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.

3 results for “disallowance”+ Section 56(2)(viib)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai122Delhi82Bangalore25Kolkata23Chennai19Ahmedabad17Jaipur14Indore10Hyderabad9Raipur9Visakhapatnam6Chandigarh6Cuttack5Pune4Jodhpur4Surat3Amritsar3Dehradun2Nagpur2Cochin1Lucknow1Rajkot1SC1Karnataka1Agra1

Key Topics

Section 2638Section 143(3)5Section 35D2Section 682Deduction2Depreciation2Disallowance2Addition to Income2

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) CIRCLE-3, FEROZEPUR vs. MEASAGE OM SONS MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, FARIDKOT

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

ITA 407/ASR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

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

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 37(1)Section 56(2)(viib)

disallowance was sustained on account of excess claim of depreciation. 3.5. Being aggrieved on appeal order the revenue has filed appeal before us by challenging the relief granted on amount of Rs. 3,38,60,465/- and Rs. 2,38,149/- by the ld. CIT(A). 4. The ld. AR filed written submissions which are kept in the record

MAX FINANCIAL SERVICE LIMITED ,NAWANSHAHR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, JALANDHAR

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

ITA 121/ASR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar31 Mar 2021AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Deepak ChopraFor Respondent: Smt.Prabhjot Kaur, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263

disallowed 45% of the total expenses debited to the profit and loss account. 33. The aforesaid justification has not been controverted before us nor any infirmity worth its name pointed out by the Ld.Pr.CIT. On the contrary, we find, the Ld.Pr.CIT has tried to negate the claim of expenses against the aforestated incomes by stating that: a) Since the assessee

M/S. KING ENTERTAINMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,NAWANSHAHR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - II, JALANDHAR

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

ITA 523/ASR/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar19 Dec 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. N. K. Choudhry & Sh. O. P. Meenai.T.A. No. 523/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2005-06

For Appellant: Written SubmissionsFor Respondent: Sh. Alok Kumar CIT-DR
Section 2Section 2(24)Section 271(1)(c)Section 35DSection 56Section 68

disallowance of expenses like preliminary expenses w/off which are allowable u/s 35D. The other expenses Rent, Bank Charges are self-explanatory. Hence no penalty can be imposed. It is prayed penalty may please deleted. 3. The appellant craves leave to add or amend ground of appeal.” 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the AO made addition