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.

52,155 results for “disallowance”+ Section 143(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai16,663Delhi11,110Kolkata4,563Bangalore3,678Chennai3,380Ahmedabad1,809Pune1,516Jaipur1,261Hyderabad1,206Surat846Indore845Chandigarh619Rajkot515Cochin497Visakhapatnam415Nagpur374Raipur346Lucknow342Karnataka318Amritsar289Jodhpur165Panaji163Guwahati154Patna147Cuttack138Agra124Dehradun104Ranchi102Telangana96Calcutta90Allahabad80Jabalpur54SC44Varanasi31Kerala27Punjab & Haryana17Orissa8Himachal Pradesh6Rajasthan3Gauhati2Andhra Pradesh2Uttarakhand2Tripura1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Bombay1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1

Key Topics

Section 36(1)(va)61Section 143(3)59Disallowance59Addition to Income55Section 14A47Section 25037Deduction33Section 143(1)32Section 43B32Section 143(2)

DCIT CIRCLE-3(1)91), BENGALURU vs. G CORP PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result is filed by the learned assessing officer is allowed

ITA 2484/BANG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Apr 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: None
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

143 (3) of the Income Tax Act was passed on 16 December 2016 by the Asst Commissioner of income tax, circle – 3 (1) (2), Bangalore assessing the total income of the assessee at ₹ 2,088,894/–. The assessing officer has made the adjustment of disallowance of expenditure of ₹ 30,425,247 and disallowance of interest expenditure under section

INTACT DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

Showing 1–20 of 52,155 · Page 1 of 2,608

...
31
Section 26330
Unexplained Cash Credit8
ITA 823/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Zain Ahmed Khan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Balusamy N, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 234ASection 250

section 144 of the Act. It is immaterial whether the AO has passed the order u/s. 143(3) or 144 of the Act, when there is a return and the AO wanted to disallow some claim, it is mandatory on the part of the AO to issue a statutory notice u/s. 143(2

INTACT DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

Accordingly, the appeals of the assessee for the AY 2015-16\nto AY 2017-18 are allowed

ITA 825/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Nov 2025AY 2017-18
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 234ASection 250

section 148 of the Act.\n6. The Id. AO erred in not issuing notice u/s 143(2) of the I.T. Act.\n7. Without prejudice to the above grounds, the Id. AO erred in disallowing

INTACT DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

ITA 824/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Zain Ahmed Khan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Balusamy N, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 234ASection 250

section 144 of the Act. It is immaterial whether the AO has passed the order u/s. 143(3) or 144 of the Act, when there is a return and the AO wanted to disallow some claim, it is mandatory on the part of the AO to issue a statutory notice u/s. 143(2

KUSUM DUBE,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 2(3), GURGAON

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7444/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh(), Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishrakusum Dube Vs. Ito Ward 2(3) C/O Kapil Goel Adv. Gurgaon, Income Tax F-26/124 Sector 7, Rohini Department, Phase V, Delhi - 110085 Udyog Vihar, Sector 19, Gurugram, Haryana 122016 Haryana "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aewpd9787R Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Dr. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 54F

143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as to ‘the Act’) dated 22.08.2017 by the ITO, Ward 2(3), Gurgaon whereby and where under the assessee 2 has been granted part relief on account of claim under Section 54F of the Act to the extent of Rs.15,63,566/- out of the disallowance

M/S. BHARAT BEEDI WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, MANGALURU

ITA 644/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Apr 2025AY 2019-20
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

section 143(2) and applicable board\ncirculars and instructions.\n4. As regards disallowance under Section_14A_u/s Rule\n8D(2

MAHENDRA SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 654/JPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Mar 2025AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Sarwan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl.CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250

143(2) on very same day has to\nbe treated as invalid and assessment is vitiated due to non-application of mind by\nAO-Therefore, on all counts reassessment proceedings initiated by AO and\nuphheld by CIT(A) is not in accordance with law-Assessee's appeal allowed.\n\nFurther on the perusal of the order sheet it is clearly

ACIT CIRCLE-1(2), NEW DELHI vs. ASSOCIATED TECHNO PLASTICS PVT LTD, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7444/DEL/1992[1989-90]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Mar 2025AY 1989-90

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh(), Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishrakusum Dube Vs. Ito Ward 2(3) C/O Kapil Goel Adv. Gurgaon, Income Tax F-26/124 Sector 7, Rohini Department, Phase V, Delhi - 110085 Udyog Vihar, Sector 19, Gurugram, Haryana 122016 Haryana "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aewpd9787R Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Dr. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 54F

143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as to ‘the Act’) dated 22.08.2017 by the ITO, Ward 2(3), Gurgaon whereby and where under the assessee 2 has been granted part relief on account of claim under Section 54F of the Act to the extent of Rs.15,63,566/- out of the disallowance

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ADITYA BIRLA HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED, MUMBAI

ITA 4610/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Mar 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ronak DoshiFor Respondent: Dr. K. R. Subhash
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 43B

2. Income as computed u/s - 143(1)(a) 3. Variation in respect of issue of - disallowance u/s 14A 4. Variation in respect of issue of - disallowance-insurance expense claimed u/s 36 5. Total Income determined as per Rs. 149,11,76,360/- the above proposal The assessment is made u/s 143(3) read with section

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ADITYA BIRLA HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED, MUMBAI

ITA 4611/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ronak DoshiFor Respondent: Dr. K. R. Subhash
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 43B

