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.

415 results for “disallowance”+ Section 143(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai16,632Delhi10,984Kolkata4,569Bangalore3,678Chennai3,381Ahmedabad1,999Pune1,559Hyderabad1,481Jaipur1,333Surat993Indore869Chandigarh731Rajkot522Raipur496Cochin495Visakhapatnam475Amritsar415Nagpur379Lucknow349Karnataka318Panaji217Agra192Cuttack179Jodhpur178Guwahati158Patna149Allahabad117Dehradun113Ranchi106Telangana96Calcutta83Jabalpur71Varanasi53SC44Kerala27Punjab & Haryana17Orissa7Himachal Pradesh6Rajasthan3Andhra Pradesh2Uttarakhand2Gauhati2Bombay1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Tripura1

Key Topics

Addition to Income94Section 14472Disallowance65Section 250(6)62Natural Justice57Section 153A56Section 143(3)38Depreciation35Section 3633Section 147

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 made u/s 36(1)(va) in the Intimation under section 143(1)(a) can be construed as a 'disallowance

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

Showing 1–20 of 415 · Page 1 of 21

...
25
Deduction25
Section 26322

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 made u/s 36(1)(va) in the Intimation under section 143(1)(a) can be construed as a 'disallowance

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 made u/s 36(1)(va) in the Intimation under section 143(1)(a) can be construed as a 'disallowance

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 made u/s 36(1)(va) in the Intimation under section 143(1)(a) can be construed as a 'disallowance

M/S. RAMCO ENGG WORKS ,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 1 (1), JALANDHAR

In the result, ITA No. 261/Asr/2022 is dismissed and ITA No

ITA 253/ASR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar10 Apr 2023AY 2019-20

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

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250oSection 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

1 )(va) and 43B , by the Finance Act, 2021, being clarificatory, had retrospective effect, to disallow the assessee’s claim under dispute. I.T.A. Nos.261&253/Asr/2022 3 A. Y.: 2018-19 & 2019-20 4. That the Id.CIT(A)/NFAC, failed to appreciate that impugned disallowance, involving intense legal debate, could not made under the limited scope of section 143

SHRI SACHIN KAPUR,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3 (2), JALANDHAR

In the result, ITA No. 261/Asr/2022 is dismissed and ITA No

ITA 261/ASR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar10 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

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

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250oSection 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

1 )(va) and 43B , by the Finance Act, 2021, being clarificatory, had retrospective effect, to disallow the assessee’s claim under dispute. I.T.A. Nos.261&253/Asr/2022 3 A. Y.: 2018-19 & 2019-20 4. That the Id.CIT(A)/NFAC, failed to appreciate that impugned disallowance, involving intense legal debate, could not made under the limited scope of section 143

M/S BELTEX RUBBER INDIA,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 1 (1), JALANDHAR

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

ITA 9/ASR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar17 Mar 2023AY 2019-20

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

Section 143(1)Section 250o

disallowance made u/s 36(1)(va) in the Intimation under section 143(1)(a) can be construed as a 'disallowance

M/S BELTEX RUBBER INDIA,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 1 (1) , JALANDHAR

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

ITA 8/ASR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar17 Mar 2023AY 2018-19

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

Section 143(1)Section 250o

disallowance made u/s 36(1)(va) in the Intimation under section 143(1)(a) can be construed as a 'disallowance

UNIVERSAL BIOMASS ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED,GURUHARSAHAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(1), FEROZEPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 267/ASR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 80I

disallowance u/s 143(1), because it is not as per provisions of law. 7.2 Secondly, he also submitted that on the face of the assessment order (paragraph – 1) it is categorically stated that there are two issues for which the case is selected for complete scrutiny. Firstly on account of verification of investments I.T.A. No. 267/Asr/2024 6 Assessment Year

KHALSA BAKERY ,KAPUTHALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -4 (2), JALANDHAR

In the result, the disallowances confirmed by the NFAC/CIT(A) related to ITA No

ITA 20/ASR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Section 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as the Act] when the payments were made before filing of return u/s 139(1) of the Act. 5. Facts of the case, in brief are that the AO disallowed the deduction amounting to Rs.312,740/- during processing of the return U/s 143

