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.

45 results for “disallowance”+ Section 271(1)(C)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai3,596 Delhi2,994 Bangalore561 Ahmedabad515 Chennai448 Kolkata434 Jaipur300 Pune231 Hyderabad209 Surat168 Indore161 Chandigarh127 Raipur95 Rajkot93 Nagpur69 Lucknow57 Visakhapatnam52 Allahabad47 Amritsar45 Calcutta39 Guwahati37 Cuttack33 Cochin29 Karnataka29 Ranchi25 Panaji23 SC22 Jodhpur17 Dehradun17 Varanasi16 Telangana15 Agra11 Patna10 Jabalpur9 Punjab & Haryana4 Rajasthan2 Gauhati1 RANJAN GOGOI PRAFULLA C. PANT1 ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)64 Section 1040 Section 143(3)38 Addition to Income38 Disallowance33 Penalty24 Section 25023 Deduction23 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 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

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

Showing 1–20 of 45 · Page 1 of 3

20

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 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

THE HOSHIARPUR CENTRAL COPREATIVE -BANK,HOSHIARPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE HOSHIARPUR, HOSHIARPUR

In the result, ground no. 1 of the assessee has not pressed, ground no-3 is

ITA 625/ASR/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

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

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 40a

271(1)(c) of the Act are being initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. (Addition made Rs.64,29,240/-)” I.T.A. No. 625/Asr/2019 5 6.1. We have observed that there was two effective issues in this appeal. The first issue concern itself with allowability of deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) of the Act. Under the second limb wherein

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

INDIAN TOOL TECHNOLOGY CENTRE,JALANDHAR vs. ITO, WARD 1(1) , JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 262/ASR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Khettra Mohan Roy

For Appellant: Sh. Ashray Sarna, C.A

Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 56

271(1)(c) of the Act, ignoring the facts of case and without observing the principles of natural justice.” 5. Brief facts emerging from records are that the assessee company was incorporated on 28th June, 2010 under the Companies Act 1956, with the main object to establish a common facility center (CPC ) for use of hand tool manufacturers, with

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

271(1) (c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 are, therefore, initiated on this issue.” I.T.A. Nos.288 to 294/Asr/2015 14 7. The ld. counsel for assessee filed the paper book which is kept in the record. The ld. Counsel also accepted the fact that the refund from Central Excise is a “capital receipt” and it is no question

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

271(1) (c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 are, therefore, initiated on this issue.” I.T.A. Nos.288 to 294/Asr/2015 14 7. The ld. counsel for assessee filed the paper book which is kept in the record. The ld. Counsel also accepted the fact that the refund from Central Excise is a “capital receipt” and it is no question

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

271(1) (c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 are, therefore, initiated on this issue.” I.T.A. Nos.288 to 294/Asr/2015 14 7. The ld. counsel for assessee filed the paper book which is kept in the record. The ld. Counsel also accepted the fact that the refund from Central Excise is a “capital receipt” and it is no question

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

271(1) (c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 are, therefore, initiated on this issue.” I.T.A. Nos.288 to 294/Asr/2015 14 7. The ld. counsel for assessee filed the paper book which is kept in the record. The ld. Counsel also accepted the fact that the refund from Central Excise is a “capital receipt” and it is no question

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

271(1) (c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 are, therefore, initiated on this issue.” I.T.A. Nos.288 to 294/Asr/2015 14 7. The ld. counsel for assessee filed the paper book which is kept in the record. The ld. Counsel also accepted the fact that the refund from Central Excise is a “capital receipt” and it is no question

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

271(1) (c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 are, therefore, initiated on this issue.” I.T.A. Nos.288 to 294/Asr/2015 14 7. The ld. counsel for assessee filed the paper book which is kept in the record. The ld. Counsel also accepted the fact that the refund from Central Excise is a “capital receipt” and it is no question

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

271(1) (c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 are, therefore, initiated on this issue.” I.T.A. Nos.288 to 294/Asr/2015 14 7. The ld. counsel for assessee filed the paper book which is kept in the record. The ld. Counsel also accepted the fact that the refund from Central Excise is a “capital receipt” and it is no question

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

271(1) (c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 are, therefore, initiated on this issue.” I.T.A. Nos.288 to 294/Asr/2015 14 7. The ld. counsel for assessee filed the paper book which is kept in the record. The ld. Counsel also accepted the fact that the refund from Central Excise is a “capital receipt” and it is no question

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

271(1) (c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 are, therefore, initiated on this issue.” I.T.A. Nos.288 to 294/Asr/2015 14 7. The ld. counsel for assessee filed the paper book which is kept in the record. The ld. Counsel also accepted the fact that the refund from Central Excise is a “capital receipt” and it is no question

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

271(1) (c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 are, therefore, initiated on this issue.” I.T.A. Nos.288 to 294/Asr/2015 14 7. The ld. counsel for assessee filed the paper book which is kept in the record. The ld. Counsel also accepted the fact that the refund from Central Excise is a “capital receipt” and it is no question

HIMANI GOYAL SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 156/ASR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member), SHRI UDAYAN DAS GUPTA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Devang Gargieya (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 1Section 139Section 148Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 273B

disallowance. Though the return has been filed in response to reopening notices, however, the assessee has offered true and full particulars of its income in respective reopening returns of income. The argument of Ld. Sr. DR is that but for reopening, the assessee would not have declared higher income. 4. We find that identical issue has been decided favorably

HIMANI GOYA SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 157/ASR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member), SHRI UDAYAN DAS GUPTA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Devang Gargieya (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 1Section 139Section 148Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 273B

disallowance. Though the return has been filed in response to reopening notices, however, the assessee has offered true and full particulars of its income in respective reopening returns of income. The argument of Ld. Sr. DR is that but for reopening, the assessee would not have declared higher income. 4. We find that identical issue has been decided favorably

HIMANI GOYAL SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 159/ASR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member), SHRI UDAYAN DAS GUPTA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Devang Gargieya (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 1Section 139Section 148Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 273B

disallowance. Though the return has been filed in response to reopening notices, however, the assessee has offered true and full particulars of its income in respective reopening returns of income. The argument of Ld. Sr. DR is that but for reopening, the assessee would not have declared higher income. 4. We find that identical issue has been decided favorably

HIMANI GOYAL SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 160/ASR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member), SHRI UDAYAN DAS GUPTA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Devang Gargieya (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 1Section 139Section 148Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 273B

disallowance. Though the return has been filed in response to reopening notices, however, the assessee has offered true and full particulars of its income in respective reopening returns of income. The argument of Ld. Sr. DR is that but for reopening, the assessee would not have declared higher income. 4. We find that identical issue has been decided favorably