. In appeal filed by the Assessee, Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition of RS. 1,10,00,000/- in respect of I World Business Solutions 2 Pvt. Ltd. and Rs. 15,00,000/- in respect of KG Embroidery Mills Ltd. vide order dated 28.6.2017. Aggrieved with the aforesaid action

ENKAY TRAFFIN (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT-4, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1177/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2021AY 2012-13
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 68

section 133(6) ng the notice under section 133(6) of the Act. (vi) We note from a perusal of the paper book pages (vi) We note from a perusal of the paper book pages-2, 160 to 184 the 2, 160 to 184 the details of share applicant details of share applicant M/s. Shivashiv Dealcom Pvt. Ltd M/s. Shivashiv

M/S METAL CRAFT INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-12(3), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 800/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Feb 2021AY 2012-13
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 68

section 133(6) of the Act. tion 133(6) of the Act. (vii) We note from a perusal of the paper book (vii) We note from a perusal of the paper book-2, pages 185 to 206 the 2, pages 185 to 206 the details of share applicant details of share applicant M/s. Flowtop Agency

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1), JAIPUR vs. KIRAN INFRA ISPAT LIMITED, JAIPUR

ITA 535/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 68

Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Business expenditure -\nAllowability of (Bogus purchase) - Certain portion of purchases made by\nassessee was disallowed Commissioner (Appeals) found that entire\ndisallowance was based on third party information gathered by Investigation\nWing of Department, which had not been independently subjected to further\nverification by Assessing Officer and he had not provided copy

GRAND ARK LOGISTICS PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORP. CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for the\nstatistical purposes

ITA 862/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Oct 2025AY 2021-22
Section 133(6)Section 142Section 143(3)Section 191C(6)Section 194C(6)Section 40

disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia).", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "143(3)", "144B", "142", "40(a)(ia)", "191C(6)", "133(6

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S CAPACIT"E INFRAPROJECTS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed

ITA 957/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Ita Nos. 954 To 957/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2017-18 To 2020-21 Dy. Cit, Central Circle-1(2), M/S Capacit’E Infraprojects 906, 9Th Floor, Pratistha Ltd., Bhavan, Old Cgo Building Vs. 605-607, Shrikant Chamber, (Annexe), M.K. Road, Phase-I, 6Th Floor, Adjacent To Mumbai-400020. R K Studio, Sion-Trombay Road, Chembur, Mumbai-400071. Pan No. Aaecc 9463 G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Viraj MehtaFor Respondent: Mr. Solgy Jose T. Kottaram, CIT-DR
Section 37(1)

6 M/s Capacit’e Infraprojects Ltd. ITA Nos. 954 to 957/Mum/2023 ITA Nos. 954 to 957/Mum/2023 found in documentary evidence found in documentary evidence filed , no disallowance was called , no disallowance was called for. 6.4 We have heard rival submission of the parties and peruse We have heard rival submission of the parties and peruse We have heard rival submission

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S CAPACIT"E INFRAPROJECT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed

ITA 955/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Ita Nos. 954 To 957/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2017-18 To 2020-21 Dy. Cit, Central Circle-1(2), M/S Capacit’E Infraprojects 906, 9Th Floor, Pratistha Ltd., Bhavan, Old Cgo Building Vs. 605-607, Shrikant Chamber, (Annexe), M.K. Road, Phase-I, 6Th Floor, Adjacent To Mumbai-400020. R K Studio, Sion-Trombay Road, Chembur, Mumbai-400071. Pan No. Aaecc 9463 G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Viraj MehtaFor Respondent: Mr. Solgy Jose T. Kottaram, CIT-DR
Section 37(1)

6 M/s Capacit’e Infraprojects Ltd. ITA Nos. 954 to 957/Mum/2023 ITA Nos. 954 to 957/Mum/2023 found in documentary evidence found in documentary evidence filed , no disallowance was called , no disallowance was called for. 6.4 We have heard rival submission of the parties and peruse We have heard rival submission of the parties and peruse We have heard rival submission

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S CAPACIT"E INFRAPROJECTS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed

ITA 954/MUM/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Ita Nos. 954 To 957/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2017-18 To 2020-21 Dy. Cit, Central Circle-1(2), M/S Capacit’E Infraprojects 906, 9Th Floor, Pratistha Ltd., Bhavan, Old Cgo Building Vs. 605-607, Shrikant Chamber, (Annexe), M.K. Road, Phase-I, 6Th Floor, Adjacent To Mumbai-400020. R K Studio, Sion-Trombay Road, Chembur, Mumbai-400071. Pan No. Aaecc 9463 G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Viraj MehtaFor Respondent: Mr. Solgy Jose T. Kottaram, CIT-DR
Section 37(1)

6 M/s Capacit’e Infraprojects Ltd. ITA Nos. 954 to 957/Mum/2023 ITA Nos. 954 to 957/Mum/2023 found in documentary evidence found in documentary evidence filed , no disallowance was called , no disallowance was called for. 6.4 We have heard rival submission of the parties and peruse We have heard rival submission of the parties and peruse We have heard rival submission

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S CAPACIT"E INFRAPROJECT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed

