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 14A(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai5,377Delhi3,391Kolkata1,504Chennai1,493Bangalore827Ahmedabad467Pune245Hyderabad209Karnataka158Jaipur96Chandigarh90Cochin86Lucknow75Indore74Raipur60Visakhapatnam58Amritsar52Ranchi50Rajkot43Surat40Calcutta38Telangana23Cuttack20Guwahati19Jodhpur17Nagpur15Panaji15Orissa6Dehradun5Punjab & Haryana5Varanasi4Jabalpur4SC3Kerala3Patna2Himachal Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 14A10Section 2603Disallowance3Deduction2

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

3. Sin Assessment Yea impugned order years is the sam and decision at r BRIEF FACTS 4. The business of man 1997-1998, the (O&M) and other connected ca HARMA, J. ese appeals pertaining to Assess have been preferred against ord e Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cha 5 for the Assessment Years 1998 e following substantial questions Whether in fact

MASCOT FOOTCARE FARIDABAD THRG ITS PARTNER GUNJAN LAKHANI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX FARIDABAD (HARYANA)

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA/192/2012HC Punjab & Haryana12 May 2023

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

Section 143(1)Section 14ASection 260
Section 36
Section 36(1)
Section 36(1)(iii)

section 14A of the Act 1961. Similarly, the Assessing Officer disallowed interest of Rs. 3,25,674/- u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act pertaining

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, CHD vs. M/S AGRI KING TRACTORS AND EQUIPMENTS PVT. LTD.

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA/356/2019HC Punjab & Haryana29 Jan 2020

Bench: It Should Be Reinstated & Decided On Merits ?” Ii. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Itat Is Justified In Directing The Assessing Officer To Verify The Claim Of The Assessee Having Not Earned Any Exempt Income In The Year Under Consideration & Allow The Relief Accordingly, Ignoring The Legislative Intent Anuradha 2020.01.30 16:03 I Attest To The Accuracy & Integrity Of This Document

Section 14ASection 260

section 14A of the Income Tax Act or Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rule ?” v. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. ITAT is justified in directing the assessing officer to verify the claim of the assessee having not earned any exempt income in the year under consideration and allow the relief accordingly

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S TDS MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT PVT LTD

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA/382/2019HC Punjab & Haryana06 Feb 2020

Bench: It Should Be Reinstated & Decided On Merits ? (Ii) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Hon'Ble Itat Is Justified In Dismissing The Miscellaneous Application Of The Revenue Without Discussing The Merits Ignoring The Legislative Intent Expressed In Cbdt'S Anuradha 2020.02.12 17:37 I Attest To The Accuracy & Integrity Of This Document

Section 14ASection 260

section 14A of the Income Tax Act or Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rule ? (v) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT is justified in dismissing the Miscellaneous application and not deciding the merits, ignoring the principal of apportionment regardless of exempt income laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court decision

STATE BANK OF PATIALA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are allowed by way of remand to Tribunal which would pass fresh

ITA/390/2011HC Punjab & Haryana03 Dec 2025

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

Section 14ASection 41(4)

disallowance under Section 14A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘1961 Act’) on the securities held in stock. This issue stands settled by this Court in “Principle CIT Vs. State of Patiala”, (2017) 391 ITR 218 (P&H). The judgment of this Court stands affirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income