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.

24 results for “disallowance”+ Section 246A(1)(a)clear

Sorted by relevance

Indore159Delhi136Mumbai101Bangalore53Pune40Kolkata30Chennai26Jaipur25Chandigarh24Panaji18Raipur17Hyderabad15Amritsar14Nagpur14Ahmedabad14Jodhpur5Cochin5Cuttack5Visakhapatnam4Lucknow4Agra3Guwahati3Patna3Karnataka2Allahabad1Dehradun1Rajkot1Varanasi1SC1

Key Topics

Section 271A32Section 25320Section 271(1)(c)17Section 246A16Section 26316Section 142(1)14Section 143(2)13Section 250(6)13Addition to Income11

SMT. VANI JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, all the above appeals of different assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 917/CHANDI/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Aug 2019AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manjit Singh, CIT DR
Section 250(6)Section 271ASection 274

246A would not have been provided for by the Legislature against the order of penalty passed u/s 271AAB of the Act. We also note that while enacting Section 271AAB the Legislature has consciously used the word ‘may’ in contradistinction to the word ‘shall’ in the opening words of Section 271AAB of the Act. The choice of the expression

SMT. SHWETA JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, all the above appeals of different assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Showing 1–20 of 24 · Page 1 of 2

Disallowance8
Penalty8
Undisclosed Income4
ITA 919/CHANDI/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Aug 2019AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manjit Singh, CIT DR
Section 250(6)Section 271ASection 274

246A would not have been provided for by the Legislature against the order of penalty passed u/s 271AAB of the Act. We also note that while enacting Section 271AAB the Legislature has consciously used the word ‘may’ in contradistinction to the word ‘shall’ in the opening words of Section 271AAB of the Act. The choice of the expression

M/S MAHARAJA LIGHT & TENT SERVICES,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, all the above appeals of different assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 915/CHANDI/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Aug 2019AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manjit Singh, CIT DR
Section 250(6)Section 271ASection 274

246A would not have been provided for by the Legislature against the order of penalty passed u/s 271AAB of the Act. We also note that while enacting Section 271AAB the Legislature has consciously used the word ‘may’ in contradistinction to the word ‘shall’ in the opening words of Section 271AAB of the Act. The choice of the expression

SH RAMESH KUMAR DUDANI,MOHALI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE -6(1), MOHALI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1146/CHANDI/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Oct 2020AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Nalin K. Nohria, C.A Shri B.K. Nohria, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rishi Kumar, ACIT
Section 154Section 246ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

246A(q) is not applicable where request for rectification has been made under Section 154 of the Act. 5. That the appellant reserves the right to add, amend or delete one or more of the grounds of appeal before the appeal is disposed off. 3. Ground No. 2 was not pressed, therefore, the same is dismissed as not pressed

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED, FOCAL POINT

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 84/CHANDI/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

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

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250(6)Section 253Section 263

246A of the Act before Ld. CIT(A) and interalia has raised following grounds of appeal in Form No. 35: 1. The Ld. AO has wrongly assessed the total income at Rs. 1657269990/- against the returned income of Rs. 1536565490/- thereby making an addition of Rs. 120704500/-u/s 14A. 2. The Ld. AO has wrongly disallowed

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4,, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED, -

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 794/CHANDI/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

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

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250(6)Section 253Section 263

246A of the Act before Ld. CIT(A) and interalia has raised following grounds of appeal in Form No. 35: 1. The Ld. AO has wrongly assessed the total income at Rs. 1657269990/- against the returned income of Rs. 1536565490/- thereby making an addition of Rs. 120704500/-u/s 14A. 2. The Ld. AO has wrongly disallowed

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, , AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED, -

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 817/CHANDI/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

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

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250(6)Section 253Section 263

246A of the Act before Ld. CIT(A) and interalia has raised following grounds of appeal in Form No. 35: 1. The Ld. AO has wrongly assessed the total income at Rs. 1657269990/- against the returned income of Rs. 1536565490/- thereby making an addition of Rs. 120704500/-u/s 14A. 2. The Ld. AO has wrongly disallowed

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED, -

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 795/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

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

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250(6)Section 253Section 263

246A of the Act before Ld. CIT(A) and interalia has raised following grounds of appeal in Form No. 35: 1. The Ld. AO has wrongly assessed the total income at Rs. 1657269990/- against the returned income of Rs. 1536565490/- thereby making an addition of Rs. 120704500/-u/s 14A. 2. The Ld. AO has wrongly disallowed

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, LUDHIANA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED, -

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 796/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

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

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250(6)Section 253Section 263

246A of the Act before Ld. CIT(A) and interalia has raised following grounds of appeal in Form No. 35: 1. The Ld. AO has wrongly assessed the total income at Rs. 1657269990/- against the returned income of Rs. 1536565490/- thereby making an addition of Rs. 120704500/-u/s 14A. 2. The Ld. AO has wrongly disallowed

DCIT CIRCLE-4, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LTD, LUDHIANA

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 748/CHANDI/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Nov 2024AY 2010-11

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

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250(6)Section 253Section 263

246A of the Act before Ld. CIT(A) and interalia has raised following grounds of appeal in Form No. 35: 1. The Ld. AO has wrongly assessed the total income at Rs. 1657269990/- against the returned income of Rs. 1536565490/- thereby making an addition of Rs. 120704500/-u/s 14A. 2. The Ld. AO has wrongly disallowed

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED, -

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 177/CHANDI/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

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

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250(6)Section 253Section 263

