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.

15 results for “disallowance”+ Section 36(1)(viii)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,280Mumbai1,250Bangalore413Ahmedabad247Chennai208Jaipur203Kolkata190Chandigarh149Indore133Cochin128Pune118Hyderabad107Nagpur101Visakhapatnam60Rajkot57Cuttack55Guwahati44Surat43Calcutta39Lucknow37Ranchi36Raipur33Telangana29Karnataka28Allahabad22Agra19Amritsar15Jodhpur14Patna11SC10Varanasi8Dehradun8Kerala5Rajasthan2Jabalpur2Himachal Pradesh1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Panaji1

Key Topics

Section 80I19Deduction12Section 143(3)9Addition to Income6Section 153D4Section 36(2)(i)4Section 92C3Section 803Section 2633Disallowance

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

disallowance as made by the AO, the ld. CIT(A) observed that the assessee is not eligible in deduction of the second limb of section 36(1)(viia) of the Act which concerns itself with deduction computed @ 10% of aggregate average advance made rural branches of the assessee. To keeping in view, amended provision to section 36(1

SHRI MADAL LAL,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

3
Section 144C(5)2

In the result, all the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 112/ASR/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar16 Aug 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 153B(1)Section 153D

viii. Shri Saurabh Agarwal C/o D.S. (India) Jewelmart P. Ltd. vs. DCIT, ITA No. 263-267/Agr/2017 ix PCIT vs. Sunrise Finlease (P) Ltd. 89 taxmann.com 1 (Guj.) x. Inter International, ITA No. 1573/Chd/2018 (ITAT-Chd.) xi. UttrakhandUthanSamitee vs. ITO, ITA No. 48- 52/DDN/2019 (ITAT-Del). xii. Sanjay Duggal &ors vs. ACIT, ITA No.1797- 1827/Del/2019 & ITA No. 1608-1627/Del/2019

SATIA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUKTSAR, PUNJAB vs. DCIT, ACIT CIRCLE 1, BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 527/ASR/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar28 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Udayan Das Gupta & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 527/Asr/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: S/Shri Sudhir SehgalFor Respondent: Shri K. Mehboob Ali Khan, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 80

disallowance of deduction of Rs. 3,97,500 claimed under section 80G of the Act, being 50% of the eligible amount of donations made during the relevant previous year. 10. That the AO erred in confirming the deemed income of Rs 12,50,000 under section 41(1). That the addition is made solely based on information available

SATIA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUKTSAR vs. DCIT/ACIT CIRCLE I, BATHINDA, BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 702/ASR/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar16 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Kapoor, Adv. &
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(2)Section 144C(5)Section 80Section 80GSection 80ISection 92C

disallowance to the extent of Rs. 51,74,713/- on the ground that the underlying expenditure was not in the nature of a donation, but rather a mandatory contribution towards Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) as specified under the Companies Act, 2013. That A.O. failed to appreciate that CSR contribution to the registered institutions is permissible under section 80G of Income

MESERS AMARNARTH AGGARWAL BUILDERS PVT. LTD.,BATHINDA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA

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

ITA 192/ASR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal &For Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 36(2)Section 36(2)(i)

section 36(2)(i) no deduction of bad 4 Amarnath Aggarwal B. P Ltd v. Dy.CIT doubtful debts. The assessee’s contention is that the assessee wanted to purchase the land in anticipation for financial gain in Panchkula and paid the amount accordingly. The assessee denied that he never claimed this amount u/s 36

M/S. MBD PRINTOGRAPHICS PVT LTD,JALANDHAR vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, all the appeals of department and that of assessee stand dismissed

ITA 534/ASR/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar02 Aug 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meena

Section 80I

VIII. It is also worthwhile to mention here that for Asstt. Year 2011-12, there was a “returned loss” on account of two other Units, which became operational during the year under consideration, and after netting off, the loss return was filed and accepted and, thus, there was no claim of 80IC. This shows the bonafide of the Assessee that

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, JALANDHAR vs. M/S. MBD. PRINTOGRAPHICS P.LTD,, JALANDHAR

In the result, all the appeals of department and that of assessee stand dismissed

ITA 506/ASR/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar02 Aug 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meena

