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.

386 results for “disallowance”+ Section 36(1)(iv)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai3,500 Delhi3,323 Bangalore1,409 Chennai890 Ahmedabad800 Kolkata749 Jaipur735 Pune547 Hyderabad450 Chandigarh386 Indore361 Surat226 Raipur215 Cochin201 Visakhapatnam188 Amritsar180 Nagpur148 Rajkot139 Cuttack129 Karnataka116 Agra103 Lucknow84 Jodhpur73 Guwahati67 Telangana48 Calcutta47 SC47 Allahabad44 Panaji43 Ranchi33 Patna23 Varanasi20 Dehradun16 Kerala14 Jabalpur10 Punjab & Haryana8 Rajasthan6 A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1 Orissa1 ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1 Himachal Pradesh1

Key Topics

Addition to Income54 Section 143(3)49 Section 26333 Section 143(1)27 Disallowance26 Section 153A22 Section 80I22 Section 1120 Deduction20 Section 68

M/S BARNALA BUILDERS AND CONSULTANT,ZIRAKPUR vs. DCIT/ACIT (CEN)-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 274/CHANDI/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 May 2024AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

disallowance so made under section 36(1)(va) r.w. s 143(1)(a)(iv) of the Act, the assessee filed

DCIT, C-V, LUDHIANA vs. M/S HERO CYCLES LTD., LUDHIANA

Showing 1–20 of 386 · Page 1 of 20

...

19

Section 36(1)(va)19

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 588/CHANDI/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 588/Chd/2018 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2012-13 The DCIT C-V, Ludhiana बनाम M/s Hero Cycles Ltd. Hero Nagar, G.T. Road Ludhiana स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAACH4073P अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 473/Chd/2018 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2012-13 M/s Hero Cycles Ltd. Hero Nagar, G.T. Road Ludhiana बनाम The ACIT C-V, Ludhiana स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAACH4073P

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, Shri Ashish Aggarwal &For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

iv) That the AO failed to record any satisfaction in respect of disallowance to be made. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A)-2 has erred in confirming the net disallowance of interest u/s 36(1)(iii) amounting to Rs. 8,39,55,267/- on advances made to M/s Munjal Hospitality Pvt. Ltd & M/s Hero Exports Pvt. Ltd ignoring the following

ARVINDER PAUL JIT SINGH GILL,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, WARD 2(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 325/CHANDI/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Feb 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Nalin Nohria & Shri B.K.Nohria,CAsFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

disallowance made under section 143(1) by the CPC on account of assessee’s failure to pay the employees’ contribution of PF / ESI within the prescribed due date as per Section 36(1)(va) of the Act is strictly in accordance with law and clearly comes under the prima facie adjustment as envisaged under section 143(1)(a)(iv

M/S BHUSHAN POWER AND STEEL LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT/ACIT (CEN.)-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 355/CHANDI/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh05 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

disallowance made under section 143(1) by the CPC on account of assessee’s failure to pay the employees’ contribution of PF / ESI within the prescribed due date as per Section 36(1)(va) of the Act is strictly in accordance with law and clearly comes under the prima facie adjustment as envisaged under section 143(1)(a)(iv

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, PATIALA vs. PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED, PATIALA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 659/CHANDI/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Saldi, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

iv) and (v) respectively, of section 36(1), subject to certain limits. However, section 36 does not provide for a similar deduction from business income in respect of the contribution made by the employer, on behalf of the employee, to the New Pension System (NPS) account. 10.4 Section 36 has been amended by insertion of a new clause

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, PATIALA, PATIALA vs. PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED, PATIALA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 645/CHANDI/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Saldi, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

iv) and (v) respectively, of section 36(1), subject to certain limits. However, section 36 does not provide for a similar deduction from business income in respect of the contribution made by the employer, on behalf of the employee, to the New Pension System (NPS) account. 10.4 Section 36 has been amended by insertion of a new clause

IND SWIFT LABORATORIES LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal is allowed, as indicated

ITA 350/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri T.N.Singla, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR

Section 250Section 35Section 35(1)Section 35(1)(i)Section 35(2)

section 35(2AB) of the Act ignoring the suo motu disallowance of Rs.10,51,71,451/- made by the assessee on account of research development expenditure claimed in the profit and loss and the said action of the AO will lead to double addition of the same amount in the hands of the assessee. 6. i) On the facts

THE JABO MAJRO CO-OPERATIVE LABOUR AND CONSTRUCTION SOCIETY LTD.,MALERKOTLA vs. ITO, MALERKOTLA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 361/CHANDI/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Jan 2022AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Atul Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

Sections 36(va) as well as 43B vide Finance Act, 2021 to this effect but also the CBDT has issued Memorandum of Explanation that the same applies w.e.f. 1.4.2021 only. It is further not an issue that the forergoing legislative amendments have proposed employers contributions; disallowances u/s 43B as against employee u/s 36 (va) of the Act; respectively. However, keeping

ITO-WARD-2(1), LUDHIANA vs. M/S GLORY KNITWEARS PVT.LTD, LUDHIANA

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

ITA 327/CHANDI/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: The Filing Of Return Wherever Employee'S Contribution Is Disallowed For Once & All If Payment Is Delayed Beyond The Prescribed Time.

