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.

1,013 results for “disallowance”+ Section 13(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai13,266Delhi11,264Bangalore3,873Chennai3,767Kolkata3,255Ahmedabad2,629Pune2,280Hyderabad1,758Jaipur1,660Chandigarh1,013Surat1,004Indore931Cochin617Raipur595Visakhapatnam563Cuttack501Karnataka451Rajkot432Amritsar418Nagpur380Lucknow287Agra195Panaji177Jodhpur175Guwahati149Ranchi138Telangana129Allahabad115SC113Patna102Dehradun84Calcutta71Jabalpur48Kerala39Varanasi34Punjab & Haryana14Rajasthan10Orissa9Himachal Pradesh6A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN5Gauhati2D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1RANJAN GOGOI PRAFULLA C. PANT1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1ANIL R. DAVE AMITAVA ROY L. NAGESWARA RAO1Tripura1Uttarakhand1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1

Key Topics

Section 80I63Addition to Income54Disallowance51Section 14A49Section 143(3)46Section 26343Deduction36Section 8022Section 143(2)21Section 69A

ARYANS EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST REGD, MOHALI,MOHALI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 1136/CHANDI/2024[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Sept 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1136/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2025-26 Aryans Educational & The Cit (Exemptions), Charitable Trust, Regd.Mohali Vs Chandigarh, C/O Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate, # 527, Sector 10-D, Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aabta7550L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(1)(ii)Section 13(3)

disallowing the exemption by invoking the provisions of section 13(1)(c) or section 13(1)(d) of the Income

Showing 1–20 of 1,013 · Page 1 of 51

...
20
Section 14818
Depreciation15

DCIT, C-1 (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH vs. THE INSTITUTION OF CIVIL ENGINEERS SOCIETY, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 52/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 May 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(3)Section 143(3)

13 would\ncontemplate that disallowance for the purpose of Section\n13(1)(c) read with Section 13(3) would be worked

CHANDIGARH EDUCATIONAL TRUST,MOHALI vs. PR.CIT-CENTRAL,GURGAON, AT CHANDIGARH

ITA 96/CHANDI/2021[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Aug 2021AY 2021-22
For Appellant: Shri M.S. Syali, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Chandrakanta, CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)

section 13(1)(c) r.w.s 13(3) of the Act are invoked, surplus is brought to tax, payment made in excess of what is reasonable is disallowed

CHANDIGARH EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,MOHALI vs. PR.CIT(CENTRAL)-GURGAON, AT CHANDIGARH

ITA 97/CHANDI/2021[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Aug 2021AY 2021-22
For Appellant: Shri M.S. Syali, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Chandrakanta, CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)

section 13(1)(c) r.w.s 13(3) of the Act are invoked, surplus is brought to tax, payment made in excess of what is reasonable is disallowed

SHRI GURU RAM DASS EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,MOHALI vs. PR.CIT(CENTRAL) GURGAON, AT CHANDIGARH

ITA 98/CHANDI/2021[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Aug 2021AY 2021-22
For Appellant: Shri M.S. Syali, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Chandrakanta, CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)

section 13(1)(c) r.w.s 13(3) of the Act are invoked, surplus is brought to tax, payment made in excess of what is reasonable is disallowed

J.K. EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,JAMMU & KASHMIR vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION)-CIRCLE-1,, CHANDIGARH

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

ITA 428/CHANDI/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Jan 2024AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri P.N. Arora, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

1)(d), 13(3) read with section 11(5) and as to why the exemption claimed may not be disallowed

J.K.EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,JAMMU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH

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

ITA 126/ASR/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Jan 2024AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Shri P.N. Arora, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

1)(d), 13(3) read with section 11(5) and as to why the exemption claimed may not be disallowed

J. K. EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,JAMMU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

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

ITA 685/CHANDI/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Jan 2024AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri P.N. Arora, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

1)(d), 13(3) read with section 11(5) and as to why the exemption claimed may not be disallowed

DCIT, C-1 (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH vs. ACE EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE SOCIETY, MOGA

In the result all the above appeals filed by the Revenue

ITA 1311/CHANDI/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Jul 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

For Appellant: S/Shri Jagjeevan Kumar Garg, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri P.N. Arora, Adv
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(3)

disallowance was made in earlier years although the assessments in earlier years were also completed under section 143(3) of the Act. Under such circumstances, the action of the Assessing Officer in denying exemption of Rs.l,97,39,9527- in this case claimed by the appellant society under section 11(1) of the Act cannot be said to be justified

DCIT, C-1 (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S SHIVA EDUCATIONAL TRUST, MOGA

In the result all the above appeals filed by the Revenue

ITA 1314/CHANDI/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Jul 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

