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.

10 results for “disallowance”+ Section 234Cclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,221Delhi847Bangalore572Ahmedabad269Kolkata158Jaipur139Pune133Hyderabad116Chennai116Nagpur53Indore51Surat35Raipur32Rajkot29Allahabad28Agra27Chandigarh23Lucknow22Karnataka14Jodhpur14Visakhapatnam14Dehradun10Amritsar10Ranchi7Cuttack6Cochin4Patna4SC3Jabalpur2Telangana2Calcutta1Punjab & Haryana1Guwahati1Panaji1

Key Topics

Section 234A15Section 1012Disallowance10Addition to Income10Section 138Section 153C7Section 139(1)7Section 143(3)5Section 43B5Section 143(1)

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

234C is based on returned income only.” 3. Brief fact of the case is that the grievance of the assessee is that for disallowance of payment of PF and ESI of employees share which were paid before the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1). The total amount was deducted Rs.7,91,417/-. Previously, the issue

5
Exemption4
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 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

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

SPARROW SECURITY SERVICES ,JAMMU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1), JAMMU

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

ITA 40/ASR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

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

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 250oSection 36Section 43B

disallow employer’s contributions to provident fund or superannuation fund or gratuity fund or any other fund for the welfare of employees, by invoking the provisions of section 43B of the Act, if it has been paid after the ‘due dates’, as per the relevant Acts. I.T.A. No.40/Asr/2023 10 Assessment Year: 2018-19 2. The matter has been examined

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)

disallowance. So, however, and only in the interest of justice, we consider it proper to restore the matter back to the file of the AO to allow a final opportunity to the assessee to present her case either u/s. 36(1)(iii) or u/s. 24, or any other for that matter, qua interest of Rs.1,22,667/-, and who shall

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 and 234C

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)

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 ITA No. 331/Asr./2018