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.

655 results for “disallowance”+ Business Incomeclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai19,981Delhi13,625Chennai5,666Kolkata5,170Bangalore4,902Ahmedabad2,027Hyderabad1,737Pune1,733Jaipur1,126Surat858Chandigarh655Cochin643Indore610Raipur569Karnataka554Rajkot457Visakhapatnam410Nagpur407Lucknow355Cuttack323Amritsar259Panaji250Agra174Telangana166Jodhpur148Patna145Guwahati145Dehradun119Ranchi117Calcutta112SC105Allahabad84Kerala66Jabalpur66Varanasi53Punjab & Haryana27Orissa12Rajasthan9Himachal Pradesh4A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1Andhra Pradesh1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Bombay1Gauhati1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1J&K1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1RANJAN GOGOI PRAFULLA C. PANT1Tripura1

Key Topics

Section 26366Section 143(3)64Addition to Income55Section 14844Disallowance30Section 143(2)27Section 69A20Penalty20Section 27118Deduction

SH. KRISHAN KUMAR,KHANNA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 175/CHANDI/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Jan 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sharma, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 133ASection 139Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69Section 69ASection 69BSection 69C

Showing 1–20 of 655 · Page 1 of 33

...
18
Section 133(6)14
Section 12713

income, the same cannot be treated as unexplained investment. Therefore, if an investment is not unexplained than the expenditure claimed in relation to that investment cannot be disallowed. 8. It was submitted that the Assessee had offered sum total of these transactions as business

DCIT, CIRCLE, PATIALA vs. M/S PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD., PATIALA

In the result, ground no. 1 & 3 of the Revenue’s appeal is allowed and ground no

ITA 737/CHANDI/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Saldi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 143(2)

disallowed the deduction by holding that the payment of income-tax could not be for the purpose of business. It was claimed

SH. GURINDER MAKKAR,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-3, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

ITA 20/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 32Section 37Section 40A(3)Section 43(1)Section 68Section 69

business income on the credit side of the P&L Account. The AO observed that the net effect is that the assessee has nullified the effect of the surrender income claimed to be income from other sources by making entry of Rs. 28,53,000/- which cannot be allowed and same was disallowed

M/S PUNJAB TOURISM DEVELOPMENET CORPORATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 141/CHANDI/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ao)

For Appellant: Sh.Tejmohan Singh, Adv. and Sh. Vineet Khurana, C. AFor Respondent: Sh.Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. D. R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 253

disallowance should not be made. 26.3 That the Ld. AO was of the view that no actual business activity was carried out during the year under consideration by the assessee corporation. The business of the assessee is closed one hence these expenses cannot be allowed in the absence of any core business activity. There is no income

M/S PUNJAB TOURISM DEVELOPMENET CORPORATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 139/CHANDI/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ao)

For Appellant: Sh.Tejmohan Singh, Adv. and Sh. Vineet Khurana, C. AFor Respondent: Sh.Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. D. R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 253

disallowance should not be made. 26.3 That the Ld. AO was of the view that no actual business activity was carried out during the year under consideration by the assessee corporation. The business of the assessee is closed one hence these expenses cannot be allowed in the absence of any core business activity. There is no income

M/S PUNJAB TOURISM DEVELOPMENET CORPORATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 140/CHANDI/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ao)

For Appellant: Sh.Tejmohan Singh, Adv. and Sh. Vineet Khurana, C. AFor Respondent: Sh.Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. D. R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 253

disallowance should not be made. 26.3 That the Ld. AO was of the view that no actual business activity was carried out during the year under consideration by the assessee corporation. The business of the assessee is closed one hence these expenses cannot be allowed in the absence of any core business activity. There is no income

M/S PUNJAB TOURISM DEVELOPMENET CORPORATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 142/CHANDI/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ao)

For Appellant: Sh.Tejmohan Singh, Adv. and Sh. Vineet Khurana, C. AFor Respondent: Sh.Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. D. R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 253

disallowance should not be made. 26.3 That the Ld. AO was of the view that no actual business activity was carried out during the year under consideration by the assessee corporation. The business of the assessee is closed one hence these expenses cannot be allowed in the absence of any core business activity. There is no income

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. GPG CATTLE FEED PVT. LTD., MOGA

In the result, the Revenue appeal is partly allowed and the Cross Objection of\nthe assessee is dismissed

ITA 210/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Apr 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: \nShri Rupinder Kansal, Advocate andFor Respondent: \nShri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 133ASection 69

Income” only. The corresponding grounds stands raised by\nRevenue stand dismissed. In view of the above the Ground No. 1 to 3 of the Revenue\nappeal are dismissed.\nGround No. 4 & 5 of the Revenue appeal\n16.\nIn this regard the Ld. DR had drawn our attention to paragraph 5.4 to 5.4.4 of the\nCIT(A) order and submitted that

