Search: disallowance | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

205 results for “disallowance”+ Section 271clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai3,666 Delhi3,206 Ahmedabad881 Bangalore577 Jaipur476 Chennai474 Kolkata468 Pune397 Indore268 Hyderabad267 Surat263 Chandigarh205 Rajkot112 Raipur111 Nagpur77 Amritsar74 Visakhapatnam69 Lucknow64 Cochin62 Cuttack62 Allahabad49 Calcutta39 Guwahati38 Agra33 Ranchi31 Karnataka30 Panaji27 SC22 Jabalpur18 Jodhpur17 Telangana16 Varanasi16 Dehradun16 Patna13 Punjab & Haryana4 Rajasthan2 ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1 Gauhati1 RANJAN GOGOI PRAFULLA C. PANT1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)90 Section 27165 Addition to Income62 Penalty54 Disallowance48 Section 80I43 Section 26337 Deduction36 Section 143(3)28 Section 14A

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. MANJIT KAUR, CHANDIGARH

ITA 45/CHANDI/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

Section 139(1)Section 271(1)(c)

section 271(1)(c) of the Act, it was not necessary for the Assessing officer to add or to disallow

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

ITA 387/CHANDI/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

Section 139(1)Section 271(1)(c)

section 271(1)(c) of the Act, it was not necessary for the Assessing officer to add or to disallow

Showing 1–20 of 205 · Page 1 of 11

...

24

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

ITA 51/CHANDI/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

Section 139(1)Section 271(1)(c)

section 271(1)(c) of the Act, it was not necessary for the Assessing officer to add or to disallow

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

ITA 54/CHANDI/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

Section 139(1)Section 271(1)(c)

section 271(1)(c) of the Act, it was not necessary for the Assessing officer to add or to disallow

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

ITA 48/CHANDI/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

Section 139(1)Section 271(1)(c)

section 271(1)(c) of the Act, it was not necessary for the Assessing officer to add or to disallow

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

ITA 44/CHANDI/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

Section 139(1)Section 271(1)(c)

section 271(1)(c) of the Act, it was not necessary for the Assessing officer to add or to disallow

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

ITA 50/CHANDI/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

Section 139(1)Section 271(1)(c)

section 271(1)(c) of the Act, it was not necessary for the Assessing officer to add or to disallow

SH. MUNISH JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, LUDHIANA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 255/CHANDI/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Chanderkanta, Sr.DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274

disallowed while computing total income of the year, therefore no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was leviable. The Assessing Officer rejected the contention of the assessee stating that the surrender is not covered u./s 132(4) of the Act as per the provisions of section

SH. MUNISH JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, LUDHIANA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 254/CHANDI/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Chanderkanta, Sr.DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274

disallowed while computing total income of the year, therefore no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was leviable. The Assessing Officer rejected the contention of the assessee stating that the surrender is not covered u./s 132(4) of the Act as per the provisions of section

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

disallowance of "Foreign Travelling expenses". Proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were also initiated against the addition

THE KANGRA CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,DHARAMSHALA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PALAMPUR

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

ITA 804/CHANDI/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36(1)(viia)

disallowance of provision made towards standard assets amounting to Rs. 2,21,28,000/- and separately, the penalty proceedings were initiated under section 271

DCIT, PARWANOO vs. M/S HYCRON ELECTRONICS, SOLAN

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1195/CHANDI/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Gulshan Raj

Section 14ASection 250(6)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80Section 80I

section 271(1)(c) ignoring the facts that the assessee should itself disallowed the proportionate interest after applying section 14A of the Income

HYCRON ELECTRONICS vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1217/CHANDI/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Gulshan Raj

Section 14ASection 250(6)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80Section 80I

section 271(1)(c) ignoring the facts that the assessee should itself disallowed the proportionate interest after applying section 14A of the Income

SMT. SUREKHA THUKRAL ,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1713/CHANDI/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri. K.V. JainFor Respondent: Shri. Ashish Abrol

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

Section 271 271. (1) If the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner in the course of any proceedings under this Act, is satisfied that any person. a…. b…. c) has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income, or … … Expalanation1. Where in respect of any facts material

HEALTH BIOTECH LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE 1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 987/CHANDI/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: the disposal of the same.

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40

disallowance of excess depreciation claimed on assets funded by capital subsidy. Consequent to these additions, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under section 271

THE KANGRA CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,DHARAMSHALA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PALAMPUR

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

ITA 805/CHANDI/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

For Respondent: \nShri Ashwani Kumar, C.A

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36(1)(viia)

disallowance of provision\nmade towards standard assets amounting to Rs.2,21,28,000/- and separately,\nthe penalty proceedings were initiated under section 271

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

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act is warranted qua TDS made under different 13 आअसं.253/ चंडीगढ़/2016(िन.व.2011-12) आअसं.1592/ चंडीगढ़/2018(िन.व.2014-15) ITA NO.253/Chd./2026 (A.Y.2011-12) ITA NO.1592/Chd./2018 (A.Y.2014-15) provision in respect of reimbursements of salary. Consequently, ground no. 8 & 9 of the appeal are allowed

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

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act is warranted qua TDS made under different 13 आअसं.253/ चंडीगढ़/2016(िन.व.2011-12) आअसं.1592/ चंडीगढ़/2018(िन.व.2014-15) ITA NO.253/Chd./2026 (A.Y.2011-12) ITA NO.1592/Chd./2018 (A.Y.2014-15) provision in respect of reimbursements of salary. Consequently, ground no. 8 & 9 of the appeal are allowed

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

section 274 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued to the assessee on 08.12.2018 fixing the case for 04.01.2019. ITA 42/CHD/2024 A.Y. 2016-17 3 2.3 Thereafter, another opportunity of being heard was given to the assessee vide notice dated 02.05.2019 fixing the case for 10.05.2019 sent by post and by e-mail also. However, on the said dates

VARDHMAN TEXTILE LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, LUDHIANA

In the result there is no merit in the appeal of the Revenue and the same is accordingly dismissed

ITA 66/CHANDI/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Jul 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms.Annapurna Gupta

For Appellant: Shri. Subhash AggarwalFor Respondent: Shri. Jagdeep Goyal

Section 10BSection 271Section 271(1)(c)

disallowance does not attract rigorous penalty provisions under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. So far as the disallowance