ITA 956/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Ita Nos. 954 To 957/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2017-18 To 2020-21 Dy. Cit, Central Circle-1(2), M/S Capacit’E Infraprojects 906, 9Th Floor, Pratistha Ltd., Bhavan, Old Cgo Building Vs. 605-607, Shrikant Chamber, (Annexe), M.K. Road, Phase-I, 6Th Floor, Adjacent To Mumbai-400020. R K Studio, Sion-Trombay Road, Chembur, Mumbai-400071. Pan No. Aaecc 9463 G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Viraj MehtaFor Respondent: Mr. Solgy Jose T. Kottaram, CIT-DR
Section 37(1)

6 M/s Capacit’e Infraprojects Ltd. ITA Nos. 954 to 957/Mum/2023 ITA Nos. 954 to 957/Mum/2023 found in documentary evidence found in documentary evidence filed , no disallowance was called , no disallowance was called for. 6.4 We have heard rival submission of the parties and peruse We have heard rival submission of the parties and peruse We have heard rival submission

DEVIKA BUILDESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 525/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Vinod Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

Disallowance of expense solely on the ground of non-compliance of notice u/s 133(6) is not legally sustainable. 6. The contention of the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition made by the Ld. AO, on the ground that “notices under Section

NEXTGEN VYAPAAR ,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT-2, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1176/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Apr 2021AY 2012-13
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

section 133(6) of the Act. section 133(6) of the Act. (v) We note from a perusal of the paper book (v) We note from a perusal of the paper book-2, pages 138 to 159 the 2, pages 138 to 159 the details of share applicant details of share applicant M/s. Shivarshi Construction Pvt. Ltd M/s. Shivarshi Construction

KAPLAN INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2907/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.S. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2007-08 Kaplan India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, Plot No. 15, Circle-5(1), Okhla Industrial Estate-Iii, New Delhi. New Delhi-110020 (Pan: Aaics9919F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee : S/Shri Nageswar Rao, Sandeep S. Karhail, Adv. Shri Parth, Adv. Department By: Shri Sandeep Kumar Mishra, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.03.2019

For Appellant: S/Shri Nageswar Rao, Sandeep S. Karhail, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Kumar Mishra, Sr DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 92Section 92C

section 133(6) and disallowance of expenditure towards Group insurance of employees. The Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. CIT (A) upheld

DCIT 12(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. BUSINESS MATCH SERVICES (I) P. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6330/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Lakshmi Vara Prasad Gude, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Jitendra Jain, D.R
Section 115JSection 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 14ASection 36Section 68

disallowance of Rs.4,87,52,408/- u/s14A. 5.The appellant prays that for these and other reasons it is submitted that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the above grounds be set aside and that of the A.O. be restored. 2 M/s. Businessmatch Services (I) Pvt. Ltd. 6. The appellant craves leave to amend add, amend or alter

DCIT 9(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. FERN INFRASTRUCTURE P.LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 3390/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2018AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Deshpande
Section 131(1)Section 133Section 68

section 133 (6) and summons u/s. 131(1) were issued to 19 parties, in some cases the notices issued were returned back by the postal department and in some cases notices were served but no reply was received. The A.O. asked the aR of the assessee to produce those parties. Furhter, the AR of the assessee was also asked

ITO 1(2)(3), MUMBAI vs. MANGALAM DRUGS & ORGANICS LTD, MUMBAI

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5279/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Tulsian, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Ranjan- Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 14ASection 250

disallowance under section 14A of the Act. The revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal against the relief given by the CIT(A) towards bogus purchases. 4. The brief facts pertaining to the issue under consideration – The AO during the course of assessment proceeding issued notice under section 133(6

THE ACIT ,CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S PRAKASH OILS LTD., DHAR

In the result, the above captioned appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the

ITA 226/IND/2021[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Jan 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Tulsian, CA &For Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT, DR
Section 147

133(6) were issued by the AO to the brokers who duly complied with the same and represented their matters before the then AO. It is further submitted by the appellant that the entire discussion made by the AO in the reassessment order is with respect to brokers namely S. N. Commodities, Shubhlaxmi Commodities, Subhlamxi Traders and Sairam Commodities

THE ADDL. CIT RANGE -1, INDORE vs. M/S PRAKASH OILS LTD., DHAR

In the result, the above captioned appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the

ITA 227/IND/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Tulsian, CA &For Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT, DR
Section 147

133(6) were issued by the AO to the brokers who duly complied with the same and represented their matters before the then AO. It is further submitted by the appellant that the entire discussion made by the AO in the reassessment order is with respect to brokers namely S. N. Commodities, Shubhlaxmi Commodities, Subhlamxi Traders and Sairam Commodities

THE ACIT,CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S PRAKASH OILS LTD., DHAR

In the result, the above captioned appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the

ITA 235/IND/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Tulsian, CA &For Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT, DR
Section 147

133(6) were issued by the AO to the brokers who duly complied with the same and represented their matters before the then AO. It is further submitted by the appellant that the entire discussion made by the AO in the reassessment order is with respect to brokers namely S. N. Commodities, Shubhlaxmi Commodities, Subhlamxi Traders and Sairam Commodities