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.

101 results for “disallowance”+ Section 72clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai4,021Delhi3,358Bangalore1,122Chennai1,067Ahmedabad960Kolkata850Pune589Jaipur574Hyderabad571Indore350Chandigarh295Surat259Cochin218Visakhapatnam164Rajkot164Raipur149Cuttack131Amritsar101Nagpur98Lucknow80Karnataka66Ranchi55Guwahati52Calcutta43Allahabad43Panaji39Jodhpur33Dehradun23SC22Agra20Telangana18Jabalpur17Varanasi12Patna11Kerala8Punjab & Haryana5MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1Rajasthan1RANJAN GOGOI PRAFULLA C. PANT1Uttarakhand1

Key Topics

Addition to Income89Section 14469Section 250(6)55Disallowance55Natural Justice49Section 153A45Depreciation45Section 6836Deduction33Section 143(3)

THE AZAD NAKODAR BUS SERVICE PRIVATE LIMITED,NAKODAR vs. DEPUTY COMMSSIONER OF INCOME TAC CIRCL-4E, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 107/ASR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

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

Section 40(3)Section 40A(3)

disallowance shall be made and no payment shall be deemed to be the profit & gains of business or profession under sub section (3) and this sub section where a payment or aggregate of payment made to a person in a day, otherwise than by an account payee cheque drawn on a bank or account payee bank draft. Exceeds ten thousand

ISHAR INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELPOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BATHINDA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA

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

ITA 686/ASR/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar

Showing 1–20 of 101 · Page 1 of 6

29
Section 26322
Section 80I20
28 Aug 2025
AY 2022-23

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No. 686/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2022-23

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 32(2)Section 72Section 72(3)

72, and unabsorbed depreciation, brought forward claimed u/s 32(2) of the Act 61. 4.1 The AO, CPC, Bengaluru disallowed the claim of brought forward loss to be set-off against the current business income of Rs.34,48,171/-, and determined the assessed income at Rs.34.63 lakhs u/s 143(1) ignoring the provisions of section

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, AMRITSAR. vs. SH. SHIV RAJ SINGH BAWA, AMRITSAR.

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed and the assessee’s CO, dismissed

ITA 407/ASR/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 407/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)For Respondent: Sh. Tarun Bansal (Adv.)
Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

section 40A(3), which disallowance cannot be said to be found wanting or not properly applied on the ground of having satisfactorily explained the source of cash with the assessee. The AO, accordingly, has not made any enquiry in the matter. This, it may be noted, is in the same manner as the law does not oblige

MEASAGE TAU AGRO SALES PRIVATE LIMITED,FARIDKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(2), FEROZEPUR

In the result the ground no

ITA 324/ASR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

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

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(3)

disallowed under section 40A(3). The ld. Counsel argued & placed the fact that assessee having factory in remote area in village Bholuwal, where no banking facility is available. In additional evidence the assessee has filed Certificate of Panchayat with English version & Affidavit of director of company which are enclosed as Page 31-33 of Paper book. By the additional evidence

MEASAGE.TAU AGRO SALES PRIVATE LIMITED,FARIDKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(4), FARIDKOT

In the result the ground no

ITA 325/ASR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

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

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(3)

disallowed under section 40A(3). The ld. Counsel argued & placed the fact that assessee having factory in remote area in village Bholuwal, where no banking facility is available. In additional evidence the assessee has filed Certificate of Panchayat with English version & Affidavit of director of company which are enclosed as Page 31-33 of Paper book. By the additional evidence

THE DY. COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. THE JAMMU & KASHMIR BANK LTD,, SRINAGAR

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 298/ASR/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar03 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. T. S. Kapoor & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 298/(Asr)/2014 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Pan: Aaact6167G Dy. C. I. T., Vs. M/S. The Jammu & Kashmir Circle-1, 2Nd Floor Aayakar Bank Ltd., Corporate Head Bhawan, Railhead Complex, Quarters, M. A. Road, Jammu. Srinagar. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. S. S. Kanwal (D. R.)For Respondent: Written Submissions
Section 14ASection 40Section 40a

section 14A of the I.T. Act, 1961 to restrict the amount of disallowance worked out as per Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules.” 3. At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted that each and every grievance of the revenue is duly covered in favour of assessee by the order of the Amritsar Bench in ITA No. 206/Asr/2013

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, JAMMU vs. M/S. CONTINENTAL CONSTRUCTION CO,, JAMMU ( J&K)

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as well as the appeal filed the Revenue Department is dismissed and Cross Objection also stands disposed off

ITA 27/ASR/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhryita No.38(Asr)/2013 Assessment Year:2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. R.L. Gupta (Ld. Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (Ld. DR)
Section 142(1)Section 250(6)Section 32(1)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 68

disallowance on account of depreciation (u/s. 32(1)) and interest (u s. 361 (iii)) shall not survive in view of the estimation of the net profit rate. That leaves us with the addition u/s. 68 qua a secured loan s. Though the same could be made in principal, and we do not agree with the Id. CIT(A) that

M/S. CONTINENTAL CONSTRUCTION CO.,,JAMMU vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (HQRS), JAMMU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as well as the appeal filed the Revenue Department is dismissed and Cross Objection also stands disposed off

