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.

491 results for “disallowance”+ Section 10(31)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai6,687Delhi5,898Bangalore2,089Chennai1,726Kolkata1,654Ahmedabad1,535Pune1,113Hyderabad947Jaipur932Indore533Chandigarh491Surat378Raipur319Visakhapatnam315Cochin263Rajkot261Amritsar213Cuttack194Nagpur177Karnataka170Lucknow148Agra132Guwahati100Allahabad86Panaji78Ranchi70Jodhpur62Telangana59SC54Calcutta54Patna44Dehradun41Kerala25Varanasi22Jabalpur17Punjab & Haryana6Rajasthan4Orissa4Himachal Pradesh3A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1Tripura1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1ANIL R. DAVE AMITAVA ROY L. NAGESWARA RAO1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)53Section 80H52Section 26347Addition to Income47Section 14841Disallowance38Deduction35Section 10B28Section 12A28Section 80I

SH. SOHAN LAL,PINJORE vs. ITO, WARD -3, PANCHKULA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 286/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Smt. Neelam Dhiman, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 10(10)Section 25F

disallowed claim of the appellant made u/s 10(10B) of the Act on following findings that (1) sum received by the appellant on account of VRSNSS was not of the nature of compensation on termination of employment or compensation on closure of industry ie HMTL-TD. This amount is receipt on account of voluntary retirement, (ii) appellant was not retrenched

NIRMALA RANI L/H OF SH. AZAD SINGH,PINJORE vs. ITO, WARD -1, , PANCHKULA

Showing 1–20 of 491 · Page 1 of 25

...
25
Section 14A24
Exemption23

In the result, Ground No. 2 of the assessee is allowed

ITA 452/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: The Appeal Is Finally Heard & Disposed Of.

For Appellant: Smt. Neelam Dhiman, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 10(10)Section 25FSection 89(1)

disallowed claim of the appellant made u/s 10(10B) of the Act on following findings that (1) sum received by the appellant on account of VRSNSS was not of the nature of compensation on termination of employment or compensation on closure of industry ie HMTL-TD. This amount is receipt on account of voluntary retirement, (ii) appellant was not retrenched

SH. MARTIN EKKA S/O SH. LALSAY EKKA,PANCHKULA vs. ITO, WARD -1, PANCHKULA

In the result, the ground no

ITA 281/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SH. SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Smt. Neelam Dhiman, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Dharamvir, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 10Section 143(1)

disallowed claim of the appellant made u/s 10(10B) of the Act on following findings that (1) sum received by the appellant on account of VRSNSS was not of the nature of compensation on termination of employment or compensation on closure of industry ie HMTL-TD. This amount is receipt on account of voluntary retirement, (ii) appellant was not retrenched

NARESH KUMAR KAMBOJ,ZIRAKPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , PANCHKULA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 337/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Pandey, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 143(1)

disallowed claim of the appellant made u/s 10(10B) of the Act on following findings that (1) sum received by the appellant on account of VRSNSS was not of the nature of compensation on termination of employment or compensation on closure of industry ie HMTL-TD. This amount is receipt on account of voluntary retirement, (ii) appellant was not retrenched

DAYAL SINGH,VILL FATEHPUR PO BUREWALA vs. ITO WARD-1, PANCHKULA

In the result, the ground no

ITA 519/CHANDI/2024[AY 2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Dec 2024

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 519/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 बनाम Dayal Singh, The Ito, Vill Fatehpur Ward -1, Po Burewala Panchkula Distt.Amabla 134204 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Acdps7697G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Y.R. Saini, Adv. राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 11.11.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03.12.2024 आदेश/Order The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 20.03.2024 Passed By The Ld. Addl. / Jcit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assess Ee In This Appeal H As Taken Foll Owing Groun Ds Of Appeal: 1 That In The F Acts & Circumstance Of The Case The Id. Addl/Jcit (A)-9 Mumbai Of Cit (A)( Nfac) Has Erred In Law By Placing Reliance On Judgement Of Hon'Ble Apex Court In The Case Of Maji Sinneman Vs Reddy

For Appellant: Shri Y.R. Saini, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan, JCIT
Section 10Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 270A

disallowed claim of the appellant made u/s 10(10B) of the Act on following findings that (1) sum received by the appellant on account of VRSNSS was not of the nature of compensation on termination of ITA No. 519-Chd-2024 Dayal Singh, Distt. Ambala , 19 employment or compensation on closure of industry ie HMTL-TD. This amount is receipt