VARDHMAN SPECIAL STEELS LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA

ITA 79/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 May 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: \nShri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: \nDr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 270ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 57

business.\nSince that wasn't clearly shown, the AO disallowed Rs.8,16,010/-\ncalculated at 12% for one month and also started penalty proceedings\nunder Section 270A.The AO added this disallowance, along with Rs.\n1,78,314/-under Section 14A, to the revised returned income

SH. MOHIT MITTAL PROP. MITTAL ENTERPRISES,LUDHIANA, PUNJAB vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1 LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA, PUNJAB

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 198/CHANDI/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Jan 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl.CIT, Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 131Section 133ASection 69A

disallowances of claims, if any, relating to its business income. 9. In view of this, since the aforesaid surrender is not covered

THE JYOTI CO-OPERATIVE NON AGRICULTURAL THRIFT & CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,SIRMOUR vs. ITO, WARD, NAHAN

In the result, the assessee is not eligible for deduction on interest on deposits placed with scheduled commercial banks under section 80(P)(2)(a)(i) of the Act and the appeal of the assessee is di...

ITA 162/CHANDI/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM आयकर अपील सं . / ITA No.160, 161 & 162/ Chd/2023 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18, 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Jyoti Co-operative Non Agricultural Thrift & Credit Society Ltd. Sirmour, Solan, HP-173025 स्थायी लेखा सं. / PAN NO: AAABT1453G अपीलार्थी/Appellant बनाम The ITO H.P Ward-Nahan, Sirmour प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parveen Sharma, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Dr. Ranjeet K

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parveen Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 80Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

disallowed the claim on the basis that the interest was not earned on account of providing credit facilities to the assessee's members but was earned on surplus funds kept by the assessee in banks to earn income. The assessee also earned interest income of about Rs. 5.84 crores from call deposits made with various banks. This income was also

THE JYOTI CO-OPERATIVE NON AGRICULTURAL THRIFT & CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,SIRMOUR vs. ITO, WARD, NAHAN

In the result, the assessee is not eligible for deduction on interest on deposits placed with scheduled commercial banks under section 80(P)(2)(a)(i) of the Act and the appeal of the assessee is di...

ITA 161/CHANDI/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parveen Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 80Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

disallowed the claim on the basis that the interest was not earned on account of providing credit facilities to the assessee's members but was earned on surplus funds kept by the assessee in banks to earn income. The assessee also earned interest income of about Rs. 5.84 crores from call deposits made with various banks. This income was also

THE JYOTI CO-OPERATIVE NON AGRICULTURAL THRIFT & CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,SIRMOUR vs. ITO, WARD, NAHAN

In the result, the assessee is not eligible for deduction on interest on deposits placed with scheduled commercial banks under section 80(P)(2)(a)(i) of the Act and the appeal of the assessee is di...

ITA 160/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Feb 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parveen Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 80Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

disallowed the claim on the basis that the interest was not earned on account of providing credit facilities to the assessee's members but was earned on surplus funds kept by the assessee in banks to earn income. The assessee also earned interest income of about Rs. 5.84 crores from call deposits made with various banks. This income was also

NOOR RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,KULLU vs. PR.CIT, SHIMLA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 309/CHANDI/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Oct 2021AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Mohit Guglani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Dahiya, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

business is not a criteria to decide heads of income or any disallowance of expenses. 3. The Appellant craves leave

THE PUNJAB STATE FEDERATION OF COOPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETIES LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 797/CHANDI/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Atul Goyal, C.A (Virtual Mode)For Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 57oSection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

business income amounting to Rs. 41,10,000/- is bad in law and needs to be set aside. 4. That the order of the Assessing Officer as upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2 Chandigarh disallowing

THE PUNJAB STATE FEDERATION OF COOPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETIES LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 1308/CHANDI/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: the appeal is finally heard.

For Appellant: Shri Atul Goyal, C.A (Virtual Mode)For Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 57oSection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

business income amounting to Rs. 41,10,000/- is bad in law and needs to be set aside. 4. That the order of the Assessing Officer as upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2 Chandigarh disallowing

M/S VARDHMAN TEXTILES LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, C-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 187/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, Advocate and Shri Pankaj Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 80I

disallowed deduction under section 80IC on miscellaneous income of Rs. 61,52,573/- alongwith some other income, considering that these incomes were not derived from eligible business

DCIT, C-1, LUDHIANA vs. M/S VARDHMAN TEXTILES LIMITED, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 260/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, Advocate and Shri Pankaj Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 80I

disallowed deduction under section 80IC on miscellaneous income of Rs. 61,52,573/- alongwith some other income, considering that these incomes were not derived from eligible business

VARDHMAN TEXTILES LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT-CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 61/CHANDI/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, Advocate and Shri Pankaj Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 80I

disallowed deduction under section 80IC on miscellaneous income of Rs. 61,52,573/- alongwith some other income, considering that these incomes were not derived from eligible business

ACIT,CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA vs. M/S VARDHMAN TEXTILES LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 117/CHANDI/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, Advocate and Shri Pankaj Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 80I

disallowed deduction under section 80IC on miscellaneous income of Rs. 61,52,573/- alongwith some other income, considering that these incomes were not derived from eligible business