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.

5 results for “disallowance”+ Section 256clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai882Delhi794Bangalore223Chennai217Kolkata207Ahmedabad202Jaipur181Cochin81Hyderabad60Surat59Raipur46Indore45Pune44Chandigarh43Lucknow35Nagpur31Cuttack26Visakhapatnam24Telangana21SC20Rajkot17Allahabad13Calcutta13Agra12Guwahati12Karnataka9Varanasi6Patna6Amritsar5Jabalpur3Jodhpur3Dehradun2Panaji2A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2Punjab & Haryana1Ranchi1RANJAN GOGOI PRAFULLA C. PANT1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 685Addition to Income5Section 40A(3)4Section 145(3)3Section 143(3)3Section 2502Section 36(1)(iii)2Section 362Depreciation2

MEASAGE TAU AGRO SALES PRIVATE LIMITED,FARIDKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(2), FEROZEPUR

In the result the ground no

ITA 324/ASR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

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

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(3)

256/- is added back with the total income. 3.2.In other issue, Rs.10 lac was added back with the total income of the assessee on account of share application money which was converted to loan and said loan was not mentioned in the tax audit record. So, the loan amount of Rs.10 lac from directors was added back with the total

MEASAGE.TAU AGRO SALES PRIVATE LIMITED,FARIDKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(4), FARIDKOT

In the result the ground no

Disallowance2
ITA 325/ASR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

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

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(3)

256/- is added back with the total income. 3.2.In other issue, Rs.10 lac was added back with the total income of the assessee on account of share application money which was converted to loan and said loan was not mentioned in the tax audit record. So, the loan amount of Rs.10 lac from directors was added back with the total

SHRI RAJ KUMAR ( M/S RADHIKA SALES CORP ), AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 3 (3), AMRITSAR

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

ITA 195/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

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

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250oSection 68

256 (Delhi). “IV. Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit (Bank deposits) - Assessment year 2017-18 -Assessee-company was engaged in business of selling dry fruits - post-demonetization, assessee deposited cash amounting to Rs. 180.53 crore in its bank accounts - Assessing Officer held that cash deposits made by assessee represented unaccounted income and accordingly, made additions - Tribunal

SHRI FAROOQ AHMAD AHANGAR,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFICER, WARD-3(1, SRINAGAR

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 607/ASR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar26 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: None (Written submission)For Respondent: Ms. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 68

256 ITR 243 (Raj.) and stood duly approved by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT Vs Mahadev Fleet (P) Limited in ITA No. 232 of 2013 order dated 10.09.2013. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Siamon Carves Ltd. 105 ITR 212 (S.C.) guided the administration of justice by observing

SHRI FAROOQ AHMAD AHANGAR,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-3(1), SRINAGAR

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 606/ASR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar26 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: None (Written submission)For Respondent: Ms. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 68

256 ITR 243 (Raj.) and stood duly approved by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT Vs Mahadev Fleet (P) Limited in ITA No. 232 of 2013 order dated 10.09.2013. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Siamon Carves Ltd. 105 ITR 212 (S.C.) guided the administration of justice by observing