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.

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

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai4,705Delhi3,741Chennai1,593Bangalore1,548Kolkata1,097Ahmedabad785Jaipur626Hyderabad367Indore351Chandigarh305Surat231Pune225Raipur191Nagpur133Cochin132Rajkot114Cuttack110Visakhapatnam108Amritsar98Lucknow95Karnataka91Agra90Allahabad66SC57Guwahati51Jodhpur46Calcutta42Telangana34Patna23Ranchi22Panaji21Varanasi19Dehradun19Kerala11Jabalpur9Punjab & Haryana3Rajasthan3Himachal Pradesh2A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1

Key Topics

Deduction3Addition to Income2

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5 Tax Act, 1961 disregarding the fact that the partners had not withdrawn their own funds but the business funds which bear interest cost and in contradiction with the judgment of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case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 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