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.

6 results for “disallowance”+ Section 80G(2)(a)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai328Delhi152Kolkata73Ahmedabad71Bangalore59Chennai57Pune42Jaipur36Hyderabad26Indore22Lucknow16Rajkot14Surat11Chandigarh6Visakhapatnam5Jodhpur5Raipur4Nagpur3Cochin3Amritsar2Ranchi2SC2Agra1Dehradun1Cuttack1Panaji1Allahabad1Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 1113Section 2507Section 12A6Section 80G6Exemption6Addition to Income4Section 1442Section 11(2)2Section 11(1)2Section 8

SIR AUROBINDO SOCIO ECONOMIC & MANAGEMENT RESEARCH INSTITUTE,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, C-1 (E), CHANDIGARH

In the result, whereas the assessee's appeal in ITA

ITA 1348/CHANDI/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(2)

2) for a period of 5 years. 3. Ground No. 1 is general in nature and needs no adjudication. 4. Apropos Ground No.2, the assessee contends that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in not allowing exemption u/s 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the assessee and in taxing the assessee as an AOP. ITA 1348 & 1375/CHD/2019

DCIT, C-1 (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S SHRI AUROBINDO SOCIO ECONOMIC & MANAGEMENT RESEARCH INSTITUTE, LUDHINA

2
Cash Deposit2
Charitable Trust2

In the result, whereas the assessee's appeal in ITA

ITA 1375/CHANDI/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(2)

2) for a period of 5 years. 3. Ground No. 1 is general in nature and needs no adjudication. 4. Apropos Ground No.2, the assessee contends that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in not allowing exemption u/s 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the assessee and in taxing the assessee as an AOP. ITA 1348 & 1375/CHD/2019

AGRICULTURE SKILL COUNCIL OF INDIA,GURGAON vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 1066/CHANDI/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Somil Aggarwal, Advocate (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 12ASection 8Section 80GSection 80G(5)(iii)

2 providing training services. The order further noted that the assessee had received payments with TDS deducted, which suggested that services were rendered for consideration in a commercial nature. 3. Relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT (Exemptions) v. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority [2022] 143 taxmann.com 278 (SC), the CIT (Exemptions) held

SMT RAMANANDI ANANGPURIA CHARITABLE TRUST,TAGORE PUBLIC SCHOOL, PALWAL vs. DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE 2, CHANDIGARH

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

ITA 239/CHANDI/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Akul Agarwal, C.A (Virtual Mode)For Respondent: Smt. Tarundeep Kaur, CIT, DR (Virtual Mode)
Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 144Section 80G

80G. It filed its return of income declaring nil income. The case was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) were issued. According to the Assessing Officer, despite opportunities the assessee did not satisfactorily substantiate its claims. The Assessing Officer, therefore, proceeded to complete the assessment ex parte under section 144 and assessed total

SANT KIRPAL VIDYAK MISSION,LUDHIANA vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH

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

ITA 561/CHANDI/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 May 2025AY 2017-18
Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 154Section 250

80G of IT Act if applicable\nd. Certificate of Registration from Charity Commissioner\ne. Certificate Details of any amendment made in the Trust Deed since\nincorporation.\n3.5 The assessee vide its reply dated 03.03.2021 had complied with the notice\nissued by the Assessing Officer. The reply of the assessee is available at page 41\nand 42, the typed copy

DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S ARYANS EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST, MOHALI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 880/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 880/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15 The Dcit, Vs. M/S Aryans Educational & बनाम Circle-1 (Exemptions), Charitable Trust, Chandigarh # 2129, Phase-X, Mohali "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aabta7550L अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent

For Appellant: Sh. Tej Mohan, Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 11Section 11(3)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(3)Section 13(3)(c)

2. Appeal on Ground No.1 is against the allowance of benefit u/s 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') by the ld. CIT(A) without appreciating that there is a clear violation of Section 13 of the Act since the Assessee had given undue benefit to specified person u/s 13(3) during