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.

11 results for “disallowance”+ Section 194Jclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai453Delhi256Bangalore173Chennai156Kolkata137Ahmedabad43Hyderabad35Pune26Jaipur23Cuttack18Raipur13Visakhapatnam13Chandigarh11Amritsar11Cochin9Rajkot9Karnataka9Panaji9Patna7Surat6Indore5Dehradun4Jodhpur3Lucknow3Agra3SC3Calcutta2Nagpur2Telangana2Allahabad2Guwahati1Uttarakhand1Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 4013Section 194Q12TDS8Disallowance8Deduction7Section 194H6Addition to Income6Section 43B5Section 40A(3)5Section 143(3)

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

4
Section 2013
Section 194C3

M/S GCS COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. JCIT, PATIALA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 621/CHANDI/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Cajla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. K.S. Bains, Addl. CIT
Section 194CSection 40

section 194C and 194J of the act for non-compliance and, thus, disallowance of expenditure was attracted under the provisions

M/S NIRBHAI TEXTILES PVT. LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, C-2, LUDHIANA

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1401/CHANDI/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1401/Chd/2018 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2014-15

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Akashdeep, JCIT Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 56Section 56(2)(viib)

section 194J, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Business disallowance Interest etc. paid to a resident without deduction of tax at source

M/S GORSI CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD,MANDI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE, MANDI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly

ITA 1145/CHANDI/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptam/S Gorsi Constructions Vs. The D.C.I.T., Private Limited,, Village Takoli, Mandi P.O. Panarasa, Teh. Autt, (H.P.) Distt. Mandi (H.P.) Pan: Aabcg4994K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Amitoz Kamboj, CAFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Gupta, JCIT
Section 40Section 40A(3)

section 194I of the Act. The assessee vide reply dated 05- 02-2015 submitted that the payment of Rs.35,000/- had actually been made to two persons Shri Sanjay Vaidya (Surveyor) & to Shri Mohinder Sharma (Surveyor),each below the limit prescribed for tax deduction at source u/s 194I of the Act, at Rs,23,000/- & Rs.12,000/- respectively while

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

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

M/S PRESTIGE INTERNATIONAL,PANCHKULA vs. ADDL. CIT, PANCHKULA RANGE, PANCHKULA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 208/CHANDI/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Diva Singh & Ms. Annapurna Guptam/S Prestige International, Vs. The Addl.Cit, 267, Industrial Area, Panchkula Range, Phase-1, Panchkula. Panchkula. Pan: Aaifp3677L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Sukhwinder Sharma
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 40

disallowing the professional charges of Rs.4,50,000/- paid to Sh. K.R.Bajpai by invoking the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) r.w.s. 194J

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

VIMAL GROVER,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO WARD 5, YAMUNANAGR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 957/CHANDI/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Apr 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 957/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 बनाम Shri Vimal Grover, The Ito, 1473, Basement & Ground Floor, Ward 5, Vs Sector 40-B, Chandigarh. Yamuna Nagar. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan /Tan No: Aaypg3728P अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Ajay Jain, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 18.03.2026 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15.04.2026 Hybrid Hearing

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54

Section 54 of the Act. 7. The ld.CIT (Appeals) did not accept the contentions of the assessee and confirmed the addition on the ground that assessee has shown unexplained credit in the accounts which deserves to be added in his income. 8. Before us, ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that assessment in A.Y. 2014-15 was made