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.

41 results for “disallowance”+ Section 92clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,713 Delhi1,249 Chennai455 Bangalore337 Ahmedabad326 Hyderabad264 Jaipur243 Kolkata198 Chandigarh179 Pune136 Rajkot120 Visakhapatnam98 Surat92 Indore86 Cochin76 Raipur58 Lucknow45 Guwahati45 Amritsar41 Nagpur36 Allahabad32 SC29 Patna23 Ranchi21 Cuttack19 Jodhpur17 Panaji14 Dehradun14 Agra10 Varanasi8 Jabalpur5 MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1

Key Topics

Addition to Income41 Section 143(3)32 Disallowance30 Section 25027 Section 80I23 Deduction21 Section 250(6)15 Section 26315 Section 10B14 Section 147

BRODAWAYS OVERSEAS LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

ITA 123/ASR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 May 2023AY 2013-14

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

Section 10BSection 14A

92,129/- on account of disallowance under section 10B is rejected. 18. In the next issue, revenue has challenged that

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S BROADWAY OVERSEAS LTD., JALANDHAR

ITA 48/ASR/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 May 2023AY 2010-11

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

Section 10BSection 14A

Showing 1–20 of 41 · Page 1 of 3

14

92,129/- on account of disallowance under section 10B is rejected. 18. In the next issue, revenue has challenged that

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S BROADWAYS OVERSEAS LTD, JALANDHAR

ITA 345/ASR/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 May 2023AY 2012-13

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

Section 10BSection 14A

92,129/- on account of disallowance under section 10B is rejected. 18. In the next issue, revenue has challenged that

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S BROADWAYS OVERSEAS LTD, JALANDHAR

ITA 477/ASR/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 May 2023AY 2008-09

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

Section 10BSection 14A

92,129/- on account of disallowance under section 10B is rejected. 18. In the next issue, revenue has challenged that

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S BROADWAY OVERSEAS LTD., JALANDHAR

ITA 49/ASR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 May 2023AY 2011-12

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

Section 10BSection 14A

92,129/- on account of disallowance under section 10B is rejected. 18. In the next issue, revenue has challenged that

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S BROADWAY OVERSEAS LTD., JALANDHAR

ITA 47/ASR/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 May 2023AY 2009-10

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

Section 10BSection 14A

92,129/- on account of disallowance under section 10B is rejected. 18. In the next issue, revenue has challenged that

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S BROADWAY OVERSEAS LTD., JALANDHAR

ITA 46/ASR/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 May 2023AY 2007-08

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

Section 10BSection 14A

92,129/- on account of disallowance under section 10B is rejected. 18. In the next issue, revenue has challenged that

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE- 3, SRINAGAR vs. MEASAGE SAIFCO CEEMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED, SRINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the Department and CO of the Assesse is 23

ITA 451/ASR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar23 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Rajiv Wadhera, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

92,500/- 5. Interest free unsecured loans from relatives and 23,00,702/- friends Total 44,33,52,259/- The assessee company further submitted that the average advances to the sister concern for the year works out to Rs. 44,38,05,521/- which had been met out of the above surplus funds available with the company and the assessee

THE DHAMAI COOPERATIVE AGRICULTURE SERVICE SOCIETY LIMITED,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , HOSHIARPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed and the order(s) of the Kerala High Court and other authorities to the contrary are set aside

ITA 273/ASR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar09 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.273/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

section 80P of the Act. It is observed that the appellant earned a profit of Rs.36,92,758/- during the year under consideration. It is further observed that major part of income of the assessee was not generated from the activities which qualify for the deduction u/s 80P. The AO had assessed the return on 25.12.2019 after disallowance

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

92,163/- ANDRS. 3,10,253/- U/S 32 OF THE ACT. ( ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 & 08-09) 15.1 The Hon’ble Tribunal vide its order dated 27.6.2012 has deleted the identical disallowance of depreciation, wherein it has been held as under: “22 We have heard the rival contentions and perused the facts of the case. This is not under dispute

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

92,163/- ANDRS. 3,10,253/- U/S 32 OF THE ACT. ( ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 & 08-09) 15.1 The Hon’ble Tribunal vide its order dated 27.6.2012 has deleted the identical disallowance of depreciation, wherein it has been held as under: “22 We have heard the rival contentions and perused the facts of the case. This is not under dispute

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

92,163/- ANDRS. 3,10,253/- U/S 32 OF THE ACT. ( ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 & 08-09) 15.1 The Hon’ble Tribunal vide its order dated 27.6.2012 has deleted the identical disallowance of depreciation, wherein it has been held as under: “22 We have heard the rival contentions and perused the facts of the case. This is not under dispute

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

92,163/- ANDRS. 3,10,253/- U/S 32 OF THE ACT. ( ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 & 08-09) 15.1 The Hon’ble Tribunal vide its order dated 27.6.2012 has deleted the identical disallowance of depreciation, wherein it has been held as under: “22 We have heard the rival contentions and perused the facts of the case. This is not under dispute

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

92,163/- ANDRS. 3,10,253/- U/S 32 OF THE ACT. ( ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 & 08-09) 15.1 The Hon’ble Tribunal vide its order dated 27.6.2012 has deleted the identical disallowance of depreciation, wherein it has been held as under: “22 We have heard the rival contentions and perused the facts of the case. This is not under dispute

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

92,163/- ANDRS. 3,10,253/- U/S 32 OF THE ACT. ( ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 & 08-09) 15.1 The Hon’ble Tribunal vide its order dated 27.6.2012 has deleted the identical disallowance of depreciation, wherein it has been held as under: “22 We have heard the rival contentions and perused the facts of the case. This is not under dispute

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

92,163/- ANDRS. 3,10,253/- U/S 32 OF THE ACT. ( ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 & 08-09) 15.1 The Hon’ble Tribunal vide its order dated 27.6.2012 has deleted the identical disallowance of depreciation, wherein it has been held as under: “22 We have heard the rival contentions and perused the facts of the case. This is not under dispute

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

92,163/- ANDRS. 3,10,253/- U/S 32 OF THE ACT. ( ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 & 08-09) 15.1 The Hon’ble Tribunal vide its order dated 27.6.2012 has deleted the identical disallowance of depreciation, wherein it has been held as under: “22 We have heard the rival contentions and perused the facts of the case. This is not under dispute

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

92,163/- ANDRS. 3,10,253/- U/S 32 OF THE ACT. ( ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 & 08-09) 15.1 The Hon’ble Tribunal vide its order dated 27.6.2012 has deleted the identical disallowance of depreciation, wherein it has been held as under: “22 We have heard the rival contentions and perused the facts of the case. This is not under dispute

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

92,163/- ANDRS. 3,10,253/- U/S 32 OF THE ACT. ( ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 & 08-09) 15.1 The Hon’ble Tribunal vide its order dated 27.6.2012 has deleted the identical disallowance of depreciation, wherein it has been held as under: “22 We have heard the rival contentions and perused the facts of the case. This is not under dispute

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