For Appellant: Shri S.C. Jain, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Geetinder Mann, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

Sections 36(va) as well as 43B vide Finance Act, 2021 to this effect but also the CBDT has issued Memorandum of Explanation that the same applies w.e.f. 1.4.2021 only. It is further not an issue that the forergoing legislative amendments have proposed employers contributions; disallowances u/s 43B as against employee u/s 36 (va) of the Act; respectively. However, keeping

ITO-WARD-2(1), LUDHIANA vs. M/S GLORY KNITWEARS PVT.LTD, LUDHIANA

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

ITA 328/CHANDI/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: The Filing Of Return Wherever Employee'S Contribution Is Disallowed For Once & All If Payment Is Delayed Beyond The Prescribed Time.

For Appellant: Shri S.C. Jain, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Geetinder Mann, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

Sections 36(va) as well as 43B vide Finance Act, 2021 to this effect but also the CBDT has issued Memorandum of Explanation that the same applies w.e.f. 1.4.2021 only. It is further not an issue that the forergoing legislative amendments have proposed employers contributions; disallowances u/s 43B as against employee u/s 36 (va) of the Act; respectively. However, keeping

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUDHIANA vs. M/S MRS.BECTORS FOOD SPECILTIES LTD, LUDHIANA

ITA 556/CHANDI/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 May 2018AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Sh. Subhash AggarwalFor Respondent: Smt. Chandrakanta

Section 14ASection 36Section 80I

36,02,230/- u/s 14A / Rule 8D. The appellant had not incurred any expenditure to earn the exempt income and the AO has not recorded any satisfaction that the appellant had incurred any expenditure which calls for disallowance. Reliance is placed on the case law attached separately. iv) That without prejudice no disallowance is called for, the disallowance

ACIT, LUDHIANA vs. M/S MRS. BECTORS FOOD SPECIALTIES PVT. LTD., LUDHIANA

ITA 405/CHANDI/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 May 2018AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Sh. Subhash AggarwalFor Respondent: Smt. Chandrakanta

Section 14ASection 36Section 80I

36,02,230/- u/s 14A / Rule 8D. The appellant had not incurred any expenditure to earn the exempt income and the AO has not recorded any satisfaction that the appellant had incurred any expenditure which calls for disallowance. Reliance is placed on the case law attached separately. iv) That without prejudice no disallowance is called for, the disallowance

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUDHIANA vs. M/S MRS.BECTORS FOOD SPECILTIES LTD, LUDHIANA

ITA 555/CHANDI/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 May 2018AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Sh. Subhash AggarwalFor Respondent: Smt. Chandrakanta

Section 14ASection 36Section 80I

36,02,230/- u/s 14A / Rule 8D. The appellant had not incurred any expenditure to earn the exempt income and the AO has not recorded any satisfaction that the appellant had incurred any expenditure which calls for disallowance. Reliance is placed on the case law attached separately. iv) That without prejudice no disallowance is called for, the disallowance

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUDHIANA vs. M/S MRS.BECTORS FOOD SPECILTIES LTD, LUDHIANA

ITA 558/CHANDI/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 May 2018AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Sh. Subhash AggarwalFor Respondent: Smt. Chandrakanta

Section 14ASection 36Section 80I

36,02,230/- u/s 14A / Rule 8D. The appellant had not incurred any expenditure to earn the exempt income and the AO has not recorded any satisfaction that the appellant had incurred any expenditure which calls for disallowance. Reliance is placed on the case law attached separately. iv) That without prejudice no disallowance is called for, the disallowance

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUDHIANA vs. M/S MRS.BECTORS FOOD SPECILTIES LTD, LUDHIANA

ITA 557/CHANDI/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 May 2018AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Sh. Subhash AggarwalFor Respondent: Smt. Chandrakanta

Section 14ASection 36Section 80I

36,02,230/- u/s 14A / Rule 8D. The appellant had not incurred any expenditure to earn the exempt income and the AO has not recorded any satisfaction that the appellant had incurred any expenditure which calls for disallowance. Reliance is placed on the case law attached separately. iv) That without prejudice no disallowance is called for, the disallowance

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUDHIANA vs. M/S MRS.BECTORS FOOD SPECILTIES LTD, LUDHIANA

ITA 559/CHANDI/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 May 2018AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Sh. Subhash AggarwalFor Respondent: Smt. Chandrakanta

