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.

51 results for “disallowance”+ Section 271clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai3,738 Delhi3,246 Bangalore589 Ahmedabad545 Chennai503 Kolkata474 Jaipur316 Pune236 Hyderabad229 Surat183 Indore169 Chandigarh131 Raipur99 Rajkot97 Nagpur75 Lucknow58 Visakhapatnam53 Amritsar51 Cuttack49 Allahabad47 Calcutta39 Guwahati37 Cochin31 Karnataka30 Ranchi25 Panaji24 SC22 Agra19 Dehradun18 Jodhpur18 Telangana16 Varanasi16 Patna13 Jabalpur11 Punjab & Haryana4 Rajasthan2 ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1 RANJAN GOGOI PRAFULLA C. PANT1 Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)64 Addition to Income44 Section 143(3)41 Section 1040 Disallowance35 Deduction27 Section 25026 Penalty26 Section 80I20 Section 153A

SHRI GULZAR SINGH. GURBACHAN SINGH,BATHINDA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , BATHINDA

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 337/ASR/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Sept 2022AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

section 271(1) (c ) could not imposed and confirming of penalty U/s 271(1)(c ) on disallowance of shop expenses

SHRI GULZAR SINGH , GURBACHAN SINGH,BATHINDA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BATHINDA

Showing 1–20 of 51 · Page 1 of 3

20

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 338/ASR/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

section 271(1) (c ) could not imposed and confirming of penalty U/s 271(1)(c ) on disallowance of shop expenses

M/S. SURYA AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED,ABOHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 348/ASR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Udayan Das Gupta & Shri Krinwant Sahayaftfrcf ^T./Ita No. 348/Asr/2023 / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Surya Automobiles Pvt The Dcit, <Shh Circle Ii, Ltd., Near Dav Campus, Bhatinda Hanumangarh Road, Abohar ^|41<^H./Pan No: Aafcs271 In Ul^^Ff/Respondent Appellant

For Appellant: Shri P.N. Arora, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Neelam Sharma, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 44

Section 271 (1) (c) can be imposed only because no appeal has been filed against addition / disallowance. The reliance is placed

SHRI YASH PAUL MALHOTRA,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 379/ASR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar13 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

Section 274 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Hence, in the light of the above judgement, it is clear that that voluntary disclosure does not absolve the appellant from penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961. Furthermore, with regards to the penalty imposed on disallowance

GURU NANAK DEV HEALTH & EDUCATION SOCIETY,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD (EXEMPTION), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 608/ASR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

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

Section 10Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

disallowing of interest Rs. 60,000/- without appreciating that section 40(a)(ia) does not apply on the income of school, as the income of school does not assessee under sections 28 to 44 of the Act. That the appellant craves leave to add, to, amend, modify, rescind, supplement or alter any of the grounds I.T.A. No.173/Asr/2017 & I.T.A. No.608

GURU NANAK DEV HEALTH & EDUCATION SOCIETY,LUDHIANA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTIONS,), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 173/ASR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

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

Section 10Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

disallowing of interest Rs. 60,000/- without appreciating that section 40(a)(ia) does not apply on the income of school, as the income of school does not assessee under sections 28 to 44 of the Act. That the appellant craves leave to add, to, amend, modify, rescind, supplement or alter any of the grounds I.T.A. No.173/Asr/2017 & I.T.A. No.608

GURU NANAK DEV HEALTH & EDUCATION SOCIETY,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION) WARD, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 609/ASR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

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

Section 10Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

disallowing of interest Rs. 60,000/- without appreciating that section 40(a)(ia) does not apply on the income of school, as the income of school does not assessee under sections 28 to 44 of the Act. That the appellant craves leave to add, to, amend, modify, rescind, supplement or alter any of the grounds I.T.A. No.173/Asr/2017 & I.T.A. No.608

GURU NANAK DEV HEALTH & EDUCATION SOCIETY,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION) WARD, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 610/ASR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

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

Section 10Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

disallowing of interest Rs. 60,000/- without appreciating that section 40(a)(ia) does not apply on the income of school, as the income of school does not assessee under sections 28 to 44 of the Act. That the appellant craves leave to add, to, amend, modify, rescind, supplement or alter any of the grounds I.T.A. No.173/Asr/2017 & I.T.A. No.608

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S FILL INDUSTRIES,, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

ITA 290/ASR/2015[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2023AY 2003-04

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

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32Section 43(1)Section 80I

section 80IB of the Income tax Act, . The Hon’ble ITAT has further observed that the expression “derived from”cannot embrace incidental income such as Excise Duty Refund and I.T.A. Nos.288 to 294/Asr/2015 13 Interest subsidy, as the same don’t have first degree nexus with the ‘ operational profit’ derived from the industrial undertaking itself. 5.3.7. In view

M/S FIL INDUSTRIES LTD,SRINAGAR vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

ITA 417/ASR/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

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

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32Section 43(1)Section 80I

section 80IB of the Income tax Act, . The Hon’ble ITAT has further observed that the expression “derived from”cannot embrace incidental income such as Excise Duty Refund and I.T.A. Nos.288 to 294/Asr/2015 13 Interest subsidy, as the same don’t have first degree nexus with the ‘ operational profit’ derived from the industrial undertaking itself. 5.3.7. In view