Section 80I

VIII. It is also worthwhile to mention here that for Asstt. Year 2011-12, there was a “returned loss” on account of two other Units, which became operational during the year under consideration, and after netting off, the loss return was filed and accepted and, thus, there was no claim of 80IC. This shows the bonafide of the Assessee that

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S. MBD PRINTOGRAPHICS P.LTD.,, JALANDHAR

In the result, all the appeals of department and that of assessee stand dismissed

ITA 27/ASR/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar02 Aug 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meena

Section 80I

VIII. It is also worthwhile to mention here that for Asstt. Year 2011-12, there was a “returned loss” on account of two other Units, which became operational during the year under consideration, and after netting off, the loss return was filed and accepted and, thus, there was no claim of 80IC. This shows the bonafide of the Assessee that

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S. MBD PRINTOGRAPHICS PVT. LTD,, JALANDHAR

In the result, all the appeals of department and that of assessee stand dismissed

ITA 534/ASR/2011[2009-1]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar02 Aug 2021

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meena

Section 80I

VIII. It is also worthwhile to mention here that for Asstt. Year 2011-12, there was a “returned loss” on account of two other Units, which became operational during the year under consideration, and after netting off, the loss return was filed and accepted and, thus, there was no claim of 80IC. This shows the bonafide of the Assessee that

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S. MBD. PRINTOGRAPHICS P.LTD,, JALANDHAR

In the result, all the appeals of department and that of assessee stand dismissed

ITA 507/ASR/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar02 Aug 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meena

Section 80I

VIII. It is also worthwhile to mention here that for Asstt. Year 2011-12, there was a “returned loss” on account of two other Units, which became operational during the year under consideration, and after netting off, the loss return was filed and accepted and, thus, there was no claim of 80IC. This shows the bonafide of the Assessee that

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S. MBD PRINTOGRAPHICS PVT. LTD,, JALANDHAR

In the result, all the appeals of department and that of assessee stand dismissed

ITA 621/ASR/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar02 Aug 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meena

Section 80I

VIII. It is also worthwhile to mention here that for Asstt. Year 2011-12, there was a “returned loss” on account of two other Units, which became operational during the year under consideration, and after netting off, the loss return was filed and accepted and, thus, there was no claim of 80IC. This shows the bonafide of the Assessee that

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S. MBD PRINTOGRAPHICS P.LTD,, JALANDHAR

In the result, all the appeals of department and that of assessee stand dismissed

ITA 533/ASR/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar02 Aug 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meena

Section 80I

VIII. It is also worthwhile to mention here that for Asstt. Year 2011-12, there was a “returned loss” on account of two other Units, which became operational during the year under consideration, and after netting off, the loss return was filed and accepted and, thus, there was no claim of 80IC. This shows the bonafide of the Assessee that

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S. MBD. PRINTOGRAPHICS P.LTD,, JALANDHAR

In the result, all the appeals of department and that of assessee stand dismissed

ITA 508/ASR/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar02 Aug 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meena

Section 80I

VIII. It is also worthwhile to mention here that for Asstt. Year 2011-12, there was a “returned loss” on account of two other Units, which became operational during the year under consideration, and after netting off, the loss return was filed and accepted and, thus, there was no claim of 80IC. This shows the bonafide of the Assessee that

NEERAJ KUMAR SETHI,DELHI vs. ITO, NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC)

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

ITA 9/ASR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar26 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kalia, C.A
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

36 has been subsequently revised and the revised grounds are as follows: “1. That the assessment order framed by the AO is void ab-initio having been framed without giving reasonable opportunity to the appellant to respond to the statutory Show Cause Notice required to be issued to the assessee before framing the, assessment requiring the assessee to submit

SHRI MANDEEP SINGH DHILLON,BATHINDA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 300/ASR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.300/Asr/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shri Mandeep Singh Dhillon Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax #16310, Street No. 13/5 Dhillon Bathinda (Punjab). Colony, Barnala Bye Pass, Bathinda.

For Appellant: Sh. Deepak Anand, Adv. &For Respondent: Smt. Prabhjot Kaur, CIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35A

36,533/- have not been examined. (ii) In the case of husk account, the opening stock has been disclosed at Rs. 14,50,000/- and sales of Rs. 13,77,429/- and loss of Rs. 72,571/-. The detail of sales and opening stock, name and address of the parties to whom the husk was sold and justification of loss