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.

11 results for “disallowance”+ Section 234Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,656Delhi1,570Bangalore1,025Ahmedabad328Kolkata210Jaipur182Chennai178Pune158Hyderabad149Indore71Nagpur63Chandigarh56Surat48Allahabad39Ranchi37Agra35Rajkot34Lucknow31Visakhapatnam21Karnataka20Dehradun18Jodhpur18Raipur15Cochin12Cuttack11Patna11Amritsar11Jabalpur5SC5Panaji3Guwahati2Telangana1Varanasi1Calcutta1Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Section 1016Section 234A15Disallowance11Addition to Income11Section 1310Section 143(3)9Section 153C7Exemption6Section 43B4Section 143(2)

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

4
Section 10(37)4
Business Income2

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 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

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

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,234B

SHRI NIPUN JAIN PROP: EASTMAN RECLAMATIONS PROP :KOHINOOR EXPORTS,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY/ ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 72/ASR/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar08 Nov 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Shri N. K. Choudhryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.71 & 72/Asr/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2018-2019 & 2019-2020)

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Vijh, CA
Section 139(1)Section 2Section 234ASection 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the Act wherein Explanations have been inserted by Finance Act, 2021 qua employees’ share in respect of PF & ESI Act, is also unsustainable . 5.4 In view of the above discussions, the disallowances of Rs.5,88,203/- for A.Y.2018-2019 and Rs.60,540/- for A.Y.2019-2020 made by the A.O. and confirmed

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)

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

SHER-E- KASHMIR COLLAGE OF EDUCATION ( UNIT OF ) PIR PANCHAL EDUCATION TRUST,JAMMU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD , JAMMU

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

ITA 190/ASR/2023[2009-10]Status: HeardITAT Amritsar25 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

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

Section 10Section 13Section 13(1)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250

disallowance made is not at all called for and the same may be deleted. Alternatively the addition made at Rs.l,31,400/- is very high and excessive. 7. That no interest should have been charged u/s 234B of the IT Act, 1961 at Rs.64,425/-. No reasonable and proper opportunity of being heard was allowed before charging interest. As such

SH GAUTAM SETH,BATALA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, BATALA

In the result, the Ground Nos

ITA 108/ASR/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar04 Jul 2022AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Sh. Mrs. Rano Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Smt. Rajinder Kaur, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234BSection 250(6)Section 271Section 40A(3)Section 44A

Section 40A(3) without appreciating the fact that the provision of 40A(3) is not applicable where the Gross Profit Ratio is estimated u/ s. 44AF. 5. That the AO and CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in making an addition of Rs. 14,88,263/- u/s. 44AF without appreciating the fact that the transaction of purchase

SHRI KANAV KHANNA,,AMRITSAR. vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, AMRITSAR.

In the result, the ground no- G of appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 77/ASR/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar04 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Sh. R. K. Magow, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rahul Dhawan, CIT-DR
Section 10(37)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194LSection 250(6)

disallowed 70% of the value of the land received as taxable income and will not come under the exemption under provisions of 10(37) of the Act. Accordingly, value of land amount to Rs.5,12,87,411/- is added back with the total income of the assessee for the amount received from sale non-agricultural land under LTCG