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.

441 results for “disallowance”+ Section 10(12)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai13,288Delhi11,492Bangalore3,988Chennai3,779Kolkata3,295Ahmedabad2,660Pune2,453Hyderabad1,821Jaipur1,615Surat1,022Chandigarh1,013Indore930Cochin667Raipur625Visakhapatnam592Cuttack488Rajkot476Karnataka467Amritsar441Nagpur367Lucknow297Agra198Jodhpur190Panaji178Guwahati154Ranchi148Telangana126Allahabad116SC110Patna98Dehradun88Calcutta73Jabalpur53Varanasi44Kerala41Punjab & Haryana17Rajasthan10Orissa7Himachal Pradesh6A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN5Gauhati2D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1RANJAN GOGOI PRAFULLA C. PANT1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1ANIL R. DAVE AMITAVA ROY L. NAGESWARA RAO1Tripura1Uttarakhand1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1

Key Topics

Addition to Income92Section 14476Disallowance64Section 250(6)59Section 153A56Natural Justice55Section 26337Depreciation33Section 3632Section 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

12 lacs each to Sh. Syed Ahmed Bukhari and Sh. Charanjeet Singh, totalling to Rs 24 lacs and both these person were 'settlor' and 'trustee' of the trust. The A.O found that The advance to the trustees was in violation of section 13 (1) (c) (ii) and sec. l3(d)(i) read with section

Showing 1–20 of 441 · Page 1 of 23

...
28
Section 143(3)27
Deduction23

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

12 lacs each to Sh. Syed Ahmed Bukhari and Sh. Charanjeet Singh, totalling to Rs 24 lacs and both these person were 'settlor' and 'trustee' of the trust. The A.O found that The advance to the trustees was in violation of section 13 (1) (c) (ii) and sec. l3(d)(i) read with section

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

12 lacs each to Sh. Syed Ahmed Bukhari and Sh. Charanjeet Singh, totalling to Rs 24 lacs and both these person were 'settlor' and 'trustee' of the trust. The A.O found that The advance to the trustees was in violation of section 13 (1) (c) (ii) and sec. l3(d)(i) read with section

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

12 lacs each to Sh. Syed Ahmed Bukhari and Sh. Charanjeet Singh, totalling to Rs 24 lacs and both these person were 'settlor' and 'trustee' of the trust. The A.O found that The advance to the trustees was in violation of section 13 (1) (c) (ii) and sec. l3(d)(i) read with section

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

section 3(a)(iii) of the National Highway Authority Act was issued on 10.03.2010 and after the issuance of the Notification on 10.03.2010 the competent authority called the objection, however, the objection raised by the assessee were dismissed and accordingly a declaration u/s 3D(i) was issued whereby the Land stood vested in the NHAI. Accordingly, the assessee was granted

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)

10 Jan.2013 408424273/- 4424596/- 4424596/- 11 Feb.2013 408137690/- 4421492/- 4421492/ 12 March, 363096397/- 3933544/- 3933544/- 2013 Total 52788126/- TABLE-“B” Sr. No. Description Amount (in Rs.) 1. Total interest components added 5,27,88,126/- back 2. Interest Components already 3,45,40,887/- added back by the assessee - company in its computation of Income 3. Balance Interest

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

disallowing the claim of LTCG being exempt u/s 10(38) is fully justified. In view thereof, addition of Rs. 2,11,81,016/- made by the AO is upheld Accordingly, these grounds of appeal are dismissed.” 9. Now the assessee is in appeal before the tribunal and in course of hearing the Ld. AR of the assessee has argued

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

disallowing the claim of LTCG being exempt u/s 10(38) is fully justified. In view thereof, addition of Rs. 2,11,81,016/- made by the AO is upheld Accordingly, these grounds of appeal are dismissed.” 9. Now the assessee is in appeal before the tribunal and in course of hearing the Ld. AR of the assessee has argued

M/S. SHYAM LAL THAPAR FOUNDATION,MOGA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER_II,, MOGA

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 644/ASR/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 644/(Asr)/2013 Assessment Year: 2010-11 I.T.A. No. 592/(Asr)/2015 Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Jaswinder Singh (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Sandeep Chauhan (D.R.)
Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 12A(1)Section 12A(2)Section 147

disallowance’ or ‘dilution’ in the exemption u/s. 11(1); deferment on account of non-receipt of income, or for any other reason. Again, it is he who, as the assessing authority, assuming the functions of investigation as well as adjudication, would verify if there has been a change in the objects and activities of the assessee over the relevant period