ITA 38/ASR/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhryita No.38(Asr)/2013 Assessment Year:2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. R.L. Gupta (Ld. Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (Ld. DR)
Section 142(1)Section 250(6)Section 32(1)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 68

disallowance on account of depreciation (u/s. 32(1)) and interest (u s. 361 (iii)) shall not survive in view of the estimation of the net profit rate. That leaves us with the addition u/s. 68 qua a secured loan s. Though the same could be made in principal, and we do not agree with the Id. CIT(A) 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

72,263,404 Disallowance of deduction u/s 143(3) 80IC to the tune of Rs. 121/2014 44,70,601/- out of total deduction of Rs. 7,22,63,404/-. (During this year department had changed its method of disallowance and disallowed the deduction u/s 80IC, proportionately on the expenses incurred on “printing & binding outside”. 2011-12 Not Claimed

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

72,263,404 Disallowance of deduction u/s 143(3) 80IC to the tune of Rs. 121/2014 44,70,601/- out of total deduction of Rs. 7,22,63,404/-. (During this year department had changed its method of disallowance and disallowed the deduction u/s 80IC, proportionately on the expenses incurred on “printing & binding outside”. 2011-12 Not Claimed

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

72,263,404 Disallowance of deduction u/s 143(3) 80IC to the tune of Rs. 121/2014 44,70,601/- out of total deduction of Rs. 7,22,63,404/-. (During this year department had changed its method of disallowance and disallowed the deduction u/s 80IC, proportionately on the expenses incurred on “printing & binding outside”. 2011-12 Not Claimed

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

72,263,404 Disallowance of deduction u/s 143(3) 80IC to the tune of Rs. 121/2014 44,70,601/- out of total deduction of Rs. 7,22,63,404/-. (During this year department had changed its method of disallowance and disallowed the deduction u/s 80IC, proportionately on the expenses incurred on “printing & binding outside”. 2011-12 Not Claimed

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

72,263,404 Disallowance of deduction u/s 143(3) 80IC to the tune of Rs. 121/2014 44,70,601/- out of total deduction of Rs. 7,22,63,404/-. (During this year department had changed its method of disallowance and disallowed the deduction u/s 80IC, proportionately on the expenses incurred on “printing & binding outside”. 2011-12 Not Claimed

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

72,263,404 Disallowance of deduction u/s 143(3) 80IC to the tune of Rs. 121/2014 44,70,601/- out of total deduction of Rs. 7,22,63,404/-. (During this year department had changed its method of disallowance and disallowed the deduction u/s 80IC, proportionately on the expenses incurred on “printing & binding outside”. 2011-12 Not Claimed

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

72,263,404 Disallowance of deduction u/s 143(3) 80IC to the tune of Rs. 121/2014 44,70,601/- out of total deduction of Rs. 7,22,63,404/-. (During this year department had changed its method of disallowance and disallowed the deduction u/s 80IC, proportionately on the expenses incurred on “printing & binding outside”. 2011-12 Not Claimed

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

72,263,404 Disallowance of deduction u/s 143(3) 80IC to the tune of Rs. 121/2014 44,70,601/- out of total deduction of Rs. 7,22,63,404/-. (During this year department had changed its method of disallowance and disallowed the deduction u/s 80IC, proportionately on the expenses incurred on “printing & binding outside”. 2011-12 Not Claimed

SHRI SURINDER KUMAR ,MANSA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA

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

ITA 238/ASR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. DR
Section 40ASection 40A(3)Section 68

disallowance of Rs. 505000/- made by invoking the provisions of section 40A (3) being cash payment made on account of purchase of property being stock in trade and Rs. 6,50,000/- towards three credits received during the year u/s 68 of Income Tax Act, besides Rs. 22,525/- on interest paid to these creditors. He argued that during

M/S. SHREE-E-KASHMIR COLLEGE OF EDUCATIONAL,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

In the result, the captioned four appeals of the Assessee Trust are allowed

ITA 557/ASR/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar13 Jun 2022AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manpreet Singh Duggal, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 13Section 13(2)Section 13(3)Section 234A

section 10(23cl of the Act, should have been allowed and there was no justification in assessing the income at Rs. 21,72,081/-. 5. That the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has further grossly erred in confirming the disallowance

M/S. SHREE-E-KASHMIR COLLEGE OF EDUCATIONAL,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

In the result, the captioned four appeals of the Assessee Trust are allowed

ITA 556/ASR/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar13 Jun 2022AY 2006-07

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

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manpreet Singh Duggal, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 13Section 13(2)Section 13(3)Section 234A

section 10(23cl of the Act, should have been allowed and there was no justification in assessing the income at Rs. 21,72,081/-. 5. That the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has further grossly erred in confirming the disallowance

M/S. SHREE-E-KASHMIR COLLEGE OF EDUCATIONAL,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

In the result, the captioned four appeals of the Assessee Trust are allowed

ITA 558/ASR/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar13 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manpreet Singh Duggal, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 13Section 13(2)Section 13(3)Section 234A

section 10(23cl of the Act, should have been allowed and there was no justification in assessing the income at Rs. 21,72,081/-. 5. That the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has further grossly erred in confirming the disallowance