SATINDER PAUL THROUGH L/H NEELAM SAINI,PINJORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PANCHKULA

In the result, the ground no

ITA 136/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SH. SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Smt. Neelam Dhiman, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR
Section 10Section 10(10)Section 143(1)

disallowed claim of the appellant made u/s 10(10B) of the Act on following findings that (1) sum received by the appellant on account of VRSNSS was not of the nature of compensation on termination of employment or compensation on closure of industry ie HMTL-TD. This amount is receipt on account of voluntary retirement, (ii) appellant was not retrenched

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUDHIANA vs. M/S MRS.BECTORS FOOD SPECILTIES LTD, LUDHIANA

ITA 555/CHANDI/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Subhash AggarwalFor Respondent: Smt. Chandrakanta
Section 14ASection 36Section 80I

31,21,953/- as a reasonable expenditure for making disallowance u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. " 9.3 Ld.CTA) found that the impugned addition by invoking provisions of section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 as the assessee company has made investment in shares/mutual funds from which he has earned dividend

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUDHIANA vs. M/S MRS.BECTORS FOOD SPECILTIES LTD, LUDHIANA

ITA 559/CHANDI/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 May 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Subhash AggarwalFor Respondent: Smt. Chandrakanta
Section 14ASection 36Section 80I

31,21,953/- as a reasonable expenditure for making disallowance u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. " 9.3 Ld.CTA) found that the impugned addition by invoking provisions of section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 as the assessee company has made investment in shares/mutual funds from which he has earned dividend

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUDHIANA vs. M/S MRS.BECTORS FOOD SPECILTIES LTD, LUDHIANA

ITA 557/CHANDI/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Subhash AggarwalFor Respondent: Smt. Chandrakanta
Section 14ASection 36Section 80I

31,21,953/- as a reasonable expenditure for making disallowance u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. " 9.3 Ld.CTA) found that the impugned addition by invoking provisions of section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 as the assessee company has made investment in shares/mutual funds from which he has earned dividend

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUDHIANA vs. M/S MRS.BECTORS FOOD SPECILTIES LTD, LUDHIANA

ITA 558/CHANDI/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Subhash AggarwalFor Respondent: Smt. Chandrakanta
Section 14ASection 36Section 80I

31,21,953/- as a reasonable expenditure for making disallowance u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. " 9.3 Ld.CTA) found that the impugned addition by invoking provisions of section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 as the assessee company has made investment in shares/mutual funds from which he has earned dividend

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUDHIANA vs. M/S MRS.BECTORS FOOD SPECILTIES LTD, LUDHIANA

ITA 556/CHANDI/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Subhash AggarwalFor Respondent: Smt. Chandrakanta
Section 14ASection 36Section 80I

31,21,953/- as a reasonable expenditure for making disallowance u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. " 9.3 Ld.CTA) found that the impugned addition by invoking provisions of section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 as the assessee company has made investment in shares/mutual funds from which he has earned dividend

ACIT, LUDHIANA vs. M/S MRS. BECTORS FOOD SPECIALTIES PVT. LTD., LUDHIANA

ITA 405/CHANDI/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Subhash AggarwalFor Respondent: Smt. Chandrakanta
Section 14ASection 36Section 80I

31,21,953/- as a reasonable expenditure for making disallowance u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. " 9.3 Ld.CTA) found that the impugned addition by invoking provisions of section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 as the assessee company has made investment in shares/mutual funds from which he has earned dividend

DCIT, C-V, LUDHIANA vs. M/S HERO CYCLES LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 588/CHANDI/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 588/Chd/2018 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2012-13 The DCIT C-V, Ludhiana बनाम M/s Hero Cycles Ltd. Hero Nagar, G.T. Road Ludhiana स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAACH4073P अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 473/Chd/2018 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2012-13 M/s Hero Cycles Ltd. Hero Nagar, G.T. Road Ludhiana बनाम The ACIT C-V, Ludhiana स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAACH4073P

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, Shri Ashish Aggarwal &For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

31,25,91,729/-. Less: Disallowance already made by the assessee: Rs. 22,86,36,462/ Disallowance to be made: Rs. 8,39,55,267/- 41. The A.O. made various disallowance of interest under section 14A and Section 36(1) (iii). In para 4 the AO made disallowance of interest u/s 14A at Rs. 141510213/- , in para 6 made disallowance

