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.

5 results for “disallowance”+ Section 36(1)(via)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai620Delhi533Chennai236Bangalore234Kolkata127Ahmedabad113Jaipur112Hyderabad82Chandigarh71Pune69Surat42Panaji35Indore30Cuttack27Cochin25Guwahati25Nagpur20Rajkot18Telangana16Amritsar15Jodhpur12Lucknow7Dehradun5SC5Visakhapatnam4Karnataka4Raipur4Calcutta3Varanasi3Allahabad2Ranchi1Rajasthan1Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Section 14A8Section 80I6Section 43B4Section 804Section 36(1)(viia)4Disallowance4Section 143(3)3Deduction3Section 143(2)2Section 69A

ACIT, NAINITAL vs. M/S. THE NAINITAL BANK LTD., UTTRAKHAND

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6018/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun05 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Mr. Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Bleassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri N.C. Upadhyay, Senior DRFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Rastogi, FCA
Section 10Section 14ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

disallowance out of interest made by the Assessing Officer has been rightly deleted by the CIT(A). In this view of the matter, we hereby affirm the order of CIT(A) and Revenue fails on this aspect. 7. Insofar as the second issue in this appeal is concerned, the same emanates from the action of the AO in scaling down

2
Addition to Income2

MUSSOORIE DEHRADUN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MDDA, TRANSPORT NAGAR DEHRADUN vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are dismissed as above

ITA 96/DDN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun21 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 43B

disallowance of Rs.28,080/- under section 43B r.w.s. 36(1)(va) of the Act is concerned, the Ld. AR submitted that the amount of Rs.28,080/- had been paid after the due date specified in the said Provident Act. However, the same had been paid before filing of the ITR. The Ld. AR submitted that the issue involved in this

MUSSOORIE DEHRADUN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MDDA, TRANSPORT NAGAR DEHRADUN vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT DEHRADUN

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are dismissed as above

ITA 95/DDN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun21 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 43B

disallowance of Rs.28,080/- under section 43B r.w.s. 36(1)(va) of the Act is concerned, the Ld. AR submitted that the amount of Rs.28,080/- had been paid after the due date specified in the said Provident Act. However, the same had been paid before filing of the ITR. The Ld. AR submitted that the issue involved in this

IMSI (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,DEHRADUN vs. JCIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 53/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun26 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri N.C. Upadhyay, CIT-DR
Section 234BSection 80Section 80I

VIA or in section 10A or section 10B, in relation to the profits and gains of the undertaking or enterprise. (6) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, no deduction shall be allowed to any undertaking or enterprise under this section, where the total period of deduction inclusive of the period of deduction under this section, or under the second proviso

SAURAV MALIK,DEHRADUN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 49/DDN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun24 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] [Assessment Year : 2017-18] Saurav Malik Vs Ito 100/2, Bell Road Clement Town 15A, Subhash Road, Near Hilton School, Dehradun Uttarakhand Uttarakhand-248002 Pan-Bdypm6527J Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Rajiv Sahini, Ca Revenue By Shri A.S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.12.2025

Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

1: Unexplained Cash Deposits - The AO made an addition of 269,36,030/- on account of unexplained cash deposits during the demonetization period, treating the entire deposit as undisclosed income under Section 69A. The appellant disputes this addition on the following grounds: The AO failed to bifurcate the deposited cash between old and new currency. A certificate from the bank