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S FILL INDUSTRIES,, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

ITA 289/ASR/2015[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2023AY 2002-03

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

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32Section 43(1)Section 80I

section 80IB of the Income tax Act, . The Hon’ble ITAT has further observed that the expression “derived from”cannot embrace incidental income such as Excise Duty Refund and I.T.A. Nos.288 to 294/Asr/2015 13 Interest subsidy, as the same don’t have first degree nexus with the ‘ operational profit’ derived from the industrial undertaking itself. 5.3.7. In view

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. FIL INDUSTRIES LTD, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

ITA 470/ASR/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

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

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32Section 43(1)Section 80I

section 80IB of the Income tax Act, . The Hon’ble ITAT has further observed that the expression “derived from”cannot embrace incidental income such as Excise Duty Refund and I.T.A. Nos.288 to 294/Asr/2015 13 Interest subsidy, as the same don’t have first degree nexus with the ‘ operational profit’ derived from the industrial undertaking itself. 5.3.7. In view

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. FIL INDUSTRIES LTD, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

ITA 471/ASR/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

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

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32Section 43(1)Section 80I

section 80IB of the Income tax Act, . The Hon’ble ITAT has further observed that the expression “derived from”cannot embrace incidental income such as Excise Duty Refund and I.T.A. Nos.288 to 294/Asr/2015 13 Interest subsidy, as the same don’t have first degree nexus with the ‘ operational profit’ derived from the industrial undertaking itself. 5.3.7. In view

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S FIL INDUSTRIES,, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

ITA 294/ASR/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2023AY 2008-09

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

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32Section 43(1)Section 80I

section 80IB of the Income tax Act, . The Hon’ble ITAT has further observed that the expression “derived from”cannot embrace incidental income such as Excise Duty Refund and I.T.A. Nos.288 to 294/Asr/2015 13 Interest subsidy, as the same don’t have first degree nexus with the ‘ operational profit’ derived from the industrial undertaking itself. 5.3.7. In view

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S FIL INDUSTRIES,, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

ITA 293/ASR/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2023AY 2007-08

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

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32Section 43(1)Section 80I

section 80IB of the Income tax Act, . The Hon’ble ITAT has further observed that the expression “derived from”cannot embrace incidental income such as Excise Duty Refund and I.T.A. Nos.288 to 294/Asr/2015 13 Interest subsidy, as the same don’t have first degree nexus with the ‘ operational profit’ derived from the industrial undertaking itself. 5.3.7. In view

M/S FIL INDUSTRIES LTD,SRINAGAR vs. THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

ITA 255/ASR/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2023AY 2008-09

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

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32Section 43(1)Section 80I

section 80IB of the Income tax Act, . The Hon’ble ITAT has further observed that the expression “derived from”cannot embrace incidental income such as Excise Duty Refund and I.T.A. Nos.288 to 294/Asr/2015 13 Interest subsidy, as the same don’t have first degree nexus with the ‘ operational profit’ derived from the industrial undertaking itself. 5.3.7. In view

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S FIL INDUSTRIES,, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

ITA 292/ASR/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2023AY 2006-07

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

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32Section 43(1)Section 80I

section 80IB of the Income tax Act, . The Hon’ble ITAT has further observed that the expression “derived from”cannot embrace incidental income such as Excise Duty Refund and I.T.A. Nos.288 to 294/Asr/2015 13 Interest subsidy, as the same don’t have first degree nexus with the ‘ operational profit’ derived from the industrial undertaking itself. 5.3.7. In view

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S FILL INDUSTRIES,, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

ITA 291/ASR/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2023AY 2004-05

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

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32Section 43(1)Section 80I

section 80IB of the Income tax Act, . The Hon’ble ITAT has further observed that the expression “derived from”cannot embrace incidental income such as Excise Duty Refund and I.T.A. Nos.288 to 294/Asr/2015 13 Interest subsidy, as the same don’t have first degree nexus with the ‘ operational profit’ derived from the industrial undertaking itself. 5.3.7. In view

SHRI MOHAMMAD IQBAL QURESHI,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(2), SRINAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 379/ASR/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar04 Jul 2022AY 2006-07

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

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40Section 40A(3)

section 40(A)(3) and disallowance of expenses. The respectful observation of the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT V/s Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. (322 ITR 158), merely because a claim has not been accepted in the assessment, it would not follow that the assessee had concealed its income or furnished inaccurate particulars

THE MAHIL GAILAN COOPERATIVE AGRICULTURE SERVICE SOCIETY LIMITED,MAHIL GAILAN, SBS NAGAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 106/ASR/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Brajesh Kumar Singh

For Appellant: Sh. Aditya Sharma, C.A

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(VA)Section 37(1)Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(d)

disallowed claim of the assessee amounting Rs. 29,875/- being employees share of provident fund u/s 36(1)(VA) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which otherwise was deductible under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 being a direct charge/ expenditure in the course of carrying on the business of the assessee. 3. The appellant craves permission