BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtAI 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.

7 results for “capital gains”+ Disallowanceclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai4,880Delhi3,397Chennai1,575Bangalore1,326Kolkata1,083Ahmedabad695Jaipur454Hyderabad412Pune347Indore191Chandigarh176Cochin142Raipur129Surat110Nagpur108Lucknow101Visakhapatnam66Rajkot66Panaji55SC49Karnataka44Amritsar39Calcutta39Guwahati38Cuttack37Dehradun26Agra26Jodhpur25Jabalpur21Ranchi20Patna19Kerala15Allahabad9Orissa7Punjab & Haryana7Telangana6Rajasthan3Varanasi3Himachal Pradesh1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1Gauhati1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1

Key Topics

Deduction5Addition to Income4Section 1433Section 35D3Disallowance3Section 2602Section 260A2Section 2712Depreciation

BHARTI BHUSHAN JINDAL vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LUDHIANA

ITA/385/2014HC Punjab & Haryana03 Jul 2025

Bench: MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA

Section 142(2)Section 143(2)Section 260ASection 271Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 41(1)Section 56Section 57

capital gains and income from other sources. Under the head ‘income from other sources’, in addition to bank interest, FDRs, interest on unsecured loans was shown against which, the appellant VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2025.07.07 10:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document ITA-385-2014 (O&M) -2- claimed Rs.10,50,000/- as “amount written

2
Penalty2

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 CHANDIGARH vs. M/S SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CONSUMER HEALTHCARE LTD

ITA/325/2016HC Punjab & Haryana04 Feb 2026

Bench: MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL,MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

Section 260ASection 80

disallowance of deduction of Rs. 11,94,97,875/- on account of balance of excise duty lying in PLA and RG23 as the payment was made before incurring the liability to pay such levy? 3. Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that questions No.3, 4, 5, 6, 7 & 8 stand answered by this Court

M/S VIJAY KUMAR GARG CONTRACTORS vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is allowed

ITA/110/2003HC Punjab & Haryana08 Aug 2024

Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH

capital gain of amount of Rs. 23,49,426 Was rom the income for working out an amount of Rs.23,49,426 from e side of Rs.2,86,65,379, the net 63,15,953. Likewsie, amount of on sale of shares was required

CIT-I CHANDIGARH vs. M/S PB.INFO&COMM. TECH. CORP. LTD. CHD.

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/398/2009HC Punjab & Haryana18 Jan 2023

Bench: MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI,MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA

Section 143Section 271

disallowed and these observations did not deserve to be interfered with. To fortify his arguments, learned counsel for the respondent-assessee has placed reliance upon the authorities cited as Principal of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Salarpuria Simplex Dwelling LLP, (2022) 216 DTR Judgments; Commissioner of Income Tax Chennai v. Bilahari Investment (P) Ltd., (2008) 4 Supreme Court Cases

M/S MAJESTIC AUTO LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF IT & ANR

ITA/290/2005HC Punjab & Haryana05 Dec 2025

Bench: MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL,MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

Section 260Section 35D

disallowed. 2. The matter relates to Assessment Year 1997-98. The appellant is engaged in the business of automobile parts. With intent to expand its business outside the country, it incurred travelling and staff expenses outside the country during 1995-96 and 1996-97. The appellant attempted to set up a unit in China. The project could not be materialized

M/S ROCKMAN CYCLES INDS. LTD. vs. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, LDH. AND ANR.

The appeals are allowed and impugned orders are

ITA/244/2005HC Punjab & Haryana09 Feb 2023

Bench: MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI,MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA

Section 143Section 260Section 37

disallowed both the claims of the assessee-Company, vide order dated 26.02.1999 (A-1). Feeling aggrieved against the above order, the appellant- Company preferred appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the same was partly allowed on 11.08.1999 (A-2) by allowing the claim of the assessee i.e qua the travelling expenditure as well as fees

M/S PANCHSHEEL TEXTILE MANFAC. & TRAD. vs. C I T AND ANR.

ITA/109/2007HC Punjab & Haryana13 May 2025

Bench: MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA

disallowed the e amount for inv ground that pur purpose of tradin 6. The Commissioner o 05.10.2004 allo order dated 17.0 1999-2000 and 05.10.2004 and who vide its ord 7. Hen SUBMISSIONS 8. Lea appellant to car amendment in th their meeting da stock-in-trade an learned Assessin the appellant ha (O&M) and other connected ca sessing