M/S SHYMA LAL THAPAR FOUNDATION,MOGA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICERII, MOGA

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 592/ASR/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 644/(Asr)/2013 Assessment Year: 2010-11 I.T.A. No. 592/(Asr)/2015 Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Jaswinder Singh (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Sandeep Chauhan (D.R.)
Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 12A(1)Section 12A(2)Section 147

disallowance’ or ‘dilution’ in the exemption u/s. 11(1); deferment on account of non-receipt of income, or for any other reason. Again, it is he who, as the assessing authority, assuming the functions of investigation as well as adjudication, would verify if there has been a change in the objects and activities of the assessee over the relevant period

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS), JALANDHAR vs. DR SHYAM LAL THAPAR NURSING HOME, MOGA

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 586/ASR/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 644/(Asr)/2013 Assessment Year: 2010-11 I.T.A. No. 592/(Asr)/2015 Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Jaswinder Singh (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Sandeep Chauhan (D.R.)
Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 12A(1)Section 12A(2)Section 147

disallowance’ or ‘dilution’ in the exemption u/s. 11(1); deferment on account of non-receipt of income, or for any other reason. Again, it is he who, as the assessing authority, assuming the functions of investigation as well as adjudication, would verify if there has been a change in the objects and activities of the assessee over the relevant period

MESERS BAJAJ EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,LUDHIANA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 517/ASR/2018[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar16 Aug 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 10Section 12Section 12A

disallowance can be made if any ,on examination at the assessment stage it is found that the assessee is not entitled to the exemption under section 11 of the Act and the amount received was chargeable to income of the assessee. However, at the stage of registration, the CIT exemption cannot deny the registration merely on the basis

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

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

ITA 291/ASR/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2023AY 2004-05

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

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

disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 23,16,393/- on the basis of invoking explanation 10 to section 43(1) of the Act is highly unjustified and uncalled for. Reliance is also placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) 65 SOT 58 (Kofi DCIT vs. Rasoi Ltd. I. Section 43(1), read with section 32 of the Income

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 of depreciation of Rs. 23,16,393/- on the basis of invoking explanation 10 to section 43(1) of the Act is highly unjustified and uncalled for. Reliance is also placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) 65 SOT 58 (Kofi DCIT vs. Rasoi Ltd. I. Section 43(1), read with section 32 of the Income

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 of depreciation of Rs. 23,16,393/- on the basis of invoking explanation 10 to section 43(1) of the Act is highly unjustified and uncalled for. Reliance is also placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) 65 SOT 58 (Kofi DCIT vs. Rasoi Ltd. I. Section 43(1), read with section 32 of the Income

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

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

ITA 289/ASR/2015[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2023AY 2002-03

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

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

disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 23,16,393/- on the basis of invoking explanation 10 to section 43(1) of the Act is highly unjustified and uncalled for. Reliance is also placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) 65 SOT 58 (Kofi DCIT vs. Rasoi Ltd. I. Section 43(1), read with section 32 of the Income

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

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

ITA 255/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 of depreciation of Rs. 23,16,393/- on the basis of invoking explanation 10 to section 43(1) of the Act is highly unjustified and uncalled for. Reliance is also placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) 65 SOT 58 (Kofi DCIT vs. Rasoi Ltd. I. Section 43(1), read with section 32 of the Income

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

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

ITA 290/ASR/2015[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2023AY 2003-04

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

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

disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 23,16,393/- on the basis of invoking explanation 10 to section 43(1) of the Act is highly unjustified and uncalled for. Reliance is also placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) 65 SOT 58 (Kofi DCIT vs. Rasoi Ltd. I. Section 43(1), read with section 32 of the Income

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 471/ASR/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

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

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

disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 23,16,393/- on the basis of invoking explanation 10 to section 43(1) of the Act is highly unjustified and uncalled for. Reliance is also placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) 65 SOT 58 (Kofi DCIT vs. Rasoi Ltd. I. Section 43(1), read with section 32 of the Income

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 of depreciation of Rs. 23,16,393/- on the basis of invoking explanation 10 to section 43(1) of the Act is highly unjustified and uncalled for. Reliance is also placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) 65 SOT 58 (Kofi DCIT vs. Rasoi Ltd. I. Section 43(1), read with section 32 of the Income