For Appellant: S/Shri Jagjeevan Kumar Garg, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri P.N. Arora, Adv
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(3)

disallowance was made in earlier years although the assessments in earlier years were also completed under section 143(3) of the Act. Under such circumstances, the action of the Assessing Officer in denying exemption of Rs.l,97,39,9527- in this case claimed by the appellant society under section 11(1) of the Act cannot be said to be justified

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. ACE EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE SOCIETY, MOGA

In the result all the above appeals filed by the Revenue

ITA 1228/CHANDI/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

For Appellant: S/Shri Jagjeevan Kumar Garg, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri P.N. Arora, Adv
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(3)

disallowance was made in earlier years although the assessments in earlier years were also completed under section 143(3) of the Act. Under such circumstances, the action of the Assessing Officer in denying exemption of Rs.l,97,39,9527- in this case claimed by the appellant society under section 11(1) of the Act cannot be said to be justified

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S SHRI GURU GOBIND SINGH FOUNDATION, MOGA

In the result all the above appeals filed by the Revenue

ITA 1230/CHANDI/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

For Appellant: S/Shri Jagjeevan Kumar Garg, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri P.N. Arora, Adv
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(3)

disallowance was made in earlier years although the assessments in earlier years were also completed under section 143(3) of the Act. Under such circumstances, the action of the Assessing Officer in denying exemption of Rs.l,97,39,9527- in this case claimed by the appellant society under section 11(1) of the Act cannot be said to be justified

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S SHIVA EDUCATIONAL TRUST, MOGA

In the result all the above appeals filed by the Revenue

ITA 1229/CHANDI/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

For Appellant: S/Shri Jagjeevan Kumar Garg, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri P.N. Arora, Adv
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(3)

disallowance was made in earlier years although the assessments in earlier years were also completed under section 143(3) of the Act. Under such circumstances, the action of the Assessing Officer in denying exemption of Rs.l,97,39,9527- in this case claimed by the appellant society under section 11(1) of the Act cannot be said to be justified

M/S ARYANS EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST,MOHALI vs. DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH

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

ITA 823/CHANDI/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 823/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16 M/S Aryans Educational & Vs. The Dcit, बनाम Charitable Trust, Circle-1 (Exemptions), # 2129, Phase-10, Chandigarh Mohali "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aabta7550L अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent

For Appellant: Sh. Tej Mohan, Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)(c)

disallowing the exemption by invoking the provisions of section 13(l)(c) or section 13(l)(d) of the Income Tax Act. In fact there was no diversion of funds to give any advantage to Sh. Anshu Kataria. During the year there was not any payment made in this imprest account and this imprest account stands Nil as of date

DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 30/CHANDI/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 May 2021AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Dahiya, CIT-DR
Section 13(3)

13(1)(c), denied exemption claimed by the assessee under section 11- Commissioner (Appeals) as well as Tribunal opined that having regard to fair market value of property, rent paid was not excessive-Moreover, rent had been valued as per prevailing rate fixed for purpose of stamp duty- According, disallowance

M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 3/CHANDI/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 May 2021AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Dahiya, CIT-DR
Section 13(3)

13(1)(c), denied exemption claimed by the assessee under section 11- Commissioner (Appeals) as well as Tribunal opined that having regard to fair market value of property, rent paid was not excessive-Moreover, rent had been valued as per prevailing rate fixed for purpose of stamp duty- According, disallowance

DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 29/CHANDI/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 May 2021AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Dahiya, CIT-DR
Section 13(3)

13(1)(c), denied exemption claimed by the assessee under section 11- Commissioner (Appeals) as well as Tribunal opined that having regard to fair market value of property, rent paid was not excessive-Moreover, rent had been valued as per prevailing rate fixed for purpose of stamp duty- According, disallowance

DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 137/CHANDI/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 May 2021AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Dahiya, CIT-DR
Section 13(3)

13(1)(c), denied exemption claimed by the assessee under section 11- Commissioner (Appeals) as well as Tribunal opined that having regard to fair market value of property, rent paid was not excessive-Moreover, rent had been valued as per prevailing rate fixed for purpose of stamp duty- According, disallowance

DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 28/CHANDI/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 May 2021AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Dahiya, CIT-DR
Section 13(3)

13(1)(c), denied exemption claimed by the assessee under section 11- Commissioner (Appeals) as well as Tribunal opined that having regard to fair market value of property, rent paid was not excessive-Moreover, rent had been valued as per prevailing rate fixed for purpose of stamp duty- According, disallowance

M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 2/CHANDI/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 May 2021AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Dahiya, CIT-DR
Section 13(3)

13(1)(c), denied exemption claimed by the assessee under section 11- Commissioner (Appeals) as well as Tribunal opined that having regard to fair market value of property, rent paid was not excessive-Moreover, rent had been valued as per prevailing rate fixed for purpose of stamp duty- According, disallowance