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.

9 results for “disallowance”+ Section 234Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi733Mumbai683Bangalore417Jaipur152Ahmedabad125Hyderabad106Pune77Kolkata70Chennai69Nagpur56Indore43Ranchi36Allahabad33Lucknow28Agra25Rajkot25Chandigarh19Surat15Cochin12Karnataka12Dehradun12Jodhpur11Raipur11Guwahati9Amritsar9Visakhapatnam7Jabalpur7Patna5SC3Cuttack2Panaji2Varanasi2Telangana1Kerala1Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Section 234A14Section 1013Disallowance9Addition to Income9Section 138Section 115B7Section 153C7Section 143(3)5Exemption5Section 143(1)

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

disallowing the interest. 6. That the authorities below did not appreciate that the Institution is not a taxable unit because the only purpose of the Institution is imparting Sher-e- Kashmir College of Educational v. ITO education and its income is totally exempt from Income-Tax and as such there was no justification in assessing the income. 7. Again

4
Section 250(6)4
Deduction2

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

disallowing the interest. 6. That the authorities below did not appreciate that the Institution is not a taxable unit because the only purpose of the Institution is imparting Sher-e- Kashmir College of Educational v. ITO education and its income is totally exempt from Income-Tax and as such there was no justification in assessing the income. 7. Again

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

disallowing the interest. 6. That the authorities below did not appreciate that the Institution is not a taxable unit because the only purpose of the Institution is imparting Sher-e- Kashmir College of Educational v. ITO education and its income is totally exempt from Income-Tax and as such there was no justification in assessing the income. 7. Again

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

disallowing the interest. 6. That the authorities below did not appreciate that the Institution is not a taxable unit because the only purpose of the Institution is imparting Sher-e- Kashmir College of Educational v. ITO education and its income is totally exempt from Income-Tax and as such there was no justification in assessing the income. 7. Again

RAVI KANT LUTHRA,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1), AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 444/ASR/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No. 444/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Ravi Kant Luthra, 1-Patel Vs. Adit, Cpc, Chowk Guru Bazar, Amritsar. Bengaluru. [Pan:-Alnpk7173Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) Sh. Himanshu Gupta, Ca Appellant By Respondent By Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. Dr

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 250(6)

disallowance of deduction or addition of income appearing in form 26AS or form 16A'. 5. Without prejudice to the aforesaid grounds, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that even if the benefit of lower tax rate as per section 115BAC is denied to the-assessee, then, in such a case, the assessee is entitled to avail deduction

SMT. HARVINDER KAUR,KAPURTHALA vs. A.C.I.T, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I,, JALANDHAR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 328/ASR/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar29 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi. T. A. No. 328/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Alok Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

section 36(1)(iii), require being capitalized. The assessee has completely failed to come out, much less exhibit, the bare, basic facts of the case, which is unfortunate, much less rebut the clear findings by the Revenue authorities in the matter or show any infirmity therein. The burden to prove his return, and the claims preferred 4 Harvinder Kaur

SATNAM SINGH MEMORIAL TRUST,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE WARD-III(2), JALANDHAR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 478/ASR/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar19 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 478/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Bhardwar (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)
Section 10Section 10(23)(iiiae)Section 12ASection 143(3)

section 234A, B, C and D. 10. That the ld. Dy. CIT has erred in initiating penalty proceedings by issue of penalty notice under sec. 271(l)(c).’ 2.2 Before the Tribunal, the assessee’s principal contention (through its counsel, Sh. Bhardwar), was that the ld. CIT(A) had failed to adjudicate Ground 4 of the assessee’s appeal before

EMM. KAY ELECTRICALS,,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 208/ASR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar08 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Sandeep Vijh, CA
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 234ASection 250(6)Section 69A

disallowance sustained , in any case could not have been made in the order u/s 153C read with section 143(3). 4. The Ld CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the levy of interest u/s 234A

MESERS P.D SEKHSARIA TRADING COMPANY ,BATHINDA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the Stay Petition of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 331/ASR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryita No. 331/Asr./2018 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 M/S P. D. Sekhsaria Trading Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Company Pvt. Ltd., 4242, Tax, Circle-I, Ground Floor, Gurudwara Singh Bathinda, Punjab Sabha Street, Bathinda, Punjab (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcp1720E Sa No. 03/Asr./2019 (In Ita No. 331/Asr./2018: Asstt. Year : 2014-15) M/S P. D. Sekhsaria Trading Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Company Pvt. Ltd., 4242, Tax, Circle-I, Ground Floor, Gurudwara Singh Bathinda, Punjab Sabha Street, Bathinda, Punjab (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcp1720E Assessee By : Shri. Salil Kapoor, Adv. & Shri. Sanat Kapoor, Adv. Revenue By : Shri. M. P. Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing :20.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.03.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A), Bathinda Dated 26.03.2018. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Addition/Disallowance Of Rs.4,69,47,808/- Made

For Appellant: Shri. Salil Kapoor, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri. M. P. Singh, CIT DR
Section 2Section 234ASection 43(5)Section 43(5)(e)

234A, 234B and 234C of the IT Act and the interest is also wrongly worked out.” 3. The sole issue involved in this appeal is that the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance of loss claimed on account of trading in commodity derivative of Rs.4,69,47,808/- by treating the transactions carried on by the assessee