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.

289 results for “disallowance”+ Section 95clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai3,725 Delhi2,965 Chennai926 Bangalore878 Ahmedabad838 Kolkata804 Pune608 Hyderabad557 Jaipur406 Indore329 Chandigarh289 Surat199 Cochin179 Visakhapatnam172 Raipur140 Cuttack105 Amritsar100 Lucknow96 Agra88 Rajkot78 Nagpur73 Guwahati62 Calcutta47 Karnataka46 Ranchi46 Patna36 Allahabad27 Jodhpur23 Telangana23 Dehradun21 SC20 Panaji17 Jabalpur15 Varanasi5 Punjab & Haryana2 Orissa2 Kerala2 A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2 Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)50 Section 26347 Addition to Income40 Section 80I30 Section 25022 Section 14821 Deduction20 Exemption19 Disallowance18 Section 40

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)

disallowance of Rs. 1,95,20,496/- made by the A.O. by invoking the provisions of Section 14A of the Income

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

In the result, we upheld the

Showing 1–20 of 289 · Page 1 of 15

...

16

Section 143(2)15

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

section 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act vide order dt. 31/12/2023 wherein the reassessed income was determined at Rs. 2,54,79,04,707/- as against original assessed income of Rs. 1,56,95,34,890/-. The assessee thereafter carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who has since deleted the said addition and against

M/S STYLAM INDUSTRIES LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Department’s appeal in for assessment year

ITA 960/CHANDI/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Vineet Krishan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr.DR

Section 14ASection 195Section 40Section 40ASection 5(2)Section 6Section 9(1)

disallowed the payments under Section 40A(ia) of the Act. While doing so, the AO observed as follows : "2.6 The provisions of section 195 are applicable to all payees whether individual or of any other status who are covered under the definition of nonresident as per section 6 of the Income Tax Act. Under this section there is no threshold

M/S STYLAM INDUSTRIES LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Department’s appeal in for assessment year

ITA 394/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Vineet Krishan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr.DR

Section 14ASection 195Section 40Section 40ASection 5(2)Section 6Section 9(1)

disallowed the payments under Section 40A(ia) of the Act. While doing so, the AO observed as follows : "2.6 The provisions of section 195 are applicable to all payees whether individual or of any other status who are covered under the definition of nonresident as per section 6 of the Income Tax Act. Under this section there is no threshold

DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S STYLAM INDUSTRIES LTD., CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Department’s appeal in for assessment year

ITA 389/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Vineet Krishan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr.DR

Section 14ASection 195Section 40Section 40ASection 5(2)Section 6Section 9(1)

disallowed the payments under Section 40A(ia) of the Act. While doing so, the AO observed as follows : "2.6 The provisions of section 195 are applicable to all payees whether individual or of any other status who are covered under the definition of nonresident as per section 6 of the Income Tax Act. Under this section there is no threshold

DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S STYLAM INDUSTRIES LTD., CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Department’s appeal in for assessment year

ITA 1033/CHANDI/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Vineet Krishan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr.DR

Section 14ASection 195Section 40Section 40ASection 5(2)Section 6Section 9(1)

disallowed the payments under Section 40A(ia) of the Act. While doing so, the AO observed as follows : "2.6 The provisions of section 195 are applicable to all payees whether individual or of any other status who are covered under the definition of nonresident as per section 6 of the Income Tax Act. Under this section there is no threshold

NAHAR CAPITAL AND FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, C-7, LUDHIANA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1447/CHANDI/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. Jaikarna SinghFor Respondent: Sh. Ashish Abrol

Section 115Section 115JSection 14Section 14A

disallowance at Rs. 1,95,55,565/- following provisions of Section 14A r.w.r 8D. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed

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 36(1)(iii), of interest paid on sums borrowed from banks. The AO disallowed the claim. It was observed that the assessee had advanced money to its subsidiary company and this advance did not carry any interest. According to the AO, the assessee had borrowed money from the banks and had paid interest thereon. It was observed that deduction

