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.

27 results for “disallowance”+ Section 438clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai591Delhi427Bangalore148Kolkata113Chennai107Ahmedabad78Agra64Jaipur59Pune51Raipur38Hyderabad37Chandigarh27Allahabad23Indore20Surat17Cochin14Cuttack12Lucknow10Calcutta9Amritsar9Telangana7Jodhpur6Karnataka5Panaji5Rajkot4SC4Nagpur4Guwahati4Visakhapatnam2Kerala2Orissa2Jabalpur1Patna1Varanasi1Ranchi1

Key Topics

Addition to Income22Section 143(3)15Section 80I15Section 1488Section 251(2)8Section 69C8Section 108Section 14A8Section 36(1)(va)7

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

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)

section 36(1) (iii) of the Act by observing in para 7 of the assessment order which read as under: 7. Disallowance of Interest u/s 36(1)(iii) on account of interest free advances 7.1 During the course of assessment proceedings the details of Loans and Advances given by the assessee was called for. It was seen that the assessee

Showing 1–20 of 27 · Page 1 of 2

Disallowance7
Deduction6
Bogus Purchases5

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

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

ITA 473/CHANDI/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Sept 2025AY 2012-13
For Respondent: \nShri Ashwani Kumar, Shri Ashish Aggarwal &
Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

section 36(1) (iii) of the Act by observing\nin para 7 of the assessment order which read as under:\n7. Disallowance of Interest u/s 36(1)(iii) on account of interest free\nadvances\n7.1 During the course of assessment proceedings the details of Loans\nand Advances given by the assessee was called for. It was seen that the\nassessee

M/S VARDHMAN TEXTILES LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, C-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 187/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, Advocate and Shri Pankaj Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 80I

Section 14A of the Act r.w. Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules and making disallowance ignoring the stand taken by the assessee. As per ground no. 3 the amended provisions of Rule 8D, effective from 02/06/2016 have been misapplied. 14.1 The AO disallowed a net amount of Rs. 17,98,15,974/- after deducting suo- moto disallowance

ACIT,CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA vs. M/S VARDHMAN TEXTILES LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 117/CHANDI/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, Advocate and Shri Pankaj Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 80I

Section 14A of the Act r.w. Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules and making disallowance ignoring the stand taken by the assessee. As per ground no. 3 the amended provisions of Rule 8D, effective from 02/06/2016 have been misapplied. 14.1 The AO disallowed a net amount of Rs. 17,98,15,974/- after deducting suo- moto disallowance

M/S VARDHMAN TEXTILES LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, C-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 486/CHANDI/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, Advocate and Shri Pankaj Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 80I

Section 14A of the Act r.w. Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules and making disallowance ignoring the stand taken by the assessee. As per ground no. 3 the amended provisions of Rule 8D, effective from 02/06/2016 have been misapplied. 14.1 The AO disallowed a net amount of Rs. 17,98,15,974/- after deducting suo- moto disallowance

VARDHMAN TEXTILES LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT-CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 61/CHANDI/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, Advocate and Shri Pankaj Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 80I

Section 14A of the Act r.w. Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules and making disallowance ignoring the stand taken by the assessee. As per ground no. 3 the amended provisions of Rule 8D, effective from 02/06/2016 have been misapplied. 14.1 The AO disallowed a net amount of Rs. 17,98,15,974/- after deducting suo- moto disallowance

DCIT, C-1, LUDHIANA vs. M/S VARDHMAN TEXTILES LIMITED, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 260/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, Advocate and Shri Pankaj Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 80I

Section 14A of the Act r.w. Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules and making disallowance ignoring the stand taken by the assessee. As per ground no. 3 the amended provisions of Rule 8D, effective from 02/06/2016 have been misapplied. 14.1 The AO disallowed a net amount of Rs. 17,98,15,974/- after deducting suo- moto disallowance

TARSEM CHAND RANA,UNA vs. JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER, ITO WARD 98, UNA, RANGE CODE 37, UNA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 1085/CHANDI/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1085/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Tarsem Singh Rana, Ito, बनाम H.No. 4, Kathoh, Ward 98, Khurwain, Una Vs. Bangana H.P. 174321 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aawpr5715R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Hybrid Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Ajit Kumar Jha, Advocate (Virtual Mode) राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Sh. Ajit Kumar Jha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

disallow the employee contribution of Rs. 8,87,438/- under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, with reference to Sections

TDS PLACEMENTS AND SERVICES PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT CIRCLE 3(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, these three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 556/CHANDI/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CA, &For Respondent: Sh. Ved Parkash Kalia, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

disallow the delay deposit in contradiction of section 438. The disallowance is not even allowed in the next assessment year