Section 14ASection 36Section 80I

36,02,230/- u/s 14A / Rule 8D. The appellant had not incurred any expenditure to earn the exempt income and the AO has not recorded any satisfaction that the appellant had incurred any expenditure which calls for disallowance. Reliance is placed on the case law attached separately. iv) That without prejudice no disallowance is called for, the disallowance

TEJ PAL GUPTA,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRLE - 1, CHANDIGARH

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

ITA 382/CHANDI/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 382/Chd/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sh. Tej Pal Gupta, The Dcit, बनाम H. No. 346, Cpc, Sector 21, Bengaluru Panchkula "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaupg1545N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Neeraj Jain, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, CIT DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

1) return and after the due date prescribed in the corresponding statutes; respectively. I notice in this factual backdrop that the legislature has not only incorporated necessary amendments in Sections 36(va) as well as 43B vide Finance Act, 2021 to ITA No. 32-Chd-2021 Sh. Tej Pal Gupta, Panchkula 7 this effect but also the CBDT has issued

THE STATE BANK OF INDIA,PATIALA vs. ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATIALA

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 861/CHANDI/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptathe State Bank Of India, Vs. The A.C.I.T., (Successor Of State Bank Of Patiala) Circle Patiala, The Mall, Patiala. Pan: Aaccs0143D & The A.C.I.T., Vs. The State Bank Of India, Circle Patiala, The Mall, Patiala. Pan: Aaccs0143D The A.C.I.T., Vs. The State Bank Of India, Circle Patiala, The Mall, Patiala. Pan: Aaccs0143D The State Bank Of India, Vs. The A.C.I.T., (Successor Of State Bank Of Patiala) Circle Patiala, The Mall, Patiala. Pan: Aaccs0143D & The A.C.I.T., Vs. The State Bank Of India, Circle Patiala, The Mall, Patiala. Pan: Aaccs0143D The State Bank Of India, Vs. The A.C.I.T., (Successor Of State Bank Of Patiala) Circle Patiala, The Mall, Patiala. Pan: Aaccs0143D

For Appellant: Shri C. Naresh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Alok Kumar,CIT DR

Section 36(1)(viii)

1) Dividend income exempt u/s 10 (34) & (35) Rs.4,38,91,510/- 2) Net interest income exempt u/s 10(15)(iv)(h) Rs.1,95,64,795/- Total : Rs.6,34,56,305/- 21. The Assessing Officer, therefore, disallowed expenses as per the provisions of section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules

ACIT, PATIALA vs. M/S THE STATE BANK OF PATIALA, PATIALA

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 721/CHANDI/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Feb 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptathe State Bank Of India, Vs. The A.C.I.T., (Successor Of State Bank Of Patiala) Circle Patiala, The Mall, Patiala. Pan: Aaccs0143D & The A.C.I.T., Vs. The State Bank Of India, Circle Patiala, The Mall, Patiala. Pan: Aaccs0143D The A.C.I.T., Vs. The State Bank Of India, Circle Patiala, The Mall, Patiala. Pan: Aaccs0143D The State Bank Of India, Vs. The A.C.I.T., (Successor Of State Bank Of Patiala) Circle Patiala, The Mall, Patiala. Pan: Aaccs0143D & The A.C.I.T., Vs. The State Bank Of India, Circle Patiala, The Mall, Patiala. Pan: Aaccs0143D The State Bank Of India, Vs. The A.C.I.T., (Successor Of State Bank Of Patiala) Circle Patiala, The Mall, Patiala. Pan: Aaccs0143D

For Appellant: Shri C. Naresh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Alok Kumar,CIT DR

Section 36(1)(viii)

1) Dividend income exempt u/s 10 (34) & (35) Rs.4,38,91,510/- 2) Net interest income exempt u/s 10(15)(iv)(h) Rs.1,95,64,795/- Total : Rs.6,34,56,305/- 21. The Assessing Officer, therefore, disallowed expenses as per the provisions of section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules

M/S BASANT MECHANICAL WORKS,LUDHIANA vs. JCIT, CIRCLE IV, LUDHIANA

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

ITA 541/CHANDI/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri A.D. Jainआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 541/Chd/2022 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S Basant Mechanical Works, 1. Dcit, Cpc, बनाम 720-21, Ind. Area-B, Banglore Ludhiana, Punjab 2. Jurisdiction Ao- 141003 Jcit, Circle Iv, Ludhiana "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aabfb0687M अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Kaura, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Sections 36(va) as well as 43B vide Finance Act, 2021 to this effect but also the CBDT has issued Memorandum of Explanation that the same applies w.e.f. 1.4.2021 only. It is further not an issue that the forergoing legislative amendments have proposed employers contributions; disallowances u/s 43B as against employee u/s 36 (va) of the Act; respectively. However, keeping