M/S KAPSONS FASHION PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, C-2(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1014/CHANDI/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt.Diva Singh & Smt.Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.1014 To 1016/Chd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Jaspal Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Smt.Chanderkanta, Sr.DR

disallowance of an amount of Rs 6,95,680/- under section 36(1)(iii) being the amount of interest paid

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

95,598/-. From this, suo-moto disallowance of Rs. 11,79,624/- made by the assessee was subtracted, to arrive at final balance disallowance of Rs. 14,98,15,974/-. When the Ld. CIT(A) directed the amended provision of Rule 8D to be applied, the disallowance got to be calculated at Rs. 3,14,83,443/-. It remains undisputed

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

95,598/-. From this, suo-moto disallowance of Rs. 11,79,624/- made by the assessee was subtracted, to arrive at final balance disallowance of Rs. 14,98,15,974/-. When the Ld. CIT(A) directed the amended provision of Rule 8D to be applied, the disallowance got to be calculated at Rs. 3,14,83,443/-. It remains undisputed

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

95,598/-. From this, suo-moto disallowance of Rs. 11,79,624/- made by the assessee was subtracted, to arrive at final balance disallowance of Rs. 14,98,15,974/-. When the Ld. CIT(A) directed the amended provision of Rule 8D to be applied, the disallowance got to be calculated at Rs. 3,14,83,443/-. It remains undisputed

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

95,598/-. From this, suo-moto disallowance of Rs. 11,79,624/- made by the assessee was subtracted, to arrive at final balance disallowance of Rs. 14,98,15,974/-. When the Ld. CIT(A) directed the amended provision of Rule 8D to be applied, the disallowance got to be calculated at Rs. 3,14,83,443/-. It remains undisputed

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

95,598/-. From this, suo-moto disallowance of Rs. 11,79,624/- made by the assessee was subtracted, to arrive at final balance disallowance of Rs. 14,98,15,974/-. When the Ld. CIT(A) directed the amended provision of Rule 8D to be applied, the disallowance got to be calculated at Rs. 3,14,83,443/-. It remains undisputed

DCIT CIRCLE-4, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LTD, LUDHIANA

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 748/CHANDI/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Nov 2024AY 2010-11

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

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250(6)Section 253Section 263

95,35,851 Claim of depreciation Total 7,02,08,335 16,14,73,763 Total 26,19,11,875 27,10,09,614 Since, it could be clearly decipherable from the table that the assessee has got sufficient own funds, we hereby hold that no disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) is required and decline to interfere

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, LUDHIANA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED, -

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 796/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

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

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250(6)Section 253Section 263

95,35,851 Claim of depreciation Total 7,02,08,335 16,14,73,763 Total 26,19,11,875 27,10,09,614 Since, it could be clearly decipherable from the table that the assessee has got sufficient own funds, we hereby hold that no disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) is required and decline to interfere

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED, -

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 795/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

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

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250(6)Section 253Section 263

95,35,851 Claim of depreciation Total 7,02,08,335 16,14,73,763 Total 26,19,11,875 27,10,09,614 Since, it could be clearly decipherable from the table that the assessee has got sufficient own funds, we hereby hold that no disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) is required and decline to interfere

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4,, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED, -

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 794/CHANDI/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

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

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250(6)Section 253Section 263

95,35,851 Claim of depreciation Total 7,02,08,335 16,14,73,763 Total 26,19,11,875 27,10,09,614 Since, it could be clearly decipherable from the table that the assessee has got sufficient own funds, we hereby hold that no disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) is required and decline to interfere

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, , AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED, -

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 817/CHANDI/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

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

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250(6)Section 253Section 263

95,35,851 Claim of depreciation Total 7,02,08,335 16,14,73,763 Total 26,19,11,875 27,10,09,614 Since, it could be clearly decipherable from the table that the assessee has got sufficient own funds, we hereby hold that no disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) is required and decline to interfere

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED, -

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 177/CHANDI/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

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

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250(6)Section 253Section 263

95,35,851 Claim of depreciation Total 7,02,08,335 16,14,73,763 Total 26,19,11,875 27,10,09,614 Since, it could be clearly decipherable from the table that the assessee has got sufficient own funds, we hereby hold that no disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) is required and decline to interfere