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.

14 results for “disallowance”+ Section 35Dclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai255Delhi208Chennai83Ahmedabad82Kolkata42Bangalore42Hyderabad39Raipur21Chandigarh14Cochin14Pune11Jaipur10Visakhapatnam10Karnataka8Cuttack7Rajkot7Guwahati3Telangana3SC3Punjab & Haryana2Panaji1Kerala1Indore1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Dehradun1Lucknow1Nagpur1Amritsar1Agra1

Key Topics

Section 80H48Section 10B16Deduction13Section 14A8Exemption8Section 143(3)4Section 1474Section 54Section 704Addition to Income

ACIT,, LUDHIANA vs. M/S VARDHMAN TEXTILES LTD.,, LUDHIANA

In the result appeals of the Assessee and the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 981/CHANDI/2008[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 May 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2002-03

For Appellant: Shri. Subhash AggarwalFor Respondent: Sh. Ashish Abrol
Section 10BSection 14ASection 80H

disallowing 4/5th of expenses amounting to Rs.5,35,646/- by treating these expenses as expenses covered u/s 35D of Income Tax Act. Revenue has raised the following grounds in ITA No. 575/Chd/2009 for A.Y. 2005- 06: 1. That the Id. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in directing the A.O. to consider interest income received by the assessee

M/S VARDHMAN TEXTILES LTD.,,LUDHIANA vs. ADDL. CIT,, LUDHIANA

4
Section 250(6)3
Depreciation3

In the result appeals of the Assessee and the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 528/CHANDI/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 May 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2002-03

For Appellant: Shri. Subhash AggarwalFor Respondent: Sh. Ashish Abrol
Section 10BSection 14ASection 80H

disallowing 4/5th of expenses amounting to Rs.5,35,646/- by treating these expenses as expenses covered u/s 35D of Income Tax Act. Revenue has raised the following grounds in ITA No. 575/Chd/2009 for A.Y. 2005- 06: 1. That the Id. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in directing the A.O. to consider interest income received by the assessee

VARDHMAN TEXTILE LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, LUDHIANA

In the result appeals of the Assessee and the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 475/CHANDI/2008[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 May 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2002-03

For Appellant: Shri. Subhash AggarwalFor Respondent: Sh. Ashish Abrol
Section 10BSection 14ASection 80H

disallowing 4/5th of expenses amounting to Rs.5,35,646/- by treating these expenses as expenses covered u/s 35D of Income Tax Act. Revenue has raised the following grounds in ITA No. 575/Chd/2009 for A.Y. 2005- 06: 1. That the Id. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in directing the A.O. to consider interest income received by the assessee

VARDHMAN TEXTILES LTD.,,LUDHIANA vs. JCIT,, LUDHIANA

In the result appeals of the Assessee and the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 938/CHANDI/2008[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 May 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2002-03

For Appellant: Shri. Subhash AggarwalFor Respondent: Sh. Ashish Abrol
Section 10BSection 14ASection 80H

disallowing 4/5th of expenses amounting to Rs.5,35,646/- by treating these expenses as expenses covered u/s 35D of Income Tax Act. Revenue has raised the following grounds in ITA No. 575/Chd/2009 for A.Y. 2005- 06: 1. That the Id. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in directing the A.O. to consider interest income received by the assessee

ACIT, LUDHIANA vs. VARDHMAN TEXTILES LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result appeals of the Assessee and the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 691/CHANDI/2007[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 May 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2002-03

For Appellant: Shri. Subhash AggarwalFor Respondent: Sh. Ashish Abrol
Section 10BSection 14ASection 80H

disallowing 4/5th of expenses amounting to Rs.5,35,646/- by treating these expenses as expenses covered u/s 35D of Income Tax Act. Revenue has raised the following grounds in ITA No. 575/Chd/2009 for A.Y. 2005- 06: 1. That the Id. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in directing the A.O. to consider interest income received by the assessee

ACIT,, LUDHIANA vs. M/S VARDHMAN TEXTILES LTD.,, LUDHIANA

In the result appeals of the Assessee and the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 575/CHANDI/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 May 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2002-03

For Appellant: Shri. Subhash AggarwalFor Respondent: Sh. Ashish Abrol
Section 10BSection 14ASection 80H

disallowing 4/5th of expenses amounting to Rs.5,35,646/- by treating these expenses as expenses covered u/s 35D of Income Tax Act. Revenue has raised the following grounds in ITA No. 575/Chd/2009 for A.Y. 2005- 06: 1. That the Id. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in directing the A.O. to consider interest income received by the assessee

