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.

10 results for “disallowance”+ Section 80Cclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi123Mumbai95Jaipur75Bangalore38Hyderabad31Ahmedabad29Chennai25Kolkata22Chandigarh21Pune17Lucknow15Cochin13Indore13Raipur10Amritsar10Surat10Nagpur6Cuttack5Patna5Telangana5Agra4Jodhpur3Visakhapatnam3Karnataka2Ranchi2Varanasi2Allahabad2Panaji1

Key Topics

Section 80C14Section 14712Section 14411Deduction10Addition to Income9Section 143(3)7Section 245Reopening of Assessment5Disallowance5Section 250(6)

SHRI BILAS CHAND,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD1(1), BATHINDA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 399/ASR/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 Apr 2019AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 399/Asr/2018 Assessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Sh. J. K. Gupta (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)
Section 133(6)Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 24Section 80CSection 80E

sections, i.e., by mistake, and that he had revised his return accordingly on 17.7.2017 (refer para 5 of the assessment order). The said return, however, while retaining the claim for deduction u/s. 80C at Rs.1.50 lacs, altered that for deduction u/s. 80E to ‘Loss from house property’, at, though, the same sum of Rs.1,50,472, returning thus his income

4
Section 80I4
Section 1484

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SAMBA vs. SH. ASHOK KUMAR SHARMA, SAMBA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in Ground nos

ITA 475/ASR/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar17 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.475/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 40Section 80I

80C and Rs.12,50,358/-u/s. 80IB of the Income tax Act. The case was selected for scrutiny and during the assessment proceedings, the AO asked the assessee to produce books of account and other relevant details. The assessee submitted the books of account in a computerized I.T.A. No.475/Asr/2016 6 Assessment Year: 2013-14 sheet and furnished other details

SHRI ARSHAD MOHD MALIK,JAMMU vs. INMCVOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2 (4), UDHAMPUR

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

ITA 168/ASR/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

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

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 69CSection 80C

disallowance of deduction u/s 80C amount of Rs.62,500/- and the addition u/s 69C amount of Rs.1,90,330/-. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). But the ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of the ld. AO. The assessee has argument that the assessee is a partner of M/s Malik Construction and the turnover amount

SHRI ARUN NARULA,FEROZEPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OFD INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

ITA 13/ASR/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 May 2023AY 2013-14

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

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 68Section 80C

disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80C of the I.T. Act and addition of Rs. 34,30,000/- on account of unexplained credits u/s 68 of the I.T. Act 1961 were made in this case. The assessee for A.Y. 2011-12 being aggrieved, filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A)-S, Ludhiana on 22.04.2016, The Ld. CIT(A)-5, Ludhiana vide

SHRI ARUN NARULA ,FEROZEPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

ITA 14/ASR/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 May 2023AY 2014-15

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

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 68Section 80C

disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80C of the I.T. Act and addition of Rs. 34,30,000/- on account of unexplained credits u/s 68 of the I.T. Act 1961 were made in this case. The assessee for A.Y. 2011-12 being aggrieved, filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A)-S, Ludhiana on 22.04.2016, The Ld. CIT(A)-5, Ludhiana vide

SHRI ARUN NARULA,FROZEPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

ITA 12/ASR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 May 2023AY 2012-13

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

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 68Section 80C

disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80C of the I.T. Act and addition of Rs. 34,30,000/- on account of unexplained credits u/s 68 of the I.T. Act 1961 were made in this case. The assessee for A.Y. 2011-12 being aggrieved, filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A)-S, Ludhiana on 22.04.2016, The Ld. CIT(A)-5, Ludhiana vide

SHRIMATI SHAMSHADA TALIB,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFICER WARD -3(3), SRINAGAR

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

ITA 25/ASR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

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

Section 144Section 145Section 147Section 250(6)Section 80C

section 147 of Income Tax Act 1961, which is bad in law and against thefactsand circumstancesof thecase. The order therefore deserves to be quashed. 4. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and facts by confirming addition of Rs.5,80,000/- made by the Ld. Assessing Officer on account of Agriculture Income. The addition

SH.SURESH KUMAR SHARMA.S/O SH. RAKHA RAM,KOTKAPURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3 (3), FAIDKOT

In the result, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed

ITA 110/ASR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Apr 2023AY 2010-11

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

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 24Section 250Section 271Section 44ASection 80C

section 147 are not applicable. So, the re-opening as well as re-assessment is liable to be quashed. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AOhas re-opened the case of the assessee only on the basis of the bank deposits in ICICI Bank without giving the finding that

SH. SURESH KUMAR SHARMA S/O. SH. RAKHA RAM,KOTKAPURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(3), FARIDKOT

In the result, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed

ITA 111/ASR/2019[2011-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Apr 2023AY 2011-11

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

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 24Section 250Section 271Section 44ASection 80C

section 147 are not applicable. So, the re-opening as well as re-assessment is liable to be quashed. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AOhas re-opened the case of the assessee only on the basis of the bank deposits in ICICI Bank without giving the finding that

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BATHINDA vs. SH. DALJIT SINGH, BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed

ITA 461/ASR/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Feb 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N.S.Saini & Sh. N.K.Choudhryita No.461(Asr)/2015 Assessment Year:2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. Bhawani Shankar (Ld. DR)For Respondent: None
Section 250(6)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

section 271(1)(c), but such presumption is rebuttable. The Explanation itself provides for such rebuttal in cases, where the taxpayer has an explanation for the difference, produces all the materials available with him and such explanation is not found to be mala fide. In the instant case, the appellant did provide explanation for the lesser profit disclosed, which