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.

4 results for “disallowance”+ Section 35(1)(iii)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai4,366Delhi3,794Bangalore1,478Chennai1,098Kolkata933Ahmedabad557Jaipur480Hyderabad396Pune268Chandigarh226Raipur224Surat211Indore202Rajkot178Amritsar125Karnataka120Nagpur116Cochin106Lucknow87Visakhapatnam86Cuttack50SC48Guwahati47Calcutta44Telangana39Jodhpur31Allahabad30Patna28Kerala20Ranchi12Varanasi9Panaji9Dehradun7Agra6Jabalpur4Punjab & Haryana4Rajasthan4Himachal Pradesh2Orissa1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1ANIL R. DAVE AMITAVA ROY L. NAGESWARA RAO1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 112Section 260A2Penalty2Deduction2

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

iii) on the amo ed for utilisation in purchase of sment orders dated 19.03.2001, ars 1998-99, 1999-2000 and 200 on assumptions and presumptio erefore, argument raised by lear Officer has given different t allowing the deduction of amo ed for the purpose of trading in view of the above, the reasonin d for the purpose of purchase

M/S PUNJAB INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES, GARHA ROAD , JALANDHAR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX JALANDHAR AND ANR

ITA/271/2014HC Punjab & Haryana04 Dec 2024

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

Section 11

1, 2021.” 19. In Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority’s case (supra), the Supreme Court examined the scope and amplitude of definition of ‘charitable purpose’ and after examining the various judgments passed by the Apex Court from time to time, summarized as under:- “190. In light of the above discussion, this court is of the opinion that: (i) The fact that

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

disallowed the return of unrealized amount of Rs.10,50,000/- and added back the same to the income of the appellant and penalty proceedings under Section 271 (1)(c) of the IT Act were initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of account. The appellant filed appeal against order dated 29.12.2006 before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II, Ludhiana, who vide

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, JALANDHAR vs. M/S MAX INDIA LTD

Appeal is hereby dismissed in limine

ITA/272/2022HC Punjab & Haryana19 Oct 2023

Bench: MR. JUSTICE GURMEET SINGH SANDHAWALIA,MS. JUSTICE HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN

Section 260ASection 36(1)(iii)

section 36(1)(iii) on interest free loan given to sister concerns whereas the aassessee itself in the same year, has charged interest @ 13.5% on advances given to its another concerns M/s Pharmax Corp Ltd.? (ii) Whether on the facts of the case, Ld. ITAT has erred in law ignoring the AO’s finding that the assessee company has advanced