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.

446 results for “disallowance”+ Section 10(10)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai17,314Delhi13,826Chennai4,867Bangalore4,802Kolkata4,449Ahmedabad3,022Pune1,976Hyderabad1,865Jaipur1,568Surat1,090Indore924Chandigarh873Cochin777Raipur645Rajkot578Karnataka564Visakhapatnam495Amritsar446Nagpur438Cuttack415Lucknow379Panaji257Jodhpur227Agra211Ranchi161Guwahati161Telangana156Patna131Allahabad130SC129Dehradun127Calcutta103Jabalpur74Kerala62Varanasi53Punjab & Haryana30Rajasthan11Orissa10Himachal Pradesh7A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN6Gauhati2H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1Bombay1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1RANJAN GOGOI PRAFULLA C. PANT1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1ANIL R. DAVE AMITAVA ROY L. NAGESWARA RAO1Andhra Pradesh1Tripura1Uttarakhand1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1

Key Topics

Addition to Income93Section 14476Disallowance66Section 250(6)60Natural Justice57Section 153A56Depreciation33Section 3632Section 143(3)29Section 147

M/S. SHREE-E-KASHMIR COLLEGE OF EDUCATIONAL,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

In the result, the captioned four appeals of the Assessee Trust are allowed

ITA 556/ASR/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar13 Jun 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manpreet Singh Duggal, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 13Section 13(2)Section 13(3)Section 234A

section 10(23cl of the Act, should have been allowed and there was no justification in assessing the income at Rs. 21,72,081/-. 5. That the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has further grossly erred in confirming the disallowance

Showing 1–20 of 446 · Page 1 of 23

...
27
Deduction24
Section 26322

M/S. SHREE-E-KASHMIR COLLEGE OF EDUCATIONAL,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

In the result, the captioned four appeals of the Assessee Trust are allowed

ITA 555/ASR/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar13 Jun 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manpreet Singh Duggal, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 13Section 13(2)Section 13(3)Section 234A

section 10(23cl of the Act, should have been allowed and there was no justification in assessing the income at Rs. 21,72,081/-. 5. That the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has further grossly erred in confirming the disallowance

M/S. SHREE-E-KASHMIR COLLEGE OF EDUCATIONAL,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

In the result, the captioned four appeals of the Assessee Trust are allowed

ITA 558/ASR/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar13 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manpreet Singh Duggal, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 13Section 13(2)Section 13(3)Section 234A

section 10(23cl of the Act, should have been allowed and there was no justification in assessing the income at Rs. 21,72,081/-. 5. That the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has further grossly erred in confirming the disallowance

M/S. SHREE-E-KASHMIR COLLEGE OF EDUCATIONAL,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

In the result, the captioned four appeals of the Assessee Trust are allowed

ITA 557/ASR/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar13 Jun 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manpreet Singh Duggal, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 13Section 13(2)Section 13(3)Section 234A

section 10(23cl of the Act, should have been allowed and there was no justification in assessing the income at Rs. 21,72,081/-. 5. That the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has further grossly erred in confirming the disallowance

M/S ARYA MODEL HIGH SCHOOL,,MOGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 60/ASR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 10Section 11Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

disallowed the exemption U/s 11 of the Act. As the result, the total income over expenditure from income and expenditure account amount to Rs.43,80,969/- was accepted as taxable income. Being aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of the ld. AO. Being aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before

M/S ARYA MODEL HIGH SCHOOL,,MOGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 13/ASR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 10Section 11Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

disallowed the exemption U/s 11 of the Act. As the result, the total income over expenditure from income and expenditure account amount to Rs.43,80,969/- was accepted as taxable income. Being aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of the ld. AO. Being aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before

MESERS ARYA MODEL SCHOOL,MOGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (EXEMPTIONS), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 553/ASR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 10Section 11Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

disallowed the exemption U/s 11 of the Act. As the result, the total income over expenditure from income and expenditure account amount to Rs.43,80,969/- was accepted as taxable income. Being aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of the ld. AO. Being aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before

MESERS ARYA MODEL HIGH SCHOOL,MOGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTIONS), JALANDHAR WARD, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 552/ASR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 10Section 11Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

disallowed the exemption U/s 11 of the Act. As the result, the total income over expenditure from income and expenditure account amount to Rs.43,80,969/- was accepted as taxable income. Being aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of the ld. AO. Being aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE- 3, SRINAGAR vs. MEASAGE SAIFCO CEEMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED, SRINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the Department and CO of the Assesse is 23

ITA 451/ASR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar23 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Rajiv Wadhera, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

section u/s 36(i)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 22. Next ground is regarding adhoc disallowance of 10% out of the expenses

