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.

62 results for “disallowance”+ Section 94(4)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai3,509Delhi2,829Bangalore1,016Chennai835Ahmedabad791Kolkata741Hyderabad495Jaipur475Pune455Indore330Surat288Chandigarh241Cochin154Visakhapatnam142Raipur134Rajkot112Cuttack102Lucknow80Amritsar62Nagpur55Guwahati45Calcutta42Karnataka42Allahabad40Agra31Telangana28Jodhpur27Patna23Panaji22Dehradun21SC17Ranchi17Jabalpur14Varanasi6Punjab & Haryana4Kerala3Rajasthan2Gauhati1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Orissa1

Key Topics

Addition to Income53Section 153A51Section 25032Section 6831Section 143(3)29Section 80I27Section 69A21Undisclosed Income21Disallowance18Section 145(3)

SHRI RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 225/ASR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar17 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. N.K. Saini, Hon'Ble & Shri. Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir SehgalFor Respondent: Sh Lalit Mohan Jindal, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

94,496/-. 5. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) and reiterated the submissions made before the Assessing Officer. Reliance was also placed on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp investment Ltd reported at 91 taxman com 154. It was also stated that the total exempt income earned

SHRI RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, JALANDHAR

Showing 1–20 of 62 · Page 1 of 4

15
Section 56(1)(vii)15
Deduction15

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 398/ASR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar17 Jan 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. N.K. Saini, Hon'Ble & Shri. Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir SehgalFor Respondent: Sh Lalit Mohan Jindal, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

94,496/-. 5. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) and reiterated the submissions made before the Assessing Officer. Reliance was also placed on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp investment Ltd reported at 91 taxman com 154. It was also stated that the total exempt income earned

SHRI DARPAN JAIN,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX WARD - 1(1), JALANDHAR

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

ITA 577/ASR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar10 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Sh. J. S. Bhasin, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 147Section 36Section 68

4,42,244.73 on account of interest to Bank, The assessee had made non- commercial advance of Rs 45,00.000.00 to his wife for purchase of immovable property, The utilization of borrowed funds for non business purposes attracts disallowance of interest claimed as expenditure. Hence Addition of Rs.360000.00 (Rs 45 Lakhs x 10% x 8/12) towards disallowance of interest were

NATH RAM (HUF) ,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), BATHINDA

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

ITA 235/ASR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Manpreet Singh Duggal, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 136(1)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 43B

disallowance made Rs. 1 lac and added back with the total income of the assessee. The assessee filed an 3 Nath Ram (HUF) v. ITO appeal against the order of the ld. AO before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of the ld. AO. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before us. 3. Here

MESERS GANESH RICE MILLS,MUKTSAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

In the result the appeal of the assessee ITA No

ITA 287/ASR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, A. RFor Respondent: Sh. Rohit Mehra, CIT DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 250(6)

disallowance cannot be sustained without any further enquiry and confrontation to the appellant. Even though no separate addition has been made, therefore from the computation of income viewpoint this ground of appeal is infructuous and for statistical purposes stated to be dismissed.” 3.3. In argument the ld. Counsel, Mr. Sehgal mentioned that in the same paragraph

ESS ESS KAY ENGINEERING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -4, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appellant’s appeal is Dismissed

ITA 143/ASR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.143/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ess Ess Kay Engineering Co. Vs. Nfac, Delhi/C/O Asstt. Pvt. Ltd. Factory Area, Commissioner Of Income Jalandhar. Tax Circle-4, Jalandhar. [Pan: Aaace5057G] (Respondent) (Appellant)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250oSection 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 43B

disallowance of deductions claimed by the appellant on account of payments of employee’s contribution towards Provident Fund and ESI fund amounting to Rs. 94,65,114/-, which were made after the dates I.T.A. No.143/Asr/2023 7 Assessment Year: 2017-18 prescribed in the concerned statutes, is, therefore, upheld. Accordingly, these grounds 1 & 2 are dismissed. 6. In ground

SH. GURJEET SINGH,AMRITSAR. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, AMRITSAR.