246A of the Act before Ld. CIT(A) and interalia has raised following grounds of appeal in Form No. 35: 1. The Ld. AO has wrongly assessed the total income at Rs. 1657269990/- against the returned income of Rs. 1536565490/- thereby making an addition of Rs. 120704500/-u/s 14A. 2. The Ld. AO has wrongly disallowed

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, LUDHIANA, - vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LTD, -

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 818/CHANDI/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

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

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250(6)Section 253Section 263

246A of the Act before Ld. CIT(A) and interalia has raised following grounds of appeal in Form No. 35: 1. The Ld. AO has wrongly assessed the total income at Rs. 1657269990/- against the returned income of Rs. 1536565490/- thereby making an addition of Rs. 120704500/-u/s 14A. 2. The Ld. AO has wrongly disallowed

M/S SEL TEXTILES LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, theappeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 695/CHANDI/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.695/Chd/2018 धििागरणवर्ग / Assessment Year :2014-15 बिाम M/S Sel Textiles Limited, The Dcit, 273-74,G.T. Road, Central Circle-Iii, Dhandari Kalan, Ludhiana Ludhiana स्थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aancs0401M अपीलाथी/Appellant प्रत्यथी/Respondent धििागररतीकीओरसे/Assessee By : Shri Ashwani Kumar, Ca राजस्वकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Sh. Ram Mohan, Cit Dr सुिवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28.01.2019 उदघोर्णाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.04.2019 आदेश/Order Per Sanjay Garg:

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ram Mohan, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 250(6)Section 271Section 271A

246A would not have been provided for by the Legislature against the order of penalty passed u/s 271AAB of the Act. We also note that while enacting Section 271AAB the Legislature has consciously used the word ‘may’ in contradistinction to the word ‘shall’ in the opening words of Section 271AAB of the Act. The choice of the expression

AKM RESORTS,MOHALI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 5(1), CHANDIGARH

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 42/CHANDI/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assessee

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Kapoor, CA &For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

disallowed and also was asked as to why the office should not accept the fact that M/s AKM Resorts willingly wanted to peg their net profit rate at 24.50%. 3.6 The assessee did not reply by the given date of 07/12/2018. Taking into consideration, the earlier reply of the assessee and the further opportunity provided to the assessee which

FARID EDUCATIONAL SOCIAL WELFARE AND CHARITABLE SOCIETY,NEW SHASTRI NAGAR vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

ITA 608/CHANDI/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Jan 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: This Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kumar Gera, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 246ASection 250Section 253

246A of the Act and Addl. CIT(A) however has dismissed the appeal by impugned order. 2.8 The Addl. CIT(A) in the impugned order has held as under : “6.1.3 In this regard, the appellant mentioned that the Provisional Registration Number was inadvertently mentioned as ITA 608/CHD/2024 A.Y. 2022-23 4 AAAAAF1283DE20219 as against the correct Provisional Registration Number

JINDAL PADDING PRIVATE LIMITED,VILLAGE MANNPURA, TEHSIL NALAG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER PARWANO, PARWANO

ITA 100/CHANDI/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

246A and the ld. CIT(A) by impugned order has sustained the order of ld. AO imposing the penalty. 2. The assessee being aggrieved by the impugned order has preferred an appeal before this Tribunal and has raised following grounds of appeal before us : “1. That the order passed under section 250 of the income tax act by the learned

VARDHMAN TEXTILES LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA

ITA 80/CHANDI/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Order Bearing No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2023-

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT-Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 2(24)Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

disallowed by virtue of provision contained in Section 36(1)(va) of the Act which pertained to sum received from employees as contribution to provided Fund, ESI etc. 2.2 That assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid intimation order dated 27.10.2020 preferred first appeal under Section 246A

SURESH KUMAR YOGINDER KUMAR, TIMBER MARKET 2692-1-2 ,AMBALA CANTT vs. NFAC DELHI JURISDITIONAL OFFICER ITO WARD 4 AMBALA, AMBALA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 570/CHANDI/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Jan 2025AY 2018-2019
For Appellant: \nShri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: \nShri Dharamvir, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 253Section 40

disallowed. A draft assessment order\nwas sent on 15/4/2021 proposing the above addition and to file his reply latest by\n19/4/2021. But it is seen that the assessee has not filed any reply till the date of\nfinalization of the assessment order, hence, it is presumed that the assessee has nothing\nto say in the matter and has agreed

DESH MITTER GAIND,PANCHKULA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, PANCHKULA, PANCHKULA, HARYANA

ITA 454/CHANDI/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Order Of Cit(A) Bearing No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Monga, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT-Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 148Section 250Section 253Section 48Section 50C

disallowances made are discussed as under:- ITA 454/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2011-12 4 From the perusal of sale deed, it was noticed that (i) the assessee had sold a residential property bearing No. 595, Sector 6, Panchkula for a consideration of Rs.2,42.00,000/- whereas the value of stamp duty was assessed by the valuation authority on the value of Rs.3

AL RASHEED CHARITABLE SOCIETY,HARYANA vs. JCIT, EXEMPTIONS, CHANDIGARH

Appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 843/CHANDI/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Feb 2025AY 2016-17
For Respondent: \nShri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A (Virtual)
Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

246A of the Act\nwhich is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order”. The relevant A.Y\nis 2016-17 and the corresponding previous year period is from 01/04/2015\nto 31/03/2016.\n2.\nFactual Matrix\n2.1\nThe Return of Income for the A.Y.2016-17 was filed by the assessee\non 11.10.2016 at Nil income and the same was processed under section\n143(1