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.

6 results for “disallowance”+ Section 43(5)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai5,147Delhi5,086Bangalore1,672Chennai1,630Kolkata1,408Ahmedabad863Jaipur665Hyderabad561Chandigarh381Pune365Indore353Surat306Raipur239Amritsar207Rajkot149Nagpur146Karnataka144Cochin139Visakhapatnam111Cuttack110Agra98Lucknow98Guwahati83Allahabad66Jodhpur60SC59Telangana54Calcutta45Patna32Ranchi31Dehradun29Panaji24Varanasi19Kerala14Jabalpur13Punjab & Haryana6Himachal Pradesh4Rajasthan3Orissa3A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1Gauhati1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1

Key Topics

Deduction6Section 35D5Section 260A3Section 803Addition to Income3Section 43B2Section 43(1)2Section 37(1)2Disallowance

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 260Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)

5 Tax Act, 1961 disregarding the fact that the partners had not withdrawn their own funds but the business funds which bear interest cost and in contradiction with the judgment of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Abhishek Industries Ltd. (2006) 286 ITR 1 (P&H)" (iii) That the appellant craves

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MUKERIAN PAPERS LTD

2
ITA/408/2006HC Punjab & Haryana14 Nov 2019

Bench: MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI,MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN

Section 35DSection 37Section 37(1)Section 43(1)

43(1) ? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in allowing expenditure relating to the public issue of debentures u/s 37(1) of the I.T.Act by ignoring the fact that such expenditure is covered u/s 35D of the I.T.Act ? 4. The first substantial question

C I T vs. M/S GLAXO SMITHKLINE CONSUMER HEALTHCARE LTD.

ITA/418/2008HC Punjab & Haryana05 Feb 2026

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

Section 260ASection 43BSection 80

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘1961 Act’) is seeking setting aside of order dated 21.09.2007 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh (for short ‘ITAT’). 2. The appellant has raised following questions for adjudication by this Court:- i. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ITAT was right

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ROHTAK vs. M/S CRYSTAL PHOSPHATES LTD

ITA/140/2013HC Punjab & Haryana28 Mar 2023

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

Section 144Section 80

5 and partially confirmed the addition of Rs.4,00,000/-, out of Rs.19,06,373/- mentioned at Sr. No.6, Rs.42,530/- out of Rs.1,08,733/- mentioned at Sr. No.7 and Rs.25 lakhs out of Rs.2,00,00,000/- mentioned at Sr. No.10. The CIT (A) had further enhanced the addition of Rs.5 lakhs to Rs.5,11,538/- mentioned

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

CIT, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LTD.

ITA/677/2008HC Punjab & Haryana05 Feb 2026

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

Section 260ASection 43BSection 80Section 80HSection 80I

disallowance of claim for deduction u/s 80-IB of the 1961 Act, in as much as the machineries had been installed in the same existing factory premises, which were in the nature of routine replacements with better capacity? ii. Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT is right in law in treating the expenditure incurred