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 597/ASR/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 597/Asr/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. Satish Bansal (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

4(2), Amritsar Pawan Nagar, Amritsar. [PAN: AQHPS 8775M] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Satish Bansal (C.A.) Respondent by: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.) Date of Hearing: 21.02.2019 Date of Pronouncement: 30.04.2019 ORDER Per Sanjay Arora, AM: This is an Appeal by the Assessee directed against the Order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Amritsar ('CIT(A)' for short

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1,, JAMMU vs. M/S J. K. MINT INDUSTRIES, BARI BRAHMANA

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

ITA 613/ASR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar14 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

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

Section 115JSection 80I

disallowed the claim of deduction made by the assessee u/s. 80IB of the Income tax Act on the ground that it has not fulfilled the prescribed conditions under section 80IB of the Act. 4 Asstt. CIT v. J.K. Mint Industries 4. Aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the assesse filed appeal before the CIT(A) who has granted relief by deleting

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BATHINDA vs. M/S THE MUKTSAR CENTRAL CO-OP.BANK LTD, MUKTSAR

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

ITA 270/ASR/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar17 May 2022AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kalia, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 231Section 250(6)Section 251Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40Section 43B

94,56,000/- provisions for aggregate average advance by rural branches as against deduction of Rs.12,67,24,564/- claimed by assessee in its return of income, also disallowed u/s 40(a) of the Act for payment towards Income Tax and FBT total amount of Rs.11,65,690/- & the disallowance U/s 43B of the Act amount

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

disallowance U/s 40A(3) amount to Rs. 8,38,000/-.Being aggrieved the assessee filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee. Being aggrieved revenue filed an appeal before us. Ground No.1 4. In the ground no. 1 of the revenue, the DR vehemently argued and contended that

SHRI RAJ KUMAR ( M/S RADHIKA SALES CORP ), AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 3 (3), AMRITSAR

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

ITA 195/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

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

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250oSection 68

94 High Court of Bombay “Section 145 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Method of accounting (Rejection of accounts) - Assessment year 2005-06 -Whether where revenue was not able to I.T.A. No.195/Asr/2022 24 Assessment Year: 2017-18 show an defect in assessee's records or in books of account maintained by assessee, section 145 could not be invoked for rejecting

M/S GOODWIL TRADERS,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SRINAGAR

In the result, these three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 30/ASR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar13 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. DR &
Section 145(3)

disallowing the other expenses. 4. That the appellant craves the leave to alter and to substitute any grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.” 3. Briefly, facts of the case are that the appellant is a trading concern dealing in wholesale trade of Kiryana items including edible oils etc. The Assessing Officer has applied GP rate

GOODWILL TRADERS.,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(1), SRINAGAR

In the result, these three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 326/ASR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar03 Jun 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 145(3)

disallowing the other expenses. 4. That the appellant craves the leave to alter and to substitute any grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.” 3. Briefly, facts of the case are that the appellant is a trading concern dealing in wholesale trade of Kiryana items including edible oils etc. The Assessing Officer has applied GP rate

GOODWILL TRADERS,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(1), SRINAGAR

In the result, these three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 327/ASR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar03 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. DR &
Section 145(3)

disallowing the other expenses. 4. That the appellant craves the leave to alter and to substitute any grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.” 3. Briefly, facts of the case are that the appellant is a trading concern dealing in wholesale trade of Kiryana items including edible oils etc. The Assessing Officer has applied GP rate

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

section 80IC, as deduction is admissible for the job work done for others. This had been held in the following cases: I. Jaiswal Metals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax ITA No. 576/Chd/2018 CHD-TRIB. II. Vashisht Alloys vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax ITA No. 573/Chd/2018 CHD-TRIB. III. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Aar Ess Exim

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

section 80IC, as deduction is admissible for the job work done for others. This had been held in the following cases: I. Jaiswal Metals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax ITA No. 576/Chd/2018 CHD-TRIB. II. Vashisht Alloys vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax ITA No. 573/Chd/2018 CHD-TRIB. III. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Aar Ess Exim

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

section 80IC, as deduction is admissible for the job work done for others. This had been held in the following cases: I. Jaiswal Metals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax ITA No. 576/Chd/2018 CHD-TRIB. II. Vashisht Alloys vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax ITA No. 573/Chd/2018 CHD-TRIB. III. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Aar Ess Exim

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

section 80IC, as deduction is admissible for the job work done for others. This had been held in the following cases: I. Jaiswal Metals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax ITA No. 576/Chd/2018 CHD-TRIB. II. Vashisht Alloys vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax ITA No. 573/Chd/2018 CHD-TRIB. III. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Aar Ess Exim

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

section 80IC, as deduction is admissible for the job work done for others. This had been held in the following cases: I. Jaiswal Metals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax ITA No. 576/Chd/2018 CHD-TRIB. II. Vashisht Alloys vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax ITA No. 573/Chd/2018 CHD-TRIB. III. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Aar Ess Exim

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

section 80IC, as deduction is admissible for the job work done for others. This had been held in the following cases: I. Jaiswal Metals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax ITA No. 576/Chd/2018 CHD-TRIB. II. Vashisht Alloys vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax ITA No. 573/Chd/2018 CHD-TRIB. III. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Aar Ess Exim