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.

3,702 results for “disallowance”+ Section 153Cclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,121Mumbai907Chennai394Bangalore381Jaipur170Hyderabad147Cochin77Ahmedabad57Kolkata54Chandigarh41Guwahati41Indore40Allahabad37Pune31Amritsar28Nagpur27Karnataka25Rajkot22Lucknow20Visakhapatnam14Raipur13Agra11Kerala9Patna8Surat7Dehradun7Jodhpur5Calcutta3Cuttack2Telangana1Varanasi1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 153C168Addition to Income71Section 143(3)67Section 153A49Section 13241Disallowance40Section 14733Section 6832Section 25030Section 148

DCIT CC 2 2 , CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT LTD, CHENNAI

In the result, both the both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Revenue and the

ITA 1254/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. C. Yamuna, CIT &
Section 132Section 153CSection 250

Section 153C of the Act fro analyzed the entire statutory framework of Section 153C of the Act fro analyzed the entire statutory framework of Section 153C of the Act from its introduction to the amendment by Finance Act, 2017 and its its introduction to the amendment by Finance Act, 2017 and its its introduction to the amendment by Finance

SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2),, CHENNAI

Showing 1–20 of 3,702 · Page 1 of 186

...
24
Survey u/s 133A18
Search & Seizure17

In the result, both the both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Revenue and the

ITA 1238/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. C. Yamuna, CIT &
Section 132Section 153CSection 250

Section 153C of the Act fro analyzed the entire statutory framework of Section 153C of the Act fro analyzed the entire statutory framework of Section 153C of the Act from its introduction to the amendment by Finance Act, 2017 and its its introduction to the amendment by Finance Act, 2017 and its its introduction to the amendment by Finance

M/S. EAGLE TRADERS & LOGISTICS,BELLARY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(3), BANGALORE

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in above terms

ITA 234/BANG/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 May 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri. Prashanth G S, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 132(1)(a)Section 132(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 292B

disallowing the purchases made by the appellant while accepting the entire sales under the facts & circumstances of the case. 5 The appellant denies itself liable to be levied to interest under 2,04,65,598/- sections 234A, B & C of the Act and further the computation of interest was not provided to the appellant as regard to the rate, period

M/S. EAGLE TRADERS & LOGISTICS,BELLARY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(3), BANGALORE

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in above terms

ITA 237/BANG/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri. Prashanth G S, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 132(1)(a)Section 132(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 292B

disallowing the purchases made by the appellant while accepting the entire sales under the facts & circumstances of the case. 5 The appellant denies itself liable to be levied to interest under 2,04,65,598/- sections 234A, B & C of the Act and further the computation of interest was not provided to the appellant as regard to the rate, period

M/S. EAGLE TRADERS & LOGISTICS,BELLARY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(3), BANGALORE

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in above terms

ITA 236/BANG/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri. Prashanth G S, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 132(1)(a)Section 132(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 292B

disallowing the purchases made by the appellant while accepting the entire sales under the facts & circumstances of the case. 5 The appellant denies itself liable to be levied to interest under 2,04,65,598/- sections 234A, B & C of the Act and further the computation of interest was not provided to the appellant as regard to the rate, period

M/S. EAGLE TRADERS & LOGISTICS,BELLARY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(3), BANGALORE

ITA 235/BANG/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 May 2025AY 2009-10
Section 132(1)(a)Section 132(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 292B

153C of the Act has not been complied with\nor having complied, copy of satisfaction note has not been\nprovided to the appellant and thus the assessment has no\nlegs to stand the test of law.\ne) The orders of the authorities below are bad in law as the\nsearch initiated in the case of the appellant is illegal

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD,BILASPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeals for the assessment year 2009–10 to 2013–14 are partly allowed

ITA 111/NAG/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant Mmber

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 153ASection 153CSection 250

section 153A(1) read with „Expln-2‟; in absence of this, assessment made u/s153C would be invalid & is liable to be quashed; relied on Goldstone Cements Ltd (2023) (Gau HC); Fortune Vanijya (P) Ltd (2023) (Gau HC).” 40. In the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.111/Nag/ 2024, for the assessment year 2012-13 along with following additional ground

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD,BILASPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeals for the assessment year 2009–10 to 2013–14 are partly allowed

ITA 112/NAG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant Mmber

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 153ASection 153CSection 250

section 153A(1) read with „Expln-2‟; in absence of this, assessment made u/s153C would be invalid & is liable to be quashed; relied on Goldstone Cements Ltd (2023) (Gau HC); Fortune Vanijya (P) Ltd (2023) (Gau HC).” 40. In the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.111/Nag/ 2024, for the assessment year 2012-13 along with following additional ground

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION& INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD,BILASPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeals for the assessment year 2009–10 to 2013–14 are partly allowed

ITA 110/NAG/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant Mmber

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 153ASection 153CSection 250

section 153A(1) read with „Expln-2‟; in absence of this, assessment made u/s153C would be invalid & is liable to be quashed; relied on Goldstone Cements Ltd (2023) (Gau HC); Fortune Vanijya (P) Ltd (2023) (Gau HC).” 40. In the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.111/Nag/ 2024, for the assessment year 2012-13 along with following additional ground

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION& INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD,BILASPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeals for the assessment year 2009–10 to 2013–14 are partly allowed

ITA 108/NAG/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Dec 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant Mmber

