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.

380 results for “disallowance”+ Section 44clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai4,969 Delhi4,638 Bangalore1,458 Chennai1,324 Ahmedabad1,103 Kolkata1,094 Pune723 Hyderabad721 Jaipur661 Indore420 Chandigarh380 Surat312 Raipur230 Cochin218 Visakhapatnam206 Amritsar162 Cuttack158 Rajkot157 Nagpur155 Karnataka124 Lucknow103 Guwahati86 Allahabad65 Ranchi60 Agra58 Jodhpur47 SC45 Calcutta41 Patna39 Telangana31 Dehradun22 Panaji22 Kerala15 Jabalpur15 Varanasi15 Punjab & Haryana3 Rajasthan3 A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2 Orissa2 H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1 ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1 ANIL R. DAVE AMITAVA ROY L. NAGESWARA RAO1 Himachal Pradesh1 RANJAN GOGOI PRAFULLA C. PANT1

Key Topics

Section 26355 Section 80H52 Section 143(3)49 Addition to Income44 Disallowance41 Deduction36 Section 10B28 Section 143(2)27 Section 69A22 Section 40A(3)

ITO, WARD, PALAMPUR vs. THE KANGRA CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, KANGRA

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

ITA 583/CHANDI/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh31 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Us Is Filed Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, As Amended From Time To Time. The Respondent Is A Cooperative Bank.

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.A and Ms. Deepali Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 14ASection 250Section 253

Disallowance under section 14A of the Act for Rs 44,08,23,002/-. In this the AO has wrongly mentioned

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

Showing 1–20 of 380 · Page 1 of 19

...

22

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)

disallowance of interest expenditure on amount advanced to subsidiary company and held that - "Commercial expediency in advancing loan does not arise only on account of there being transactions directly between holding company and subsidiary company. The two companies may even be in a different line of business. It would make no difference. It would still be commercially expedient

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

section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by simply relying on the submissions of the assessee and not by giving any independent findings? 2. Whether upon facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 29,43,718/- u/s 80IC of Income Tax Act, 1961 on job work charges

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

section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by simply relying on the submissions of the assessee and not by giving any independent findings? 2. Whether upon facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 29,43,718/- u/s 80IC of Income Tax Act, 1961 on job work charges

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

section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by simply relying on the submissions of the assessee and not by giving any independent findings? 2. Whether upon facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 29,43,718/- u/s 80IC of Income Tax Act, 1961 on job work charges

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

section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by simply relying on the submissions of the assessee and not by giving any independent findings? 2. Whether upon facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 29,43,718/- u/s 80IC of Income Tax Act, 1961 on job work charges

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

section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by simply relying on the submissions of the assessee and not by giving any independent findings? 2. Whether upon facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 29,43,718/- u/s 80IC of Income Tax Act, 1961 on job work charges

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

section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by simply relying on the submissions of the assessee and not by giving any independent findings? 2. Whether upon facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 29,43,718/- u/s 80IC of Income Tax Act, 1961 on job work charges

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. ESSIX BIOSCIENCES LIMITED, MANIMAJRA

In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the

ITA 347/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR

Section 14Section 14A

disallowance of Rs. 1,87,44,249/-under Section I4A of the Income Tax Act on the ground that disallowance

M/S HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL & INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPN.,,PANCHKULA vs. ACIT,, PANCHKULA

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are

ITA 275/CHANDI/2020[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: The Itat. That In The First Round The Itat Had Held The Provisions Of Section 14A Of The Act, For The Purposes Of Disallowing Expenses Relating To Exempt Income, Applicable In The Facts Of The Present Cases On Noting That The Assessee Had Earned Exempt Income In The Form

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Jindal, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Meenakshi Vohra, Addl.CIT

Section 14ASection 250(6)

section 14A of the Act and as per law. That subsequently the AO, after giving due opportunity of hearing to the assessee, had worked out the disallowance by applying the mathematical formula provided in Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rule, 1962 for the said purpose, making disallowance of expenses for the impugned assessment years as under: Asstt. Year Disallowance

DSM SINOCHEM PHARMACEUTICALS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NAWANSHAHR vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 253/CHANDI/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 253/ चंडीगढ़/2016(िन.व. 2011-12)

For Appellant: Sh.K.M Gupta, Adv., Sh. NishantFor Respondent: Sh. Vikram Batra, CIT-DR

section 144(C)(13) r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for Assessment Years (AY) 2011-12 & 2014- 15, respectively. Since, the issues raised in grounds of appeal for both the impugned AYs are identical, these appeals are taken up together for adjudication and are decided by this common order