ACIT, LUDHIANA vs. M/S VARDHMAN TEXTILES LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result appeals of the Assessee and the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 530/CHANDI/2008[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 May 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2002-03

For Appellant: Shri. Subhash AggarwalFor Respondent: Sh. Ashish Abrol
Section 10BSection 14ASection 80H

disallowing 4/5th of expenses amounting to Rs.5,35,646/- by treating these expenses as expenses covered u/s 35D of Income Tax Act. Revenue has raised the following grounds in ITA No. 575/Chd/2009 for A.Y. 2005- 06: 1. That the Id. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in directing the A.O. to consider interest income received by the assessee

M/S VARDHMAN TEXTILES LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, LUDHIANA

In the result appeals of the Assessee and the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 681/CHANDI/2007[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 May 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2002-03

For Appellant: Shri. Subhash AggarwalFor Respondent: Sh. Ashish Abrol
Section 10BSection 14ASection 80H

disallowing 4/5th of expenses amounting to Rs.5,35,646/- by treating these expenses as expenses covered u/s 35D of Income Tax Act. Revenue has raised the following grounds in ITA No. 575/Chd/2009 for A.Y. 2005- 06: 1. That the Id. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in directing the A.O. to consider interest income received by the assessee

M/S FASTWAY TRANSMISSION (P) LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-II, CHANDIGARH

In the result the captioned appeals of the assessee are

ITA 139/CHANDI/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Apr 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.547/Chd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Chandrajit Singh, CIT (DR) on 4.12.2019
Section 250(6)

35D amounting to Rs.2.40 crores. 7. That the Worthy CIT (A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.3,41,870/- on account of alleged unexplained expenditure. 8. That the Worthy CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in disallowing the interest amounting to Rs.28,68,096/- u/s 36 (1)(iii) and holding that

M/S FASTWAY TRANSMISSION (P) LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result the captioned appeals of the assessee are

ITA 547/CHANDI/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Apr 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.547/Chd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Chandrajit Singh, CIT (DR) on 4.12.2019
Section 250(6)

35D amounting to Rs.2.40 crores. 7. That the Worthy CIT (A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.3,41,870/- on account of alleged unexplained expenditure. 8. That the Worthy CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in disallowing the interest amounting to Rs.28,68,096/- u/s 36 (1)(iii) and holding that

M/S FASTWAY TRANSMISSION (P) LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-II, CHANDIGARH

In the result the captioned appeals of the assessee are

ITA 140/CHANDI/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Apr 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.547/Chd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Chandrajit Singh, CIT (DR) on 4.12.2019
Section 250(6)

35D amounting to Rs.2.40 crores. 7. That the Worthy CIT (A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.3,41,870/- on account of alleged unexplained expenditure. 8. That the Worthy CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in disallowing the interest amounting to Rs.28,68,096/- u/s 36 (1)(iii) and holding that

M/S GREATER MOHALI AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MOHALI vs. DCIT, C-6(1), MOHALI

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

ITA 1560/CHANDI/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Gulshan Raj, CIT DR
Section 139Section 142Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

35D [1] (ii) of the I.T Act, and therefore, only 1/5th of the expenditure i.e., ₹47,23,722/- was required to be allowed. Instead, the entire amount claimed by the assessee i.e., ₹2,36,18,612/- is allowed to be debited. Therefore, according to the Assessing Officer, his predecessor has wrongly allowed the entire amount

CSJ INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 456/CHANDI/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri. Ajay JainFor Respondent: Smt. Chandrakanta
Section 35DSection 5Section 70Section 71

disallowed to be carried forward. The Assessing Officer has relied upon the judgement in the case of Saraf Textile Industries vs. CIT (217 ITR 507) wherein it was held that administrative expenses claimed by the assessee was allowable u/s 35D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act’ and therefore could not be adjusted against the interest

CSJ INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. JCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 455/CHANDI/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri. Ajay JainFor Respondent: Smt. Chandrakanta
Section 35DSection 5Section 70Section 71

disallowed to be carried forward. The Assessing Officer has relied upon the judgement in the case of Saraf Textile Industries vs. CIT (217 ITR 507) wherein it was held that administrative expenses claimed by the assessee was allowable u/s 35D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act’ and therefore could not be adjusted against the interest