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.

6 results for “disallowance”+ Section 194Jclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai126Delhi97Bangalore39Chennai36Kolkata21Jaipur17Hyderabad13Panaji9Patna7Ahmedabad7Raipur6Chandigarh6Pune6Surat5Cuttack4Cochin4Dehradun4SC3Lucknow3Rajkot3Jodhpur3Visakhapatnam2Agra2Jabalpur1Indore1Nagpur1

Key Topics

Section 194Q12Section 194H6TDS6Section 43B5Deduction5Disallowance5Section 143(3)3Addition to Income3Section 2632Section 40

PUNJAB SMALL INDUSTRIES AND EXPORT CORPORATION LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 627/CHANDI/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vineet Krishan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40Section 40aSection 43B

194J; (iv) "work" shall have the same meaning as in Explanation III to section 194C; (v) "rent" shall have the same meaning as in clause (i) to the Explanation to section 194-I; (vi) "royalty" shall have the same meaning as in Explanation 2 to clause (vi) of sub- section (1) of section 9;” 6.6 Section

2

MADAN LAL,MANDI DABWALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SIRSA

In the result, appeals are allowed

ITA 918/CHANDI/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Mar 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Jindal, CA Smt. Rattan Kaur, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT Sr.DR
Section 194HSection 194Q

disallowance out of the claim ought to have been made by CPC Bengaluru. The ld. Sr.DR on the other hand relied upon the orders of Revenue Authorities. 5. With the assistance of ld. Representative, I have gone through the record carefully. It emerges out from the record ITA No.918 & 919/CHD/2024 A.Y.2022-23 & 2023-24 3 that this issue has been arising

MADAN LAL,MANDI DABWALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SIRSA

In the result, appeals are allowed

ITA 919/CHANDI/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Mar 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Jindal, CA Smt. Rattan Kaur, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT Sr.DR
Section 194HSection 194Q

disallowance out of the claim ought to have been made by CPC Bengaluru. The ld. Sr.DR on the other hand relied upon the orders of Revenue Authorities. 5. With the assistance of ld. Representative, I have gone through the record carefully. It emerges out from the record ITA No.918 & 919/CHD/2024 A.Y.2022-23 & 2023-24 3 that this issue has been arising

PRIYANKA GUPTA,FIRST INDUSTRIAL AREA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AAYAKAR BHAWAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

ITA 747/CHANDI/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Feb 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav

For Appellant: Shri M.R.Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 194HSection 194Q

disallowance. Similarly, ITAT Chandigarh Bench in ITA 323/CHD/2024 has also considered identical issue and allowed the alleged claim of TDS refund. The discussion made by ITAT Jaipur Bench in the case of Madan Lal Gupta (ITA 192/JP/2024) reads as under : “6. We have heard the rival contentions 'and perused the relevant material available before us. The only grievance

CEIGALL INDIA LIMITED, LUDHIANA,LUDHIANA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 540/CHANDI/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Tarundeep Kaur, CIT, DR(Virtual)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

disallowance of Health & Education Cess of Rs.1,17,28,143/- 2.3 The PCIT issued a show cause notice dated 17.03.2025 alleging that the AO failed to conduct proper verification in respect of: difference between professional & technical services as per Form 3CD  and ITR, substantial increase in “other expenses”,  deduction of capital gains from business income,  stock valuation,  additions to fixed

SHARMANJI YARNS PRIVATE LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 706/CHANDI/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar (CA) -Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Tarundeep Kaur(CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

section-wise TDS report (194H & 194J). Regarding Commission or Brokerage, the assessee had submitted that amount of commission or brokerage was transferred to the respective accounts. 5. However, Ld. Pr. CIT observed that Ld. AO did not examine the issue of difference of Rs.42.15 Lacs and the assessee also did not file any submissions in this regard. In other words