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.

74 results for “disallowance”+ Section 271clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai3,666Delhi3,206Ahmedabad881Bangalore577Jaipur476Chennai474Kolkata468Pune397Indore268Hyderabad267Surat263Chandigarh205Rajkot112Raipur111Nagpur77Amritsar74Visakhapatnam69Lucknow64Cochin62Cuttack62Allahabad49Calcutta39Guwahati38Agra33Ranchi31Karnataka30Panaji27SC22Jabalpur18Jodhpur17Telangana16Varanasi16Dehradun16Patna13Punjab & Haryana4Rajasthan2ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Gauhati1RANJAN GOGOI PRAFULLA C. PANT1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)107Addition to Income62Section 143(3)61Penalty45Disallowance45Section 1041Deduction35Section 80I31Section 25026Section 271

M/S KASHMIR STEEL ROLLING MILLS,JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 548/ASR/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar09 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 548/(Asr)/2016 Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Bansal (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

271. (1)………. (1B) Where any amount is added or disallowed in computing the total income or loss of an assessee in any order of assessment or reassessment and the said order contains a direction for initiation of penalty proceedings under clause (c) of sub-section

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

Showing 1–20 of 74 · Page 1 of 4

23
Section 4021
Section 14820

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

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

SMT. JANAK RANI DHINGRA,HARYANA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, MOGA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 294/ASR/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Feb 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi. T. A. No. 294/(Asr)/2016 Assessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Sh. P.N. Arora, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Bhawani Shankar, DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 54Section 54F

disallowing the deduction of Long Term Capital Gains from sale of residential house as declared by the Assessee. Thereafter, the AO levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act of Rs. 1,60,000/- being 100% of the amount of tax sought to be evaded by the assessee on the ground of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income

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

M/S SHIVA MINT INDUSTRIES,,JAMMU vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 649/ASR/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar05 Apr 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhryita No.649 & 650(Asr)/2016 Assessment Year:2007-08 & 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Somil Agarwal, (Ld. Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Bhawani Shankar (Ld. DR)
Section 253Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

section 271(1) © of the Act, in view of Judgments passed by Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products (Pvt.) Ltd. (Supra) and Punjab and Haryana High Court Judgment, in the case of CIT vs. M/s. Raj Overseas (Supra). On the aforesaid considerations, deliberations and observations, while respectfully following the propositions laid down by the Apex

SHIVA MINT INDUSTRIES,,JAMMU vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 650/ASR/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar05 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhryita No.649 & 650(Asr)/2016 Assessment Year:2007-08 & 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Somil Agarwal, (Ld. Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Bhawani Shankar (Ld. DR)
Section 253Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

section 271(1) © of the Act, in view of Judgments passed by Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products (Pvt.) Ltd. (Supra) and Punjab and Haryana High Court Judgment, in the case of CIT vs. M/s. Raj Overseas (Supra). On the aforesaid considerations, deliberations and observations, while respectfully following the propositions laid down by the Apex

SH. RUCHI SHARMA,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

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

ITA 135/ASR/2017[200910]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar08 Mar 2019

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 135/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. Pankaj Gandotra (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' hereinafter) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2010-11 vide order dated 26.03.2015. 2. The assessee, a manufacturer of resin and turpentine oil from resin procured from the forest department, was during assessment proceedings found to have advanced loan/s to its’ sister concern, M/s. P.R. Chemicals, on interest free

THE BARAMULLA CENTRAL COPERATIVE BANK LTD,KASHMIR vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SRINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 359/ASR/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar19 Dec 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N. K. Choudhry & Sh. O. P. Meena

For Appellant: Sh. Padam Bahl (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36

disallowance u/s 36(i)(iv) and 36(i)(va) of the Act. These additions were confirmed by the CIT as well as ITAT penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) were also initiated. After getting the order of the ITAT, the case was fixed for hearing on 22.05.2014 but the assessee failed to make any compliance therefore the AO imposed penalty

SHRI BHARAT PAL SOOD,PHAGWARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, PHAGWARA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid

ITA 377/ASR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar17 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Vijh, CAFor Respondent: Sh Shakil Ahmad, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 36

section 271 of the I.T.Act, which was issued by the Assessing Officer alongwith the assessment order. It was submitted by the Ld. AR that a perusal of the aforesaid “SCN” dated 23.12.2011 did not reveal the default for which the assessee was called upon to explain as to why penalty may not be imposed upon him us 271

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 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

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 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

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 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

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

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