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.

39 results for “disallowance”+ Section 131(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,243Delhi1,734Kolkata693Bangalore529Chennai448Jaipur422Ahmedabad347Hyderabad209Chandigarh168Raipur159Indore152Surat143Pune131Cochin121Karnataka100Rajkot83Nagpur72Visakhapatnam68Lucknow61Guwahati45Amritsar39Calcutta36Cuttack34Jodhpur28Telangana20Ranchi19Agra14Panaji13Allahabad12SC10Patna9Jabalpur7Varanasi5Dehradun3Rajasthan1RANJAN GOGOI PRAFULLA C. PANT1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 153A42Addition to Income30Section 25023Section 69A21Undisclosed Income21Section 80I16Section 2639Deduction9Section 367Section 143(3)

MESERS SUPERTECH FORGINGS(INDIA) PVT.LTD.,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE IV, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 563/ASR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar02 Aug 2021AY 2010-11
Section 143(3)Section 147

disallowed the entire purchases amounting to ₹ 42693470/- holding as unverifiable purchases from the following parties: - Sr. NoName of the Concern Amount of Purchases 1. Madan lalPahuja M/S Shiv bholeKirpa Traders 1.05 Cr Shivpuri, Ludhiana 2. Lovy Steel and Allied Industries, Sector 3-C 0.17 Cr Gobindgarh 3. Jatinder kumar Shree Nath Ispatudhyog, gobindgarh2.06 Cr 4. Shree Radhey Steel & Alloys

SHRI DARPAN JAIN,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX WARD - 1(1), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesse is allowed

ITA 577/ASR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar10 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

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

Showing 1–20 of 39 · Page 1 of 2

5
Natural Justice5
Section 14A4
Bench:
For Appellant: Sh. J. S. Bhasin, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 147Section 36Section 68

131 of the Act as per the details filed by the assessee to confirm the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions as per the provisions of section 68 of the Act by appreciating the appellant assessee is constrained that he had gone into soar relation with the loan creditor also of ongoing court cases could be sufficient reason

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, FARIDKOT, BSNL BUILDING vs. M/S VOHRA SOLVEX PVT. LTD, SADIQ ROAD

In the result, C.O. filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 588/ASR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar29 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, A.R
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250(6)Section 69C

1.e. Rs. 2,45,14,364/- from M/s Universal Foods Corporation, Fazilka and Rs 2,43,78,214/- from M/s Evergreen Sales Corporation, Fazilka) 6.10 Accordingly, addition of Rs. 5,86,710/- (i.e. 1.2% of Rs. 4,88,92,578) is upheld out of the total addition of Rs.6,43,54,912/-.” 6. Regarding the issue of reopening

SHRI AMRITPAL SINGH (PROP),JALANDHAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 1, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

ITA 425/ASR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar13 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

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

Section 110Section 263Section 54D

section 263 be quashed, annulled and cancelled in the interest of justice, equity and fair-play. GOA:- 14:- Vide ground of appeal No.14, it is humbly prayed that in the event of any adversity arising out of the brief written submission besides judgement set, I.T.A. No. 425/Asr/2019 19 Assessment Year: 2014-15 assessee may kindly be afforded an effective opportunity

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, SRINAGAR vs. M/S TRUMBO CEMENT INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, SRINAGAR

In the result, the Ground no-1 of the Revenue for ITA No

ITA 124/ASR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 May 2023AY 2015-16

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

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 23(1)(va)Section 250Section 36Section 43BSection 68

1 of the revenue is allowed. Ground No. 2 7. During the assessment the ld. AO disallowed 10% of unverifiable expenses amount of Rs.66,20,474/- which is worked out to Rs.6,62,048/-. In argument the ld. DR placed that the ld. CIT(A) has reduced the disallowance from 10% to 8% related to unverifiable expenses. So, the addition

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, SRINAGAR vs. M/S TRUMBO CEMENT INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED , SRINAGAR

In the result, the Ground no-1 of the Revenue for ITA No

ITA 123/ASR/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 May 2023AY 2012-13

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

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 23(1)(va)Section 250Section 36Section 43BSection 68

1 of the revenue is allowed. Ground No. 2 7. During the assessment the ld. AO disallowed 10% of unverifiable expenses amount of Rs.66,20,474/- which is worked out to Rs.6,62,048/-. In argument the ld. DR placed that the ld. CIT(A) has reduced the disallowance from 10% to 8% related to unverifiable expenses. So, the addition

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S. MBD PRINTOGRAPHICS P.LTD.,, JALANDHAR

In the result, all the appeals of department and that of assessee stand dismissed

ITA 27/ASR/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar02 Aug 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meena

Section 80I

1. “Whether the ld. CIT(A) was correct in law and facts inallowing deduction of profit u/s 80IC of the Act, ignoring thefacts that the assessee didn’t have sufficient infrastructureand main power to manufacture the entire products on itsown in its exempt unit and got it done as job work fromunits outside specified areas, as is evident from

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, JALANDHAR vs. M/S. MBD. PRINTOGRAPHICS P.LTD,, JALANDHAR

In the result, all the appeals of department and that of assessee stand dismissed

ITA 506/ASR/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar02 Aug 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meena

Section 80I

1. “Whether the ld. CIT(A) was correct in law and facts inallowing deduction of profit u/s 80IC of the Act, ignoring thefacts that the assessee didn’t have sufficient infrastructureand main power to manufacture the entire products on itsown in its exempt unit and got it done as job work fromunits outside specified areas, as is evident from