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2 , PHAGWARA vs. SH. SUCHA SINGH, PHILLAUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 702/ASR/2017[2009-10]Status: FixedITAT Amritsar16 Aug 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shrilaliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 10(37)Section 143(2)Section 54B

disallowed by the competent authority. 4. At Para-4, page-56 it is written that "And whereas in pursuance of section 3D(1) of the said act, the competent authority had submitted its report to the Central Govt." 5. And in the last Para at page 56 of gazette, it is mentioned that as per section

SMT. SATYAWATI MARWAHA THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SH, CHANDER SHEIKHAR MARWAHA,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal for Asstt

ITA 347/ASR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Ashray Sarna, C. A
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 144Section 144rSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 250(6)Section 68

section 10(38), of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained moneys (Share dealings) - High Court by impugned order held that where Assessing Officer disallowed

SMT. SATYAWATI MARWAHA THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SH. CHANDER SHEIKHAR MARWAHA,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal for Asstt

ITA 346/ASR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Ashray Sarna, C. A
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 144Section 144rSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 250(6)Section 68

section 10(38), of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained moneys (Share dealings) - High Court by impugned order held that where Assessing Officer disallowed

KAY SWITCGEARS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KAPURTHALA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA 192/Asr/2022 is

ITA 24/ASR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Apr 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.23/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Ess Ess Kay Engineering Co. Vs. Nfac, Delhi/C/O Asstt. Pvt. Ltd. Factory Area, Commissioner Of Income Jalandhar. Tax Circle-4, Jalandhar. [Pan: Aaace5057G] (Respondent) (Appellant)

Section 143(1)Section 250oSection 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

disallowance in terms of section 143(1)(a) of the Act. The action of revenue is in accordance with the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cited decision. 10. In the result

M. K HOTEL & RESORTS LIMITED,AMRITSAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA 192/Asr/2022 is

ITA 14/ASR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Apr 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.23/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Ess Ess Kay Engineering Co. Vs. Nfac, Delhi/C/O Asstt. Pvt. Ltd. Factory Area, Commissioner Of Income Jalandhar. Tax Circle-4, Jalandhar. [Pan: Aaace5057G] (Respondent) (Appellant)

Section 143(1)Section 250oSection 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

disallowance in terms of section 143(1)(a) of the Act. The action of revenue is in accordance with the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cited decision. 10. In the result

ESS ESS KAY ENGINEERING COMPAY PRIVATE LIMITED ,KAPURTHALA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA 192/Asr/2022 is

ITA 23/ASR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Apr 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.23/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Ess Ess Kay Engineering Co. Vs. Nfac, Delhi/C/O Asstt. Pvt. Ltd. Factory Area, Commissioner Of Income Jalandhar. Tax Circle-4, Jalandhar. [Pan: Aaace5057G] (Respondent) (Appellant)

Section 143(1)Section 250oSection 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

disallowance in terms of section 143(1)(a) of the Act. The action of revenue is in accordance with the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cited decision. 10. In the result

NAVODIA TIMES PRIVATE LIMITED ,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA 192/Asr/2022 is

ITA 192/ASR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar31 Jan 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 234CSection 250oSection 36

disallowance in terms of section 143(1)(a) of the Act. The action of revenue is in accordance with the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cited decision. 10. In the result

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. FIL INDUSTRIES LTD, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

ITA 470/ASR/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32Section 43(1)Section 80I

disallowance is entirely misconceived and is incorrect and has arbitrarily been made. 1.1 That while doing so, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate the basic fact that capital subsidy received is not equivalent to investment and thus, invocation of provisions of explanation 10 to section

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S FIL INDUSTRIES,, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

ITA 293/ASR/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32Section 43(1)Section 80I

disallowance is entirely misconceived and is incorrect and has arbitrarily been made. 1.1 That while doing so, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate the basic fact that capital subsidy received is not equivalent to investment and thus, invocation of provisions of explanation 10 to section

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S FIL INDUSTRIES,, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

ITA 292/ASR/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32Section 43(1)Section 80I

disallowance is entirely misconceived and is incorrect and has arbitrarily been made. 1.1 That while doing so, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate the basic fact that capital subsidy received is not equivalent to investment and thus, invocation of provisions of explanation 10 to section

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S FIL INDUSTRIES,, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

ITA 294/ASR/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32Section 43(1)Section 80I

disallowance is entirely misconceived and is incorrect and has arbitrarily been made. 1.1 That while doing so, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate the basic fact that capital subsidy received is not equivalent to investment and thus, invocation of provisions of explanation 10 to section