M/S DSM SINOCHEM PHARMACEUTICALS INDIA PVT. LTD. ,TOANSA vs. DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1592/CHANDI/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 253/ चंडीगढ़/2016(िन.व. 2011-12)

For Appellant: Sh.K.M Gupta, Adv., Sh. NishantFor Respondent: Sh. Vikram Batra, CIT-DR

section 144(C)(13) r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for Assessment Years (AY) 2011-12 & 2014- 15, respectively. Since, the issues raised in grounds of appeal for both the impugned AYs are identical, these appeals are taken up together for adjudication and are decided by this common order

ACIT, CIRCLE, PANCHKULA vs. M/S HARYANA VIDYUT PRASARAN NIGAM LTD., PANCHKULA

In the result, we upheld the

ITA 1458/CHANDI/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Feb 2025AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Shri Harish Nayyar C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR

Section 10Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 194ASection 36Section 40

disallowance under section 14A r.w. Rule 8 D is warranted. The Ld. CIT(A) also referred to the decision of Jurisdictional Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Lakhani Marketing (2014(7) TMI 44

RAMJEE CONCRETES PVT.LTD.,MOHALI vs. ITO-WARD-6(3), CHANDIGARH

The appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms

ITA 205/CHANDI/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Jan 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 205/Chd/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Ramjee Concretes Private Limited, The Ito, बनाम #1238.Sector 91, Ward 6(3), Mohali, Punjab Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aafcr9457E अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri T.N. Singla, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ashok Khanna, Addl. CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250

disallowable expenditure under Section 40(a)(ii) of the IT Act. Ms. Linhares was unable to state whether the Revenue has appealed this decision. Mr. Ramani, learned Senior Advocate submitted that his research did not suggest that any appeal was instituted by the Revenue against this decision, which is directly on the point and favours the Assessee. 31. Mr. Ramani

SH. DHARAM PAL AGGARWAL,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, LUDHIANA

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

ITA 91/CHANDI/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Chandrakanta, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 250(6)Section 57

section 57 of the Act. Accordingly the disallowance of Rs. 15,44,043 made by the A.O. under section 57 of the Act was upheld

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)

44,84,484/- claimed by the assessee under section 35(1)(i) of the Income Tax Act holding that Dera Bassi plant is not engaged in 'scientific research' as required in section 35(1)(i) of the Act. ITA 350/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2017-18 3 (ii) That the above said disallowance

DCIT, C-5, LUDHIANA vs. M/S HERO CYCLES LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed and the Cross

ITA 1493/CHANDI/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Jun 2021AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Subhash Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. C. Chandrakanta, CIT

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

44,98,637/- + Rs. 24,54,078/-) is disallowed and added back to the taxable income of the assessee. Penalty proceeding u/s 271(l)(c) is initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income as discussed above. B) Disallowance of Interest u/s 36(l)(iii) on account of Advance to Hero Motor: - During the course of assessment proceedings assessee vide

SH. YOGINDER PAL SINGH GREWAL,PATIALA vs. ITO WARD-11(3)PUNE/ CURRENT JURISDICTIONA ASSESSING OFFICER ITO-WARD-5, PATIALA

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

ITA 228/CHANDI/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Oct 2021AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna, Addl. CIT

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

44-9-450, Overlock Road Miller Ganj, Ludhiana-141003, Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AORPS7984N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CA राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Ashok Khanna, Addl. CIT सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 26/10/2021 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 26/10/2021 आदेश

SH. KULWARAN SINGH,PATIALA vs. ITO WARD-11(3) PUNE/ CURRENT JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICERITO-WARD-4, PATIALA

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

ITA 230/CHANDI/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Oct 2021AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna, Addl. CIT

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

44-9-450, Overlock Road Miller Ganj, Ludhiana-141003, Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AORPS7984N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CA राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Ashok Khanna, Addl. CIT सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 26/10/2021 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 26/10/2021 आदेश

SH. YOGINDER PAL SINGH GREWAL,PATIALA vs. ITO WARD-11(3)PUNE/ CURRENT JURISDICTIONA ASSESSING OFFICER ITO-WARD-5, PATIALA

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

ITA 229/CHANDI/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Oct 2021AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna, Addl. CIT

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

44-9-450, Overlock Road Miller Ganj, Ludhiana-141003, Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AORPS7984N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CA राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Ashok Khanna, Addl. CIT सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 26/10/2021 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 26/10/2021 आदेश