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.

82 results for “disallowance”+ Section 192(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,100Delhi1,015Bangalore571Kolkata361Chennai248Indore177Jaipur135Hyderabad133Ahmedabad122Chandigarh82Nagpur74Cochin72Agra69Amritsar67Raipur62Lucknow62Pune50Cuttack47Visakhapatnam42Surat37Calcutta34Rajkot33Guwahati26Ranchi19SC14Jodhpur13Varanasi12Dehradun11Patna8Allahabad8Karnataka8Kerala5Telangana4Panaji4Orissa2Rajasthan2Uttarakhand1Jabalpur1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Punjab & Haryana1RANJAN GOGOI PRAFULLA C. PANT1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 26379Addition to Income38Disallowance32Section 153A27Section 13(3)24Section 143(3)23Section 3623Deduction21Section 80I20Section 271

DCIT, CIRCLE, YAMUNANAGAR vs. M/S SYMBIOSIS PHARMACEUTICALS PVT. LTD., YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 326/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: The Due Date As Prescribed In Section 139(1) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Whereas The Assessee Has Filed Its Return Of Income After The Due Date.

For Appellant: Shri Dhruv Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sarabjeet Singh, CIT-DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 80ASection 80I

Section 80IC of the Act has been held to be allowable to the assessee and has been so allowed by the Tribunal. The Department’s appeal against the said Tribunal order for assessment year 2013-14 has attained finality. There is no change whatsoever in the facts and circumstances for the year under consideration. Therefore, the said CBDT ITA 326/CHD/2019

Showing 1–20 of 82 · Page 1 of 5

18
Section 13218
TDS14

SHRI RAJA RAM,YAMUNA NAGAR vs. ITO-WARD-3, YAMUNA NAGAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 191/CHANDI/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Oct 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.K.Sainihearing Through Video Conferencing

For Appellant: Sh. Gaurav Mittal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Ashok Khanna, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 43B

disallowance made by the A.O. by following the amended provisions in clause (va) to sub-section (1) of section 36 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, wherein Explanation 2 has been inserted to clarify that the provisions of section 43B does not apply and deemed to never have been applied for the purposes of determining the “due date

SHRI RAJA RAM,YAMUNA NAGAR vs. ITO-WARD-3, YAMUNA NAGAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 192/CHANDI/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Oct 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.K.Sainihearing Through Video Conferencing

For Appellant: Sh. Gaurav Mittal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Ashok Khanna, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 43B

disallowance made by the A.O. by following the amended provisions in clause (va) to sub-section (1) of section 36 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, wherein Explanation 2 has been inserted to clarify that the provisions of section 43B does not apply and deemed to never have been applied for the purposes of determining the “due date

SANCHI MANAGEMENT SERVICES PVT.LTD,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO-WARD-5(2), CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 190/CHANDI/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Oct 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.K.Sainihearing Through Video Conferencing

For Appellant: Sh. Gaurav Mittal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Ashok Khanna, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 43B

disallowance made by the A.O. by following the amended provisions in clause (va) to sub-section (1) of section 36 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, wherein Explanation 2 has been inserted to clarify that the provisions of section 43B does not apply and deemed to never have been applied for the purposes of determining the “due date

WINSOME TEXTILE INDUSTRIES LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 528/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ved Parkash Kalia Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

192 (Delhi) and CIT v. Batra Bhatta Co. [2008] 174 Taxman 444 (Delhi) and eventually held thus :— "9. In the present case, we find that the first sentence of the so-called reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer is mere information received from the Deputy Director of Income-tax (Investigation). The second sentence is a direction given by the very

M/S DSM SINOCHEM PHARMACEUTICALS INDIA PVT. LTD. ,TOANSA vs. DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1592/CHANDI/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 253/ चंडीगढ़/2016(िन.व. 2011-12)

For Appellant: Sh.K.M Gupta, Adv., Sh. NishantFor Respondent: Sh. Vikram Batra, CIT-DR
Section 144

192 of the Act, as against under section 195 of the Act. The tax has been deducted by the assessee under wrong provision. It is not a case where the assesse has not deducted tax at source at all. The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs. S.K. Tekriwal (supra) has upheld the decision of Tribunal

DSM SINOCHEM PHARMACEUTICALS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NAWANSHAHR vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 253/CHANDI/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 253/ चंडीगढ़/2016(िन.व. 2011-12)

For Appellant: Sh.K.M Gupta, Adv., Sh. NishantFor Respondent: Sh. Vikram Batra, CIT-DR
Section 144

192 of the Act, as against under section 195 of the Act. The tax has been deducted by the assessee under wrong provision. It is not a case where the assesse has not deducted tax at source at all. The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs. S.K. Tekriwal (supra) has upheld the decision of Tribunal