M/S PAGRO FROZEN FOODS PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, W-2(3), CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 1076/CHANDI/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh31 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Vineet Krishan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253

31,54,889/- consequently the assessed income is coming to Rs. 74,29,889/- as profits of the assessee. 28.20. We also notice that against Rs. 2.50 crores grant in aid @ 15% an amount of Rs. 37,50,000/- is disallowed. Whereas against Rs. 35 lakh subsidy from APEDA @ 15% an amount of Rs. 5,25,000/- is disallowed

M/S PENTA HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED,PATIALA vs. ACIT, PATIALA

In the result, ITA 635/CHD/2017 is allowed and ITA 637/CHD/2017

ITA 637/CHANDI/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Nov 2018AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri T.N.SinglaFor Respondent: Shri Jagmohan Kumar Garg, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80I

disallowance of deduction u/s 80IB(10) made by the AO was affirmed in appeal by the CIT(A). 5. In 2012-13 i.e. in ITA 637/CHD/2017, the reasoning adopted in dismissing the appeal in 2009-10 was followed by the CIT(A). 6. The ld. AR though reiterating the facts and position of law has canvassed before

M/S PENTA HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED,PATIALA vs. ACIT, PATIALA

In the result, ITA 635/CHD/2017 is allowed and ITA 637/CHD/2017

ITA 635/CHANDI/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Nov 2018AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri T.N.SinglaFor Respondent: Shri Jagmohan Kumar Garg, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80I

disallowance of deduction u/s 80IB(10) made by the AO was affirmed in appeal by the CIT(A). 5. In 2012-13 i.e. in ITA 637/CHD/2017, the reasoning adopted in dismissing the appeal in 2009-10 was followed by the CIT(A). 6. The ld. AR though reiterating the facts and position of law has canvassed before

ITO, WARD (E), CHANDIGARH vs. SANT BABA SUNDER SINGH, BARNALA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed said order was pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing itself

ITA 1183/CHANDI/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Mar 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Diva Singhassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Manjit Singh, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Rajit Saldi
Section 10Section 11Section 143(3)Section 68

disallowed by the AO for the reason that the receipt of the assessee trust exceeded Rs. 1 Crores. Before the Ld. CIT(A) assessee had not raised this ground of appeal at all and therefore this issue been dealt with by the Ld. CIT(A). In view of the same the entire facts relating to the issue are not before

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANCHKULA CIRCLE, PANCHKULA, PANCHKULA vs. HARYANA STATE COOPERATIVE SUPPLY AND MARKETING FEDERATION LTD, PANCHKULA

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

ITA 664/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Aman Parti, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Geetinder Mann, CIT, DR
Section 10(34)Section 14ASection 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(2)(e)

10(34) but taxable and deductible u/s 80P(2)(d), and the assessee had already disallowed proportionate expenses suo motu. 5.2 The CIT(A), after examining records, accepted the contention that rental income from letting of godowns to third parties qualifies under section 80P(2)(e). However, acknowledging that the godowns were used partly for trading and partly for letting

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANCHKULA CIRCLE, PANCHKULA, PANCHKULA vs. HARYANA STATE COOPERATIVE SUPPLY AND MARKETING FEDERATION LTD, PANCHKULA

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

ITA 665/CHANDI/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri Aman Parti, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Geetinder Mann, CIT, DR
Section 10(34)Section 14ASection 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(2)(e)

10(34) but taxable and deductible u/s 80P(2)(d), and the assessee had already disallowed proportionate expenses suo motu. 5.2 The CIT(A), after examining records, accepted the contention that rental income from letting of godowns to third parties qualifies under section 80P(2)(e). However, acknowledging that the godowns were used partly for trading and partly for letting

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANCHKULA CIRCLE, PANCHKULA, PANCHKULA vs. HARYANA STATE COOPERATIVE SUPPLY AND MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED, PANCHKULA

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

ITA 666/CHANDI/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

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

For Appellant: Shri Aman Parti, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Geetinder Mann, CIT, DR
Section 10(34)Section 14ASection 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(2)(e)

10(34) but taxable and deductible u/s 80P(2)(d), and the assessee had already disallowed proportionate expenses suo motu. 5.2 The CIT(A), after examining records, accepted the contention that rental income from letting of godowns to third parties qualifies under section 80P(2)(e). However, acknowledging that the godowns were used partly for trading and partly for letting