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 153ASection 153CSection 250

section 153A(1) read with „Expln-2‟; in absence of this, assessment made u/s153C would be invalid & is liable to be quashed; relied on Goldstone Cements Ltd (2023) (Gau HC); Fortune Vanijya (P) Ltd (2023) (Gau HC).” 40. In the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.111/Nag/ 2024, for the assessment year 2012-13 along with following additional ground

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION& INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD,BILASPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeals for the assessment year 2009–10 to 2013–14 are partly allowed

ITA 109/NAG/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant Mmber

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 153ASection 153CSection 250

section 153A(1) read with „Expln-2‟; in absence of this, assessment made u/s153C would be invalid & is liable to be quashed; relied on Goldstone Cements Ltd (2023) (Gau HC); Fortune Vanijya (P) Ltd (2023) (Gau HC).” 40. In the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.111/Nag/ 2024, for the assessment year 2012-13 along with following additional ground

DCIT CC 2 2 , CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT LTD, CHENNAI

ITA 1260/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2025AY 2017-18
Section 132Section 153CSection 250Section 80G

disallowance of certain items of expenses.\n3. Aggrieved by the above order(s) of the AO, the assessee preferred\nappeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee is noted to have challenged\nthe validity of the notices issued u/s 153C of the Act on several fronts.\nTaking into account the submissions put forth by the assessee, the Ld.\nCIT

DCIT CC 2 2 , CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT LTD, CHENNAI

ITA 1255/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2025AY 2015-16
Section 132Section 153CSection 250Section 80G

disallowance of certain items of expenses.\n3. Aggrieved by the above order(s) of the AO, the assessee preferred\nappeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee is noted to have challenged\nthe validity of the notices issued u/s 153C of the Act on several fronts.\nTaking into account the submissions put forth by the assessee, the Ld.\nCIT

M/S MODEL TANNERS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,KANPUR vs. ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KANPUR

In the result, ITA No. 374/LKW/2017 is partly allowed while ITA No

ITA 375/LKW/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Jan 2026AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Jaiswal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Puneet Kumar, CIT DR
Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 801BSection 80I

section 153C by the AO is justified. Therefore, he disallowed the additional grounds. Discussing the deduction under section 80IB and the disallowance

M/S MODEL TANNERS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,KANPUR vs. ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KANPUR

In the result, ITA No. 374/LKW/2017 is partly allowed while ITA No

ITA 374/LKW/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Jan 2026AY 2005-06
For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Jaiswal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Puneet Kumar, CIT DR
Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 801BSection 80I

section 153C by the AO is justified. Therefore, he disallowed the additional grounds. Discussing the deduction under section 80IB and the disallowance

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. GALI JANARDHANA REDDY

ITA/704/2018HC Karnataka31 Mar 2023

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 153CSection 153DSection 260A

Section 153C are therefore in order and in accordance with 13 law, and the same are upheld for all the assessment years involved. It was also indicated in a tabular form in the aforesaid order. The issues involved on merits were discussed and also assigning the reasons it is relating to principles of natural justice. 13. Further in paragraph

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. RRJ SECURITIES LTD

ITA/177/2015HC Delhi30 Oct 2015

Bench: The Tribunal, Were Filed By The Revenue (Being

For Appellant: Mr N.P. Sahni, Senior Standing Counsel withFor Respondent: Mr Kapil Goyal and Mr V.M. Chaurasia
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 260ASection 69C

153C read with Section 143(2) of the Act. The Revenue was aggrieved inasmuch as the CIT(A) had set aside the addition to the total income of the Assessee made by the AO under Section 69C of the Act in respect of the purchases as declared by the Assessee as well as the AO’s decision to disallow

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. RRJ SECURITIES LTD.

ITA-176/2015HC Delhi30 Oct 2015

Bench: The Tribunal, Were Filed By The Revenue (Being

For Appellant: Mr N.P. Sahni, Senior Standing Counsel withFor Respondent: Mr Kapil Goyal and Mr V.M. Chaurasia
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 260ASection 69C

153C read with Section 143(2) of the Act. The Revenue was aggrieved inasmuch as the CIT(A) had set aside the addition to the total income of the Assessee made by the AO under Section 69C of the Act in respect of the purchases as declared by the Assessee as well as the AO’s decision to disallow

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. RRJ SECURITIES LTD.

ITA-175/2015HC Delhi30 Oct 2015

Bench: The Tribunal, Were Filed By The Revenue (Being

For Appellant: Mr N.P. Sahni, Senior Standing Counsel withFor Respondent: Mr Kapil Goyal and Mr V.M. Chaurasia
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 260ASection 69C

153C read with Section 143(2) of the Act. The Revenue was aggrieved inasmuch as the CIT(A) had set aside the addition to the total income of the Assessee made by the AO under Section 69C of the Act in respect of the purchases as declared by the Assessee as well as the AO’s decision to disallow

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. RRJ SECURITIES LTD.

ITA-164/2015HC Delhi30 Oct 2015

Bench: The Tribunal, Were Filed By The Revenue (Being

For Appellant: Mr N.P. Sahni, Senior Standing Counsel withFor Respondent: Mr Kapil Goyal and Mr V.M. Chaurasia
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 260ASection 69C

153C read with Section 143(2) of the Act. The Revenue was aggrieved inasmuch as the CIT(A) had set aside the addition to the total income of the Assessee made by the AO under Section 69C of the Act in respect of the purchases as declared by the Assessee as well as the AO’s decision to disallow