2. Income as computed u/s - 143(1)(a) 3. Variation in respect of issue of - disallowance u/s 14A 4. Variation in respect of issue of - disallowance-insurance expense claimed u/s 36 5. Total Income determined as per Rs. 149,11,76,360/- the above proposal The assessment is made u/s 143(3) read with section

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ADITYA BIRLA HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED, MUMBAI

ITA 4609/MUM/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Mar 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ronak DoshiFor Respondent: Dr. K. R. Subhash
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 43B

2. Income as computed u/s - 143(1)(a) 3. Variation in respect of issue of - disallowance u/s 14A 4. Variation in respect of issue of - disallowance-insurance expense claimed u/s 36 5. Total Income determined as per Rs. 149,11,76,360/- the above proposal The assessment is made u/s 143(3) read with section

M/S. ATUL PROJECTS INDIA PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- 9(1)(2), ( NOW JURIDICTION WITH DC CC-2(4), MUMBAI

ITA 1879/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 153CSection 37(1)Section 43CSection 69CSection 80I

143(3) of the Act dated 29.12.2016 did not allow the deduction claimed by the assessee under section 80IB(10) for Rs.86,30,612/- for the reason that –  The deduction was not claimed in the original return of income filed under section 139(1) and, therefore, not allowable as per provision of section 80AC;  Certain units are having the built

M/S. ATUL PROJECTS INDIA PVT LTD.,,MIMBAI vs. DCIT- 9(1)(2), ( NOW JURIDICTION WITH DC CC-2(4), MUMBAI

ITA 1877/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 153CSection 37(1)Section 43CSection 69CSection 80I

143(3) of the Act dated 29.12.2016 did not allow the deduction claimed by the assessee under section 80IB(10) for Rs.86,30,612/- for the reason that –  The deduction was not claimed in the original return of income filed under section 139(1) and, therefore, not allowable as per provision of section 80AC;  Certain units are having the built

M/S. ATUL PROJECTS INDIA PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- 9(1)(2), ( NOW JURIDICTION WITH DC CC-2(4), MUMBAI

ITA 1876/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 153CSection 37(1)Section 43CSection 69CSection 80I

143(3) of the Act dated 29.12.2016 did not allow the deduction claimed by the assessee under section 80IB(10) for Rs.86,30,612/- for the reason that –  The deduction was not claimed in the original return of income filed under section 139(1) and, therefore, not allowable as per provision of section 80AC;  Certain units are having the built

M/S. ATUL PROJECTS INDIA P LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- 9(1)(2) (NOW JURIDICTION WITH DC CC 2(4)), MUMBAI

ITA 1940/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 153CSection 37(1)Section 43CSection 69CSection 80I

143(3) of the Act dated 29.12.2016 did not allow the deduction claimed by the assessee under section 80IB(10) for Rs.86,30,612/- for the reason that –  The deduction was not claimed in the original return of income filed under section 139(1) and, therefore, not allowable as per provision of section 80AC;  Certain units are having the built

M/S. ATUL PROJECTS INDIA PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- 9(1)(2), ( NOW JURIDICTION WITH DC CC-2(4), MUMBAI

ITA 1880/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 153CSection 37(1)Section 43CSection 69CSection 80I

143(3) of the Act dated 29.12.2016 did not allow the deduction claimed by the assessee under section 80IB(10) for Rs.86,30,612/- for the reason that –  The deduction was not claimed in the original return of income filed under section 139(1) and, therefore, not allowable as per provision of section 80AC;  Certain units are having the built

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(8), SURAT vs. MAHAVEER SHANTILAL JAIN, SURAT

ITA 453/SRT/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.453/Srt/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Hearing) The Ito, Vs. Mahaveer Shantilal Jain, Ward-2(3)(8), Prop. M/S Mukesh Diamonds, 1St Surat. Office No.401, Floor, H.No.5/1171/72/73/1090, New Dtc, Hath Falia, Haripura, Surat – 395009. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aqupj6439L Appellant By Shri Ritesh Mishra, Cit(Dr) Respondent By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Date Of Hearing 08/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 25/09/2023

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

143(2) and 142(1) of the Act, the assessee furnished the details / explanation before the assessing officer. 6. The assessing officer observed that during the year under consideration, the assessee was engaged in the business of Import, export, and trading in all kinds of diamonds in the name and style of his proprietary concern viz. Divya Jewels. During

BALMUKUND M VAISHNAV,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(7), SURAT

ITA 205/SRT/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.204/Srt/2019 Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Hearing) The Ito, Ward-2(3)(7), Vs. Balmukund M. Vaishnav, Surat. 5B/1054, Ramnanth Mahadev Ni Sheri, Haripura, Surat – 395009. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aokpv5065Q (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.205/Srt/2019 Assessment Year: (2013-14) Balmukund M. Vaishnav, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(3)(7), 5B/1054, Ramnanth Mahadev Ni Surat. Sheri, Haripura, Surat – 395009. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aokpv5065Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 69C

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), dated 23.03.2016. ITA Nos. 204 &205/SRT/2019 Balmukund M. Vaishnav 2. Since, the issue involved in these cross appeals are common and identical; therefore, these appeals have been clubbed and heard together and a consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience and brevity

APEEJAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

ITA 117/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Subhrajyoti Bhattacharjee, CIT D/R
Section 14ASection 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. The major issues for consideration by the assessing officer were with regard to disallowance

APEEJAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

ITA 116/KOL/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Aug 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Subhrajyoti Bhattacharjee, CIT D/R
Section 14ASection 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. The major issues for consideration by the assessing officer were with regard to disallowance