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.

43 results for “disallowance”+ Section 293clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi604Mumbai569Bangalore287Chennai193Kolkata175Hyderabad151Ahmedabad129Jaipur120Pune74Indore63Raipur51Amritsar48Chandigarh43Lucknow40Surat36Visakhapatnam27Nagpur25Jodhpur16Cochin15Rajkot14Cuttack13Panaji9Patna8Ranchi7Karnataka7Agra6Allahabad4Telangana4Dehradun3SC2Guwahati1Jabalpur1Calcutta1Rajasthan1Kerala1Orissa1

Key Topics

Section 26360Addition to Income32Section 143(3)29Section 153A28Disallowance20Section 4016Section 25014Deduction14Section 153D11Section 14810Section 194C10Search & Seizure9

SH. JAI TEG SINGH,MOHALI vs. ITO, MOHALI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 750/CHANDI/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptashri Jai Teg Singh, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, # 2431, Sector 79, Ward-6(2), Mohali. Mohali. Pan: Arjps5960R

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Bhasin, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Chanderkanta, Addl.CIT, DR
Section 40A(3)

section 40A(3) read with Rule 6DD(j) as applicable in that assessment year. Hon'ble P&H High Court while holding the payments cannot be disallowed u/s 40A(3) of the Act made the following observation in the same judgement. ITA No No.750/Chd/2017 4 A.Y. 2012-13 "15) We pronounced the judgment in open court on the conclusion

MUKESH MALHOTRA ,SHIMLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SHIMLA, SHIMLA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 821/CHANDI/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Mar 2025AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parveen Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ved Parkash Kalia, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 194CSection 194HSection 40

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) despite the submission of Form 26A, which proves that the deductees had paid the taxes.The Ld. AR has relied on the second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act which has been inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 1.4.2013, which reads as under:- “Provided further that where an assessee fails

MUKESH MALHOTRA,SHIMLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , SHIMLA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 825/CHANDI/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parveen Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ved Parkash Kalia, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 194CSection 194HSection 40

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) despite the submission of Form 26A, which proves that the deductees had paid the taxes.The Ld. AR has relied on the second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act which has been inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 1.4.2013, which reads as under:- “Provided further that where an assessee fails

MUKESH MALHOTRA ,SHIMLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , SHIMLA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 824/CHANDI/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parveen Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ved Parkash Kalia, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 194CSection 194HSection 40

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) despite the submission of Form 26A, which proves that the deductees had paid the taxes.The Ld. AR has relied on the second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act which has been inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 1.4.2013, which reads as under:- “Provided further that where an assessee fails

MUKESH MALHOTRA ,SHIMLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , SHIMLA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 823/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parveen Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ved Parkash Kalia, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 194CSection 194HSection 40

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) despite the submission of Form 26A, which proves that the deductees had paid the taxes.The Ld. AR has relied on the second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act which has been inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 1.4.2013, which reads as under:- “Provided further that where an assessee fails

MUKESH MALHOTRA ,SHIMLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , SHIMLA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 822/CHANDI/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parveen Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ved Parkash Kalia, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 194CSection 194HSection 40

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) despite the submission of Form 26A, which proves that the deductees had paid the taxes.The Ld. AR has relied on the second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act which has been inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 1.4.2013, which reads as under:- “Provided further that where an assessee fails

GLAXOSMITHKLINE ASIA (P) LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1323/CHANDI/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Sept 2018AY 2003-04
For Appellant: Sh. Neeraj Jain (C.A), Sh. Abhishek Mukherjee (C.A)For Respondent: Dr. Gulshan Raj
Section 143(3)

disallowable on an application of this test. If the advantage consists merely in facilitating the assessee's trading operations or enabling the management and conduct of the assessee's business to be carried on more efficiently or more profitably while leaving the fixed capital untouched, the expenditure would be on revenue account, even though the advantage may endure

SH. RANA,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for

ITA 171/CHANDI/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Dec 2021AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna, Addl. CIT
Section 253(5)Section 40

Section 40(a)(ia) whereby it is provided that 30% of any sum payable to a resident shall be disallowed if tax is not deducted at source under Ch. XVIIB as against the 100% disallowance presently made. The purpose of this amendment was explained in the memorandum as under:- "the disallowance of whole of the amount of expenditure results into

ACIT, C-7, LUDHIANA vs. M/S CEIGALL INDIA LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Cross Objection of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 291/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: The Appeal Is Finally Heard Or Disposed Off.