J.M.C PLYWOOD,GORAYA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3, PHAGWARA

In the result, the disallowances confirmed by the NFAC/CIT(A) related to ITA No

ITA 4/ASR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Section 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as the Act] when the payments were made before filing of return u/s 139(1) of the Act. 5. Facts of the case, in brief are that the AO disallowed the deduction amounting to Rs.312,740/- during processing of the return U/s 143

M/S DIAMOND RED TANNERIES,KAPURTHALA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the disallowances confirmed by the NFAC/CIT(A) related to ITA No

ITA 21/ASR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Section 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as the Act] when the payments were made before filing of return u/s 139(1) of the Act. 5. Facts of the case, in brief are that the AO disallowed the deduction amounting to Rs.312,740/- during processing of the return U/s 143

ATC LOGISTICAL SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, AMRITSAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

ITA 241/ASR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar31 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

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

Section 115JSection 139Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 40ASection 40A(7)

Disallowance u/s 40A(7) was restricted to Rs. 19,52,569/- as an amount of Rs. 2,63,876/- was already added. 6.2 In the submission, the appellant has submitted that the decision of the CIT(A) confirming the similar addition made u/s 143(1) was challenged before the Hon’ble ITAT and that the matter has been restored back

SHRI PARAMJIT SINGH SANDHU PROP. M/S MANIKARAN BUILDERS,AMRITSAR vs. DY.CPC/ DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXCIRCLE-1, AMRITSAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees is allowed in the terms indicated as above

ITA 114/ASR/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Trilochan Singh P.S. Khalsa, D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

disallowance U/s 143(1)(a)(iv) on the basis of fact furnished by the assessee was made which clearly fails within ambit of prima facie adjustment to be carried out U/s 143(1)(a)(iv) of the Act. Further, reliance was placed on the amendment brought in by the Finance Act, 2021 wherein the explanation to Section

ROYAL FURNISHER ,JAMMU vs. ASSESING OFFICER WARD- 2 (2), JAMMU

In the result appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 54/ASR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Dec 2022AY 2018-19

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

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250oSection 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

143(1)of the Act date of order 09.08.2019. 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds which reads as under: “1. That on the fact and in the circumstances of the case the learned CIT Appeal is not justified in basing his finding by observing that are conflicting decisions of various Benches of Tribunal and High Courts. 2. That

GLITTERS FOREVER HOUSE KEEPING SERVICE PRIVATE LIMITED,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, SRINAGAR

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 99/ASR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar06 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Sh. Bashir Ahmad Lone, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Priyanka Singla, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

sections u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act.” 7. He further submitted that the CPC while processing the return u/s 143(1) of the Act, made disallowance

GLITTERS FOREVER HOSE KEEPING SERVICE PRIVATE LIMITED ,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, SRINAGAR

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 100/ASR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar06 Jul 2023AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Sh. Bashir Ahmad Lone, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Priyanka Singla, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

sections u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act.” 7. He further submitted that the CPC while processing the return u/s 143(1) of the Act, made disallowance

VAAHO AGENCIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1 ( 1 ) , AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee related all grounds of ITA No

ITA 30/ASR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar02 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meenash. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Jatinder Arora (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Satbir Singh, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Section 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as the Act] when the payments were made before filing of return u/s 139(1) of the Act. 5. Brief fact of the case is that the ld. AO disallowed the deduction amounting to Rs.13,00,356/- during processing of the return U/s 143

M/S. KARNAIL SINGH & COMPANY ,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, JALANDHAR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 25/ASR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

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

Section 154Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

143 taxmann.com 178 (SC), hence, the adjournment application of the assessee is rejected for insufficient reason, and it is decided to hear the appeal on merits. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had e-filed his Return of Income on 30-09-2019 declaring a total income of Rs.2,99,46,511/-. The return

M/S. KARNAIL SINGH & COMPANY,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, JALANDHAR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 26/ASR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 Apr 2023AY 2019-20

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

Section 154Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

143 taxmann.com 178 (SC), hence, the adjournment application of the assessee is rejected for insufficient reason, and it is decided to hear the appeal on merits. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had e-filed his Return of Income on 30-09-2019 declaring a total income of Rs.2,99,46,511/-. The return