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 40(1)(i)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai7,594Delhi6,480Chennai2,417Bangalore2,323Kolkata2,218Ahmedabad1,672Pune1,154Hyderabad1,077Jaipur996Indore596Chandigarh541Surat502Visakhapatnam384Cochin383Raipur308Cuttack298Rajkot280Nagpur266Karnataka240Amritsar237Lucknow155Guwahati122Ranchi100Allahabad97Panaji95Agra67Patna67Telangana64Jodhpur63Calcutta59SC57Dehradun53Jabalpur46Kerala30Varanasi28Orissa5Punjab & Haryana5Rajasthan4Gauhati2Himachal Pradesh1J&K1Tripura1Uttarakhand1ANIL R. DAVE AMITAVA ROY L. NAGESWARA RAO1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1

Key Topics

Section 404Section 294Section 115J4Section 143(3)3Disallowance3Section 1432Section 35B2Section 69C2Section 260A

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

1)(iii) interest paid in respect of cap fession shall be allowed. Meanin rrowed for the purpose of busin ame shall be deducted while com he Act. Section 28 of the Act fession which are chargeable to i dmittedly, appellant was doing /cloths upto the Assessment Yea ctivity. With the intention to c s certain amendments were mad e Board

CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OSD LUDHIANA vs. M/S CEIGALL INDIA LTD

ITA/61/2021HC Punjab & Haryana06 Aug 2022

Bench: Cit(A). The Same Was Partly Allowed. The Addition Made By Applying Net Profit Dinesh Kumar 2022.10.16 16:54 I Attest To The Accuracy & Integrity Of This Document

Section 143(3)Section 145Section 145(3)
2
Deduction2
Depreciation2
Addition to Income2
Section 260
Section 29
Section 40
Section 69C

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA-61-2021 (O&M) Date of decision : 06.08.2022 Chief Commissioner of Income Tax OSD Ludhiana .... Appellant Versus M/s. Ceigall India Ltd., Ludhiana .... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present: Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Sr. Standing Counsel and Ms. Pridhi Jaswinder

LALIT SINGLA R/O SARAI ALBEL SINGH OUTSIDE LAHORI GATE PATIALA PUNJAB vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TEX PATIALA PUNJAB

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA/111/2018HC Punjab & Haryana02 Dec 2019

Bench: MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI,MR. JUSTICE VIVEK PURI

Section 133Section 142Section 143Section 156Section 206CSection 260ASection 40Section 40A(3)

disallowance can be made without appreciating the chargeability of transactions to tax by way of TCS forms in accordance with Section 206CA r.w. Rule 114A substantiating the purchases made and the genuineness thereof ? 3 . A few facts necessary for adjudication of the instant appeal as narrated therein may be noticed. The assessee is in the business of retail selling

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX FARIDABAD vs. M/S NHPC LTD

The appeals stand disposed of

ITA/336/2015HC Punjab & Haryana20 Sept 2019

Bench: MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI,MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 2Section 2(24)Section 24Section 260ASection 28

1. “Whether, on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble ITAT was right in law in dismissing appeal of the Revenue observing that ‘ in view of categorical finding of the Supreme Court we hold that the CIT(A) was correct in holding that advance against depreciation cannot be added under the computation

SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CONSUMER BRANDS LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX PATIALA

ITR/62/1995HC Punjab & Haryana27 Nov 2025
Section 143Section 35BSection 40Section 40A(5)

1. As common issues are involved in the captioned petitions, with the consent of both sides, the same are hereby disposed of by this common order. For the sake of brevity and convenience, facts are borrowed from ITR-62-1995 (RA No.882/DEL/1993). 2. The petitioner-M/s Smithkline Beecham Consumer Health Care Ltd. (for short ‘assessee’) is engaged