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S. MBD PRINTOGRAPHICS PVT. LTD,, JALANDHAR

In the result, all the appeals of department and that of assessee stand dismissed

ITA 621/ASR/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar02 Aug 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meena

Section 80I

1. “Whether the ld. CIT(A) was correct in law and facts inallowing deduction of profit u/s 80IC of the Act, ignoring thefacts that the assessee didn’t have sufficient infrastructureand main power to manufacture the entire products on itsown in its exempt unit and got it done as job work fromunits outside specified areas, as is evident from

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S. MBD. PRINTOGRAPHICS P.LTD,, JALANDHAR

In the result, all the appeals of department and that of assessee stand dismissed

ITA 507/ASR/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar02 Aug 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meena

Section 80I

1. “Whether the ld. CIT(A) was correct in law and facts inallowing deduction of profit u/s 80IC of the Act, ignoring thefacts that the assessee didn’t have sufficient infrastructureand main power to manufacture the entire products on itsown in its exempt unit and got it done as job work fromunits outside specified areas, as is evident from

M/S. MBD PRINTOGRAPHICS PVT LTD,JALANDHAR vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, all the appeals of department and that of assessee stand dismissed

ITA 534/ASR/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar02 Aug 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meena

Section 80I

1. “Whether the ld. CIT(A) was correct in law and facts inallowing deduction of profit u/s 80IC of the Act, ignoring thefacts that the assessee didn’t have sufficient infrastructureand main power to manufacture the entire products on itsown in its exempt unit and got it done as job work fromunits outside specified areas, as is evident from

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S. MBD PRINTOGRAPHICS P.LTD,, JALANDHAR

In the result, all the appeals of department and that of assessee stand dismissed

ITA 533/ASR/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar02 Aug 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meena

Section 80I

1. “Whether the ld. CIT(A) was correct in law and facts inallowing deduction of profit u/s 80IC of the Act, ignoring thefacts that the assessee didn’t have sufficient infrastructureand main power to manufacture the entire products on itsown in its exempt unit and got it done as job work fromunits outside specified areas, as is evident from

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S. MBD. PRINTOGRAPHICS P.LTD,, JALANDHAR

In the result, all the appeals of department and that of assessee stand dismissed

ITA 508/ASR/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar02 Aug 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meena

Section 80I

1. “Whether the ld. CIT(A) was correct in law and facts inallowing deduction of profit u/s 80IC of the Act, ignoring thefacts that the assessee didn’t have sufficient infrastructureand main power to manufacture the entire products on itsown in its exempt unit and got it done as job work fromunits outside specified areas, as is evident from

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S. MBD PRINTOGRAPHICS PVT. LTD,, JALANDHAR

In the result, all the appeals of department and that of assessee stand dismissed

ITA 534/ASR/2011[2009-1]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar02 Aug 2021

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meena

Section 80I

1. “Whether the ld. CIT(A) was correct in law and facts inallowing deduction of profit u/s 80IC of the Act, ignoring thefacts that the assessee didn’t have sufficient infrastructureand main power to manufacture the entire products on itsown in its exempt unit and got it done as job work fromunits outside specified areas, as is evident from

KAMAL RAHIL,JALANDHAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 168/ASR/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar28 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Trilochan Singh PS Khalsa, Sr DR
Section 131

131 of the Income tax Act, 1961. In response thereto in certain cases parents of the students appeared and stated that their children had gone to Australia for further studies. As regard spurce of fund and the services utilized the reply of the parents mainly was that the money was managed by their children and as regards the services utilized

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. ANKUSH MARWAHA, JALANDHAR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 387/ASR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Sh. K. Mehboob Ali Khan, CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 250Section 69A

disallowance could be made in relation to that assessment year in exercise of powers under section 153A and earlier assessment should have to be reiterated—There was no such statement in present case which said to constitute an admission by Assessee of failure to record any transaction in accounts of Assessee for AYs in question—Court was of view that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. ANKUSH MARWAHA, JALANDHAR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 386/ASR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Sh. K. Mehboob Ali Khan, CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 250Section 69A

disallowance could be made in relation to that assessment year in exercise of powers under section 153A and earlier assessment should have to be reiterated—There was no such statement in present case which said to constitute an admission by Assessee of failure to record any transaction in accounts of Assessee for AYs in question—Court was of view that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. ANKUSH MARWAHA, JALANDHAR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 385/ASR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Sh. K. Mehboob Ali Khan, CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 250Section 69A

disallowance could be made in relation to that assessment year in exercise of powers under section 153A and earlier assessment should have to be reiterated—There was no such statement in present case which said to constitute an admission by Assessee of failure to record any transaction in accounts of Assessee for AYs in question—Court was of view that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. ANKUR MARWAHA, JALANDHAR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 340/ASR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Sh. K. Mehboob Ali Khan, CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 250Section 69A

disallowance could be made in relation to that assessment year in exercise of powers under section 153A and earlier assessment should have to be reiterated—There was no such statement in present case which said to constitute an admission by Assessee of failure to record any transaction in accounts of Assessee for AYs in question—Court was of view that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. ANKUR MARWAHA, JALANDHAR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 337/ASR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Sh. K. Mehboob Ali Khan, CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 250Section 69A

disallowance could be made in relation to that assessment year in exercise of powers under section 153A and earlier assessment should have to be reiterated—There was no such statement in present case which said to constitute an admission by Assessee of failure to record any transaction in accounts of Assessee for AYs in question—Court was of view that