Search: disallowance | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

27 results for “disallowance”+ Section 184clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi722 Mumbai485 Bangalore176 Ahmedabad151 Jaipur142 Kolkata116 Hyderabad94 Chennai92 Chandigarh75 Raipur64 Indore48 Surat35 Lucknow28 Amritsar27 Pune27 Visakhapatnam23 Nagpur17 Cochin15 Rajkot15 Cuttack12 Agra9 Patna8 Karnataka8 Allahabad7 Guwahati6 SC5 Jodhpur3 Telangana3 Dehradun3 Jabalpur3 Rajasthan2 Panaji2 Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 1155 Section 13(3)55 Exemption18 Deduction16 Section 10B14 Section 14414 Disallowance14 Addition to Income13 Section 11(1)(a)11 Section 13(3)(c)

M/S. GULZAR SINGH GURBACHAN SINGH,DISTT.BATHINDA vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, BATHINDA

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 146/ASR/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 Feb 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. Nos. 146&147/Asr/2014 Assessment Years: 2007-08&2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)

Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 144Section 184(5)Section 28Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40Section 5

disallowance of interest u/s. 36(1)(iii) read with sec. 40(b) allowed to the partners on their capital account balances in view of section 184

Showing 1–20 of 27 · Page 1 of 2

11

Section 2(15)11

Section 13(1)11

M/S. GULZAR SINGH GURBACHAN SINGH,DISTT.BATHINDA vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, BATHINDA

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 147/ASR/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 Feb 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. Nos. 146&147/Asr/2014 Assessment Years: 2007-08&2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)

Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 144Section 184(5)Section 28Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40Section 5

disallowance of interest u/s. 36(1)(iii) read with sec. 40(b) allowed to the partners on their capital account balances in view of section 184

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S. SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST,, JALANDHAR

ITA 344/ASR/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Dec 2023AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Sh. Gunjeet Singh Syal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. D. R

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 13Section 13(1)Section 13(3)Section 13(3)(c)Section 2(15)

disallow the expenditure under Section 40A(2). 12. Burden of proof lies on the Revenue to prove that the salary/rental payments made were excessive/unreasonable and that provisions of section 13 apply: Section 13 starts with a non-obstante clause and hence by virtue of the said provisions, exception to the exemption provided by section 11, is carved

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S. SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST, JALANDHAR

ITA 421/ASR/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Dec 2023AY 2006-07

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

For Appellant: Sh. Gunjeet Singh Syal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. D. R

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 13Section 13(1)Section 13(3)Section 13(3)(c)Section 2(15)

disallow the expenditure under Section 40A(2). 12. Burden of proof lies on the Revenue to prove that the salary/rental payments made were excessive/unreasonable and that provisions of section 13 apply: Section 13 starts with a non-obstante clause and hence by virtue of the said provisions, exception to the exemption provided by section 11, is carved

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S. SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST, JALANDHAR

ITA 177/ASR/2006[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Dec 2023AY 2001-02

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

For Appellant: Sh. Gunjeet Singh Syal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. D. R

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 13Section 13(1)Section 13(3)Section 13(3)(c)Section 2(15)

disallow the expenditure under Section 40A(2). 12. Burden of proof lies on the Revenue to prove that the salary/rental payments made were excessive/unreasonable and that provisions of section 13 apply: Section 13 starts with a non-obstante clause and hence by virtue of the said provisions, exception to the exemption provided by section 11, is carved

DCIT, JALANDHAR vs. M/S. SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST, JALANDHAR

ITA 328/ASR/2007[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Dec 2023AY 2004-05

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

For Appellant: Sh. Gunjeet Singh Syal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. D. R

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 13Section 13(1)Section 13(3)Section 13(3)(c)Section 2(15)

disallow the expenditure under Section 40A(2). 12. Burden of proof lies on the Revenue to prove that the salary/rental payments made were excessive/unreasonable and that provisions of section 13 apply: Section 13 starts with a non-obstante clause and hence by virtue of the said provisions, exception to the exemption provided by section 11, is carved