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. C. Chandrakanta, CIT
Section 133ASection 145(3)Section 69C

section 133A was conducted on 15/09/2016 at the business premises of the assessee and no document related to wages record was found and that the large number of bills & blank bill books of various parties were found which were impounded. The A.O. asked the assessee to provide the details of jobs done and provide site wise material consumption

PAWAN KUMAR SINGLA,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, CC-I, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the assessee’s appeal on the various grounds raised is dismissed

ITA 11/CHANDI/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Final Hearing.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 132oSection 143(2)Section 153ASection 153DSection 271(1)(c)

293 Taxman 141 (SC).. In respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments no addition can be made by Assessing Officer in absence of any incriminating material found during course of search under section 132 or requisition under section 132A 2. Addition on account of cash found Rs 11,150007- The brief fact of this issue is that a cash

M/S PIONEER PESTICIDES PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 1553/CHANDI/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Jun 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S Pioneer Pesticides Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Dcit, Sco 82-83, Sector 8-C, Circle 1(1), Chandigarh Chandigarh

For Appellant: Sh. Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Manjit Singh, Sr.DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

disallowance @ 10.30% (on average cost of debts) amounting to Rs. 1,34,215/- invoking the provisions of section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Penalty proceedings were initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealing the particulars of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. During the penalty proceedings, the Assessing officer issued show cause notice dated

THE LUDHIANA DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNION LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. ADDL. CIT, LUDHIANA

ITA 1467/CHANDI/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Jan 2019AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Parveen Jindal, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Chanderkanta, Sr.DR
Section 250(6)Section 80P(2)(d)

disallowed the assessee’s claim of deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act amounting to Rs.49,90,022 adding the same to the income of the assessee. 4. The matter was carried in appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) who upheld the order of the A.O. stating that the assessee had paid more interest to Milkfed than earned interest therefrom

SH.ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA,LUDHIANA vs. PR.CIT-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 35/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Nov 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri. Pankaj Bhalla, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54

disallowing a sum of Rs 5,40,364/- as evident from the assessment order and the contents thereof read as under: 2. During the course of assessment proceedings, it is noticed that the assessee has claimed deduction under section 54 at Rs.2,01,09,761/- for which the assessee submitted a claim of revising it to Rs.2

PAWAN KUMAR SINGLA,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, CC-I, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the assessee's appeal on the various grounds raised\nis dismissed

ITA 12/CHANDI/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Apr 2025AY 2012-13
For Appellant: \nShri Ajay Jain, C.AFor Respondent: \nSmt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 132oSection 153ASection 153DSection 271(1)(c)

293 Тахтan 141 (SC).\nIn respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments no\naddition can be made by Assessing Officer in absence of any\nincriminating material found during course of search under section\n132 or requisition under section 132A\n2. Addition on account of cash found Rs 11,150007-\nThe brief fact of this issue is that a cash of Rs.41.15 lacs

M/S K.LALL OVERSEAS,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-6, LUDHIANA

The appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 165/CHANDI/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CA, Shri AdityaFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Nangia, CIT-DR
Section 250(6)Section 36(1)(iii)

293, Industrial Area-A, Circle-6, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. "थायीलेखासं./PAN NO: AABFK5507D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे/Assessee by: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CA, Shri Aditya Kumar, CA & Shri Bhavesh Jindal, CA राज"वक"ओरसे/ Revenue by : Shri Vivek Nangia, CIT-DR सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 04.04.2022 उदघोषणाक"तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 08.04.2022 आदेश/Order

ACIT, LUDHIANA vs. M/S K LAL OVERSEAS PVT. LTD., LUDHIANA

The appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 174/CHANDI/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CA, Shri AdityaFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Nangia, CIT-DR
Section 250(6)Section 36(1)(iii)

293, Industrial Area-A, Circle-6, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. "थायीलेखासं./PAN NO: AABFK5507D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे/Assessee by: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CA, Shri Aditya Kumar, CA & Shri Bhavesh Jindal, CA राज"वक"ओरसे/ Revenue by : Shri Vivek Nangia, CIT-DR सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 04.04.2022 उदघोषणाक"तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 08.04.2022 आदेश/Order

M/S GANESH DASS HUF,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 287/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

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

Section 143(3)Section 263

section 2 of section 56, clause(iv) in section 57 and clause (b) in Section 145A w.e.f. 01.04.2010. From the assessment year 2010-11 onwards, the amount of compensation or enhanced compensation is taxable as "income from other sources" after allowing deduction of a sum equal to 50% of such income in the year of receipt The Hon'ble Apex

SURJEET SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 488/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

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

Section 143(3)Section 263

section 2 of section 56, clause(iv) in section 57 and clause (b) in Section 145A w.e.f. 01.04.2010. From the assessment year 2010-11 onwards, the amount of compensation or enhanced compensation is taxable as "income from other sources" after allowing deduction of a sum equal to 50% of such income in the year of receipt The Hon'ble Apex

SH. PARAMJEET SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 290/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

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

Section 143(3)Section 263

section 2 of section 56, clause(iv) in section 57 and clause (b) in Section 145A w.e.f. 01.04.2010. From the assessment year 2010-11 onwards, the amount of compensation or enhanced compensation is taxable as "income from other sources" after allowing deduction of a sum equal to 50% of such income in the year of receipt The Hon'ble Apex

SH. KASHMIR SINGH SANDHA,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 288/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

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

Section 143(3)Section 263

section 2 of section 56, clause(iv) in section 57 and clause (b) in Section 145A w.e.f. 01.04.2010. From the assessment year 2010-11 onwards, the amount of compensation or enhanced compensation is taxable as "income from other sources" after allowing deduction of a sum equal to 50% of such income in the year of receipt The Hon'ble Apex

Showing 1–20 of 43 · Page 1 of 3