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 271(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai3,666 Delhi3,203 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 Dehradun16 Varanasi16 Telangana15 Patna13 Punjab & Haryana4 Rajasthan2 ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1 Gauhati1 RANJAN GOGOI PRAFULLA C. PANT1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)95 Addition to Income69 Section 26355 Penalty54 Disallowance50 Section 80I48 Section 27147 Section 143(3)44 Deduction38 Section 271A

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. 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

Showing 1–20 of 205 · Page 1 of 11

...

32

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

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. 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. 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 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. 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

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

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

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(1

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

1,40,955/ on account of disallowance of "Foreign Travelling expenses". Proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were

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(1

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 102/CHANDI/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jul 2021AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Jindal, CA &For Respondent: Smt.C. Chandrakanta, CIT DR

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

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 (b) has failed to comply with a notice [under sub-section (2) of section 115WD or under sub-section (2) of section 115 WE or] under sub-section (1

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

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

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and that he has no explanation to offer. 2.5 The ld. AO keeping in view that the assessee has not filed any reply was left with no other option but to decide the issue of penalty on merits on the basis of material available on record. ITA 42/CHD/2024

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

271(1)(c) of the Act. It was submitted that in the return of income, the assessee has declared property income as rental income and claimed statutory deduction under section 24 of the Act whereas the AO has assessed the same as income from other sources and deduction so claimed has been disallowed

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

271(1)(c) of the Act. It was submitted that in the return of income, the assessee has declared property income as rental income and claimed statutory deduction under section 24 of the Act whereas the AO has assessed the same as income from other sources and deduction so claimed has been disallowed

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

271(1)(c) of the Act. It was submitted that in the return of income, the assessee has declared property income as rental income and claimed statutory deduction under section 24 of the Act whereas the AO has assessed the same as income from other sources and deduction so claimed has been disallowed