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 43(6)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai5,097Delhi5,051Bangalore1,664Chennai1,626Kolkata1,376Ahmedabad1,164Jaipur738Hyderabad590Pune408Indore404Chandigarh404Surat320Raipur236Amritsar209Cochin205Rajkot173Nagpur161Cuttack144Karnataka143Visakhapatnam118Agra108Jodhpur100Lucknow97Guwahati92Allahabad67SC58Telangana52Calcutta43Ranchi40Patna32Dehradun30Panaji24Varanasi19Jabalpur18Kerala14Himachal Pradesh4Punjab & Haryana4Rajasthan3Orissa3A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1Gauhati1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1

Key Topics

Section 35D5Deduction4Addition to Income3Section 43(1)2Section 37(1)2

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)

6 For earlier years, disallowance has to be worked out on ‘reasonable basis’ under Section 14 (A) (1). 9. In the present case, the assessment year is 2006-07 and hence disallowance has to be worked out on reasonable basis under Section 14 A . The method prescribed for the purpose of section 14A of the Act is contained in Rule

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

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

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

6) The assessee has diverted its borrowed funds to non- interest bearing advances to the tune of Rs.1,58,86,441/-. As such interest of Rs.19,06,373/- worked out @12% on interest free advances was disallowed. (7) The assessee had debited expenses on account of charity and donation of Rs.66,203/- and gift expenses of Rs.42,530/-, totaling

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