M/S SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST,JALANDHAR vs. THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

ITA 129/ASR/2002[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Dec 2023AY 1998-99

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

For Appellant: Sh. Gunjeet Singh Syal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. D. R

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 13Section 13(1)Section 13(3)Section 13(3)(c)Section 2(15)

disallow the expenditure under Section 40A(2). 12. Burden of proof lies on the Revenue to prove that the salary/rental payments made were excessive/unreasonable and that provisions of section 13 apply: Section 13 starts with a non-obstante clause and hence by virtue of the said provisions, exception to the exemption provided by section 11, is carved

M/S. SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST,JALANDHAR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

ITA 186/ASR/2001[1994-95]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Dec 2023AY 1994-95

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

For Appellant: Sh. Gunjeet Singh Syal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. D. R

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 13Section 13(1)Section 13(3)Section 13(3)(c)Section 2(15)

disallow the expenditure under Section 40A(2). 12. Burden of proof lies on the Revenue to prove that the salary/rental payments made were excessive/unreasonable and that provisions of section 13 apply: Section 13 starts with a non-obstante clause and hence by virtue of the said provisions, exception to the exemption provided by section 11, is carved

M/S. SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST,JALANDHAR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

ITA 184/ASR/2001[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Dec 2023AY 1993-94

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

For Appellant: Sh. Gunjeet Singh Syal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. D. R

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 13Section 13(1)Section 13(3)Section 13(3)(c)Section 2(15)

disallow the expenditure under Section 40A(2). 12. Burden of proof lies on the Revenue to prove that the salary/rental payments made were excessive/unreasonable and that provisions of section 13 apply: Section 13 starts with a non-obstante clause and hence by virtue of the said provisions, exception to the exemption provided by section 11, is carved

M/S. SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST,JALANDHAR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

ITA 185/ASR/2001[1994-95]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Dec 2023AY 1994-95

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

For Appellant: Sh. Gunjeet Singh Syal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. D. R

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 13Section 13(1)Section 13(3)Section 13(3)(c)Section 2(15)

disallow the expenditure under Section 40A(2). 12. Burden of proof lies on the Revenue to prove that the salary/rental payments made were excessive/unreasonable and that provisions of section 13 apply: Section 13 starts with a non-obstante clause and hence by virtue of the said provisions, exception to the exemption provided by section 11, is carved

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,JALANDHAR vs. M/S. SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST, JALANDHAR

ITA 261/ASR/2004[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Dec 2023AY 1999-2000

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

For Appellant: Sh. Gunjeet Singh Syal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. D. R

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 13Section 13(1)Section 13(3)Section 13(3)(c)Section 2(15)

disallow the expenditure under Section 40A(2). 12. Burden of proof lies on the Revenue to prove that the salary/rental payments made were excessive/unreasonable and that provisions of section 13 apply: Section 13 starts with a non-obstante clause and hence by virtue of the said provisions, exception to the exemption provided by section 11, is carved

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,JALANDHAR vs. M/S. SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST, JALANDHAR

ITA 272/ASR/2004[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Dec 2023AY 1997-98

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

For Appellant: Sh. Gunjeet Singh Syal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. D. R

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 13Section 13(1)Section 13(3)Section 13(3)(c)Section 2(15)

disallow the expenditure under Section 40A(2). 12. Burden of proof lies on the Revenue to prove that the salary/rental payments made were excessive/unreasonable and that provisions of section 13 apply: Section 13 starts with a non-obstante clause and hence by virtue of the said provisions, exception to the exemption provided by section 11, is carved

THE DCIT, JALANDHAR vs. M/S. SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST, JALANDHAR

ITA 39/ASR/2007[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Dec 2023AY 2003-04

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

For Appellant: Sh. Gunjeet Singh Syal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. D. R

