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(7)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai3,387Delhi2,765Bangalore1,003Chennai808Ahmedabad773Kolkata696Hyderabad486Jaipur456Pune453Indore328Surat286Chandigarh239Cochin151Visakhapatnam141Raipur133Rajkot110Cuttack102Lucknow79Amritsar62Nagpur53Guwahati45Calcutta41Karnataka41Allahabad40Agra30Telangana28Jodhpur26Panaji20Dehradun20Patna19SC17Jabalpur14Ranchi14Varanasi6Punjab & 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 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 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 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

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

Section 43B of the Act. The 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

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

disallowance of interest made by the Assessing Officer is upheld. This ground of appeal is dismissed.” 5. The ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the disputed amount of Rs.52 lacs were explained to be a loan raised on interest from one Smt. Anita Chadha, resident of 689-R, Model Town, Jalandhar, by way of a cheque, credited

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

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

7. The ld. AR argued that in this ground another addition of Rs.8,96,411/- on account of difference in transactions Rs.15,04,595/- and Rs.2,76,892/- made on account of unexplained credits on the basis of corrupt computerised data. The ld. AR relied on the appeal order. The relevant paragraphs of page 94 of appeal order is reproduced

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. AMAN TRADING CORP.,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 255/ASR/2013[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar16 Jan 2019AY 1997-98

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 255/(Asr)/2013 Assessment Year: 1997-98

For Appellant: Sh. Inderjit Paul (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 184(2)Section 420Section 68

94-96), holding as under: ‘7. We have heard both the parties and carefully considered the rival submissions, examined the facts, evidence and material placed on record. The evidence placed before us does show that the F.I.R. No. 56 u/s. 420 & 406 of the l.P.C. was registered against the assessee. The various records including the books of account were taken

PANKAJ JINDAL CONTRACTOR,MANSA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-I, BATHINDA, BATHINDA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 695/ASR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar05 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 695/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Pankaj Jindal Contractor, Vs. Dcit-Circle-1, Near Vidya Bharti School, Bathinda. Mansa. [Pan:-Aajfp8008L] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, Adv. Respondent By Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. Dr

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148aSection 250Section 282Section 40A(3)Section 68

disallowance of expenditure being hit by the provisions of section 40A(3) has been thoroughly examined by the AO in course of original proceedings which is evident from the body of the original order dated 09/11/2016 where the AO has examined the same and has observed as follows: “2. The assessee firm engaged in the business of civil contractor

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

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

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 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

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 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 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 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 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

MESERS SHREE BHAGWATI COTTON TRADERS,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 1 (2), BATHINDA

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

ITA 480/ASR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar13 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

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

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250(6)Section 68

94 taxmann.com325 (SC) held: I.T.A. No. 479/Asr/2018 13 &I.T.A. No. 480/Asr/2018 “Section 69C of the income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained expenditure (Bogus purchases) -Assessing Officer had disallowed some expenditure treating purchases as bogus and made addition - High Court in impugned order noted that purchases made by assessee- trader were duly supported by bills and payments were made by account payee

INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 1 (2), BATHINDA vs. MESERS SHREE BHAGWATI COTTON TRADERS ,, BATHINDA

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

ITA 479/ASR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar13 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

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

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250(6)Section 68

94 taxmann.com325 (SC) held: I.T.A. No. 479/Asr/2018 13 &I.T.A. No. 480/Asr/2018 “Section 69C of the income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained expenditure (Bogus purchases) -Assessing Officer had disallowed some expenditure treating purchases as bogus and made addition - High Court in impugned order noted that purchases made by assessee- trader were duly supported by bills and payments were made by account payee

M/S BINDRA DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,FEROZEPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE, FEROZEPUR

In the result, Ground Nos

ITA 190/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.190/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250o

disallowed the expenses without point out any lacuna and without rejecting the books of account. 7. The ld. DR fully relied on the order of the revenue authorities. Ground No. 5 8. The ld. AR claimed that the assessee is entitled depreciation in the impugned assessment year amount of Rs.15,94,447/-. But the ld. CIT(A) had a grievance