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1234/CHANDI/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Nov 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Sanat KapoorFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar, Sr. DR
Section 24Section 271Section 271(1)(C)Section 274Section 90

disallowances made in the assessment due to differences of opinion between the AO and assessee. Hence no penalty should be levied in this case. 7. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) and AO erred in not considering that the Appellant had neither concealed particulars of income nor filed inaccurate particulars

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1231/CHANDI/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Nov 2022AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri Sanat KapoorFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar, Sr. DR
Section 24Section 271Section 271(1)(C)Section 274Section 90

disallowances made in the assessment due to differences of opinion between the AO and assessee. Hence no penalty should be levied in this case. 7. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) and AO erred in not considering that the Appellant had neither concealed particulars of income nor filed inaccurate particulars

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1236/CHANDI/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Nov 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Sanat KapoorFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar, Sr. DR
Section 24Section 271Section 271(1)(C)Section 274Section 90

disallowances made in the assessment due to differences of opinion between the AO and assessee. Hence no penalty should be levied in this case. 7. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) and AO erred in not considering that the Appellant had neither concealed particulars of income nor filed inaccurate particulars

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1233/CHANDI/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Nov 2022AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Sanat KapoorFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar, Sr. DR
Section 24Section 271Section 271(1)(C)Section 274Section 90

disallowances made in the assessment due to differences of opinion between the AO and assessee. Hence no penalty should be levied in this case. 7. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) and AO erred in not considering that the Appellant had neither concealed particulars of income nor filed inaccurate particulars

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1235/CHANDI/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Nov 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Sanat KapoorFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar, Sr. DR
Section 24Section 271Section 271(1)(C)Section 274Section 90

disallowances made in the assessment due to differences of opinion between the AO and assessee. Hence no penalty should be levied in this case. 7. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) and AO erred in not considering that the Appellant had neither concealed particulars of income nor filed inaccurate particulars

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1232/CHANDI/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Nov 2022AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Sanat KapoorFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar, Sr. DR
Section 24Section 271Section 271(1)(C)Section 274Section 90

disallowances made in the assessment due to differences of opinion between the AO and assessee. Hence no penalty should be levied in this case. 7. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) and AO erred in not considering that the Appellant had neither concealed particulars of income nor filed inaccurate particulars

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)

section 13(3) of IT Act. In this regard it is submitted that Sh G S Sardana is the chairman of the Manav Mangal Schools. Sh. Sanjay Sardana and Sandeep Sardana are two Directors of the Manav Mangal Schools having three schools (Manav Mangal High School, Sector 21, Chandigarh, Manav Mangal School Sector 11 Panchkula and Manav Mangal Smart School

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)

section 13(3) of IT Act. In this regard it is submitted that Sh G S Sardana is the chairman of the Manav Mangal Schools. Sh. Sanjay Sardana and Sandeep Sardana are two Directors of the Manav Mangal Schools having three schools (Manav Mangal High School, Sector 21, Chandigarh, Manav Mangal School Sector 11 Panchkula and Manav Mangal Smart School

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)

section 13(3) of IT Act. In this regard it is submitted that Sh G S Sardana is the chairman of the Manav Mangal Schools. Sh. Sanjay Sardana and Sandeep Sardana are two Directors of the Manav Mangal Schools having three schools (Manav Mangal High School, Sector 21, Chandigarh, Manav Mangal School Sector 11 Panchkula and Manav Mangal Smart School

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 136/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)

section 13(3) of IT Act. In this regard it is submitted that Sh G S Sardana is the chairman of the Manav Mangal Schools. Sh. Sanjay Sardana and Sandeep Sardana are two Directors of the Manav Mangal Schools having three schools (Manav Mangal High School, Sector 21, Chandigarh, Manav Mangal School Sector 11 Panchkula and Manav Mangal Smart School

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)

section 13(3) of IT Act. In this regard it is submitted that Sh G S Sardana is the chairman of the Manav Mangal Schools. Sh. Sanjay Sardana and Sandeep Sardana are two Directors of the Manav Mangal Schools having three schools (Manav Mangal High School, Sector 21, Chandigarh, Manav Mangal School Sector 11 Panchkula and Manav Mangal Smart School

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)

section 13(3) of IT Act. In this regard it is submitted that Sh G S Sardana is the chairman of the Manav Mangal Schools. Sh. Sanjay Sardana and Sandeep Sardana are two Directors of the Manav Mangal Schools having three schools (Manav Mangal High School, Sector 21, Chandigarh, Manav Mangal School Sector 11 Panchkula and Manav Mangal Smart School

DCIT,CIRCLE-1(EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SCHOOL( 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 27/CHANDI/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 May 2021AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Dahiya, CIT-DR
Section 13(3)

section 13(3) of IT Act. In this regard it is submitted that Sh G S Sardana is the chairman of the Manav Mangal Schools. Sh. Sanjay Sardana and Sandeep Sardana are two Directors of the Manav Mangal Schools having three schools (Manav Mangal High School, Sector 21, Chandigarh, Manav Mangal School Sector 11 Panchkula and Manav Mangal Smart School