TDS PLACEMENTS AND SERVICES PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 3(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, these three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 537/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CA, &For Respondent: Sh. Ved Parkash Kalia, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

disallow the delay deposit in contradiction of section 438. The disallowance is not even allowed in the next assessment year

TDS MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS P.LTD,MOHALI vs. DCIT-CIRCLE-6(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, these three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 208/CHANDI/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CA, &For Respondent: Sh. Ved Parkash Kalia, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

disallow the delay deposit in contradiction of section 438. The disallowance is not even allowed in the next assessment year

SH. GURINDER MAKKAR,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-3, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

ITA 20/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 32Section 37Section 40A(3)Section 43(1)Section 68Section 69

disallowing the depreciation of such building would result in double taxation. 6.9 It was submitted that as the assessee has duly paid tax on all such amount of surrender made by the assessee, therefore, making additions of the same amount to the total income of the assessee are wholly invalid as it results 'double taxation and therefore, against the principles

NAHAR INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISES LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, C-7, LUDHIANA

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

ITA 1554/CHANDI/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Oct 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri R.L Negiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1554/Chd/2019 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 Nahar Industrial Enterprises The Acit, Circle-7, बनाम Limited, Focal Point, Aayakar Bhawan, Ludhiana Rishi Nagar, Ludhiana Tan No: Aaccn3563A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Navdeep Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Sandeep Dahiya, CIT (DR)
Section 115JSection 143(3)

438/- under section 115JB of the Act inter alia making addition of Rs. 60,86,81,068/- on account of repurchase of Foreign Currency Convertible Bonds (FCCB). The assessee challenged the assessment order before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) after hearing the assessee partly allowed the appeal and held that out of Rs. 60.83 crore an amount

THE TRIBUNE TRUST,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), C-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 642/CHANDI/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Sh. Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 10Section 11Section 2(15)

Section 2(15) of the Act whereby returned loss of Rs. 8,73,15,662/- was disallowed and an income of Rs. 23,77,41,089/- has been assessed which is arbitrary and unjustified. 2. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further erred in upholding the order of the Assessing Officer whereby she treated the assessee

THE TRIBUNE TRUST,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), C-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 644/CHANDI/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Sh. Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 10Section 11Section 2(15)

Section 2(15) of the Act whereby returned loss of Rs. 8,73,15,662/- was disallowed and an income of Rs. 23,77,41,089/- has been assessed which is arbitrary and unjustified. 2. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further erred in upholding the order of the Assessing Officer whereby she treated the assessee

THE TRIBUNE TRUST,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), C-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 641/CHANDI/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Sh. Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 10Section 11Section 2(15)

Section 2(15) of the Act whereby returned loss of Rs. 8,73,15,662/- was disallowed and an income of Rs. 23,77,41,089/- has been assessed which is arbitrary and unjustified. 2. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further erred in upholding the order of the Assessing Officer whereby she treated the assessee

THE TRIBUNE TRUST,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), C-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 643/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Sh. Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 10Section 11Section 2(15)

Section 2(15) of the Act whereby returned loss of Rs. 8,73,15,662/- was disallowed and an income of Rs. 23,77,41,089/- has been assessed which is arbitrary and unjustified. 2. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further erred in upholding the order of the Assessing Officer whereby she treated the assessee

S.P. SINGLA CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 514/CHANDI/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Jan 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 153Section 153A

Section 143(3) of the Act dated 17.12.2019. Thereby, the AO after verifying the details of bogus Sub Contractor Firms numbering in 39 disallowed the total expenses claimed by assessee on account of these bogus Sub Contractor firms at Rs.36,10,58,438

JANTA LAND PROMOTERS PVT LTD,MOHALI vs. THE PRINICIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CHANDIGARH-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 618/CHANDI/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Oct 2025AY 2020-2021
For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Bhalla, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 194Section 263Section 68

disallowance. There may be cases where the Assessing Officer undertakes a superficial and random investigation that may justify a remit, albeit the Commissioner of Income Tax must record the abject failure and lapse on the part of the Assessing Officer to establish both the error and the prejudice caused to the Revenue. Recording the aforesaid, the special leave petition

SH. KRISHAN KUMAR,KHANNA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 175/CHANDI/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Jan 2024AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sharma, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 133ASection 139Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69Section 69ASection 69BSection 69C

disallowed. 8. It was submitted that the Assessee had offered sum total of these transactions as business income for taxation in addition to the normal business income at the conclusion of the survey operation. It was submitted that the said sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/-was offered for tax as additional business 175-Chd-2023– Shri Krishan Kumar, Khanna