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 13Section 13(1)Section 13(3)Section 13(3)(c)Section 2(15)

disallow the expenditure under Section 40A(2). 12. Burden of proof lies on the Revenue to prove that the salary/rental payments made were excessive/unreasonable and that provisions of section 13 apply: Section 13 starts with a non-obstante clause and hence by virtue of the said provisions, exception to the exemption provided by section 11, is carved

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S BROADWAYS OVERSEAS LTD, JALANDHAR

ITA 345/ASR/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 May 2023AY 2012-13

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

Section 10BSection 14A

disallowed.” 6. Your Honour, ITAT, Special Bench Indore in the case of Maral Overseas Ltd. vs. Addl.CIT (2012) 146 TTJ (Ind) (SB) 129 : (2012) 016 ITR (Trib) 565 (Indore) has held that the assessee is eligible for claim of deduction on export incentive received by it in terms of provisions of section 10B(1) read with section

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S BROADWAY OVERSEAS LTD., JALANDHAR

ITA 46/ASR/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 May 2023AY 2007-08

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

Section 10BSection 14A

disallowed.” 6. Your Honour, ITAT, Special Bench Indore in the case of Maral Overseas Ltd. vs. Addl.CIT (2012) 146 TTJ (Ind) (SB) 129 : (2012) 016 ITR (Trib) 565 (Indore) has held that the assessee is eligible for claim of deduction on export incentive received by it in terms of provisions of section 10B(1) read with section

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S BROADWAY OVERSEAS LTD., JALANDHAR

ITA 47/ASR/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 May 2023AY 2009-10

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

Section 10BSection 14A

disallowed.” 6. Your Honour, ITAT, Special Bench Indore in the case of Maral Overseas Ltd. vs. Addl.CIT (2012) 146 TTJ (Ind) (SB) 129 : (2012) 016 ITR (Trib) 565 (Indore) has held that the assessee is eligible for claim of deduction on export incentive received by it in terms of provisions of section 10B(1) read with section

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S BROADWAY OVERSEAS LTD., JALANDHAR

ITA 48/ASR/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 May 2023AY 2010-11

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

Section 10BSection 14A

disallowed.” 6. Your Honour, ITAT, Special Bench Indore in the case of Maral Overseas Ltd. vs. Addl.CIT (2012) 146 TTJ (Ind) (SB) 129 : (2012) 016 ITR (Trib) 565 (Indore) has held that the assessee is eligible for claim of deduction on export incentive received by it in terms of provisions of section 10B(1) read with section

BRODAWAYS OVERSEAS LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

ITA 123/ASR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 May 2023AY 2013-14

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

Section 10BSection 14A

disallowed.” 6. Your Honour, ITAT, Special Bench Indore in the case of Maral Overseas Ltd. vs. Addl.CIT (2012) 146 TTJ (Ind) (SB) 129 : (2012) 016 ITR (Trib) 565 (Indore) has held that the assessee is eligible for claim of deduction on export incentive received by it in terms of provisions of section 10B(1) read with section

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S BROADWAY OVERSEAS LTD., JALANDHAR

ITA 49/ASR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 May 2023AY 2011-12

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

Section 10BSection 14A

disallowed.” 6. Your Honour, ITAT, Special Bench Indore in the case of Maral Overseas Ltd. vs. Addl.CIT (2012) 146 TTJ (Ind) (SB) 129 : (2012) 016 ITR (Trib) 565 (Indore) has held that the assessee is eligible for claim of deduction on export incentive received by it in terms of provisions of section 10B(1) read with section

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S BROADWAYS OVERSEAS LTD, JALANDHAR

ITA 477/ASR/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 May 2023AY 2008-09

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

Section 10BSection 14A

disallowed.” 6. Your Honour, ITAT, Special Bench Indore in the case of Maral Overseas Ltd. vs. Addl.CIT (2012) 146 TTJ (Ind) (SB) 129 : (2012) 016 ITR (Trib) 565 (Indore) has held that the assessee is eligible for claim of deduction on export incentive received by it in terms of provisions of section 10B(1) read with section