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.

15 results for “disallowance”+ Section 156clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,101Delhi948Bangalore286Chennai257Kolkata212Ahmedabad199Jaipur191Hyderabad154Pune136Raipur97Chandigarh93Cochin86Indore66Surat66Panaji47Calcutta38Lucknow35Visakhapatnam28Cuttack24Rajkot23SC21Nagpur21Allahabad19Ranchi17Amritsar15Karnataka15Varanasi13Agra12Guwahati11Jabalpur6Kerala5Patna3Himachal Pradesh2Telangana2Dehradun2Jodhpur2Punjab & Haryana2ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Rajasthan1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 6816Addition to Income11Section 143(3)9Section 12A9Section 1478Section 366Section 44A6Section 116Section 2505Natural Justice

M/S KASHMIR STEEL ROLLING MILLS,JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 548/ASR/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar09 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 548/(Asr)/2016 Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Bansal (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

section 145 of the Act. The assessee did not furnish any explanation during the assessment proceedings. Interest income was accordingly assessed, and penalty proceedings initiated. Under the circumstances, the AO’s satisfaction for the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) is plain and apparent. (b) The second item is qua the disallowance in the sum of Rs.1

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

4
Disallowance4
Penalty4

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

156 taxmann.com 605 (Bombay) the Hon’ble HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY held as under- “section 68, read with section 10(38), of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit (Share transactions) - Assessment year 2005-06 - Assessee had claimed sale proceeds of shares as long-term capital gain (LTCG) exemption - However, Assessing Officer held that scrip was a penny Sock

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

156 taxmann.com 605 (Bombay) the Hon’ble HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY held as under- “section 68, read with section 10(38), of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit (Share transactions) - Assessment year 2005-06 - Assessee had claimed sale proceeds of shares as long-term capital gain (LTCG) exemption - However, Assessing Officer held that scrip was a penny Sock

H. N. AGRI SERVICE PRIVATE LIMITED,SRINAGAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMMU

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

ITA 94/ASR/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar31 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

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

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

156 sundry debtors, to whom the assessee paid the advance and copy of the submission is enclosed in APB pages 18 to 27. In his argument, he further mentioned that the notice issued for Mohd. Abdul & Sons, the address was wrongly mentioned by revenue and the confirmation letter of Mr. Mohd. Abdulla is submitted who had confirmed the transaction amount

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMMU vs. M/S HN AGRI SERVE PRIVATE LIMITED, SRINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

ITA 150/ASR/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar10 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

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

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

156 sundry debtors, to whom the assessee paid the advance and copy of the submission is enclosed in APB pages 18 to 27. In his argument, he further mentioned that the notice issued for Mohd. Abdul & Sons, the address was wrongly mentioned by revenue and the confirmation letter of Mr. Mohd. Abdulla is submitted who had confirmed the transaction amount

SH RACHHPAL SINGH,AMRITSAR. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, AMRITSAR.

Accordingly, we herein set aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to assess the income of the assessee as offered by him under section 44AD of the Act. The Grounds of appeal...

ITA 140/ASR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Sh. Randeep Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Trilochan Singh, PS
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194JSection 44A

disallowance of expenses of the appellant claimed in the return of Income. 6) On the given grounds it is appealed that the additions in income of Rs. 10,39,691/- should be deleted. 7) That the appellant craves leave to add, amend or withdraw any new ground or grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing of appeal

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

156 ITD 646 (Kol), has held the same to be retrospective, i.e., the date from which sub-section (2) to section 12A stood inserted on the statute, i.e., by Finance Act, 2007 w.e.f. 01.06.2007. There is no change in the objects and activities of the trust as obtaining for the relevant year/s, and on the basis of which the registration

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

156 ITD 646 (Kol), has held the same to be retrospective, i.e., the date from which sub-section (2) to section 12A stood inserted on the statute, i.e., by Finance Act, 2007 w.e.f. 01.06.2007. There is no change in the objects and activities of the trust as obtaining for the relevant year/s, and on the basis of which the registration

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

156 ITD 646 (Kol), has held the same to be retrospective, i.e., the date from which sub-section (2) to section 12A stood inserted on the statute, i.e., by Finance Act, 2007 w.e.f. 01.06.2007. There is no change in the objects and activities of the trust as obtaining for the relevant year/s, and on the basis of which the registration

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

156-C, Srinagar. Javidan Building Rajbagh, Srinagar. [PAN: AABCT3414F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Ravinder Mittal, Sr. DR Respondent by Sh. P.K. Misra, CA Date of Hearing 26.04.2023 Date of Pronouncement 12.05.2023 ORDER Per:Anikesh Banerjee, J.M.: Both the appeals of the revenue were filed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Jammu,[in brevity

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

156-C, Srinagar. Javidan Building Rajbagh, Srinagar. [PAN: AABCT3414F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Ravinder Mittal, Sr. DR Respondent by Sh. P.K. Misra, CA Date of Hearing 26.04.2023 Date of Pronouncement 12.05.2023 ORDER Per:Anikesh Banerjee, J.M.: Both the appeals of the revenue were filed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Jammu,[in brevity

RAJ KUMAR & CO,NAWANSHAHR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NAWANSHAHR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 641/ASR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar16 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sh. Ashray Sarna, Adv
Section 115Section 115BSection 144Section 250Section 68

disallowance on other heads of expenditure. 25. Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bahubali Neminath Muttin 388 ITR 608 (Karnataka HC) has observed as follows: relevant portion reproduced: “Alternatively, and without prejudice to the preliminary objections raised above, he would submit that, on merits it should be noted that admittedly the books of accounts

THE ASSISATANT COMMISSIOENR OF INCOME-TAX,, HOSHIARPUR vs. SH. MANINDER SINGH CHEEMA, HOSHIARPUR

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 719/ASR/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar31 Jul 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 719/Asr/2013 Assessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev K. Gubgotra (D.R.)For Respondent: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, (C.A.)
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69

disallowing the excessive agriculture income claimed by the assessee in the absence of any evidence for the sale of agricultural produce.’ 3. The first ground is in respect of an addition for Rs.10 lacs made u/s. 68 of the Act. The assessee, an agriculturist and colonizer, was during the relevant year engaged in development of a colony by the name

JALALABAD SOLVEX PRIVATE LTD,JALALABAD vs. PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , AMRITSAR-1, PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

ITA 117/ASR/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar29 Jan 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kalia, C.A
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(1)

section 142(1) issued on 08- 12- reply dated 2021 asking for the information:- 02/01/2022 and 28/02/2022. 1 Brief note on your business/sources of income 2. Copy of all financial statements (P & L, Balance sheet and annexures, 26AS statement Computation of total income etc.) 1. Copy of purchase ledger 2. Copy of sales ledger 3. Details of Business relation with

SMT. AMITA NARANG,DELHI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 385/ASR/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 385/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. K. R. Jain (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)
Section 143(3)Section 45Section 48

section,—' 4.2 It is clear, therefore, that the cost incurred by the assessee, deduction for which in computing capital gains, short-term or long-term, could be allowed, other than where incurred in connection with the transfer, is that incurred on the acquisition or improvement of the capital asset transferred, i.e., capital costs. Whether a particular cost qualifies