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 48clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai5,063Delhi4,346Bangalore1,413Chennai1,230Kolkata1,117Ahmedabad648Jaipur489Hyderabad459Indore322Pune279Surat234Chandigarh218Raipur209Amritsar160Cochin160Rajkot131Visakhapatnam127Nagpur121Karnataka114Lucknow97Cuttack66Allahabad66Panaji63Calcutta53Guwahati53Ranchi47Jodhpur43SC41Agra32Telangana25Dehradun21Varanasi18Patna17Kerala17Jabalpur10Punjab & Haryana4Orissa2Rajasthan2ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Uttarakhand1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 260A3Section 2(15)3Section 12A3Section 802Section 112Deduction2Addition to Income2Exemption2Penalty

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

disallowed to get benefit of Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’). ITA No. 33 of 2022 has been filed by the assessee arising out of order dated 12.11.2021 passed by the ITAT dismissing its ITA No.1426/Chd/2018 for the assessment year 2015-2016, upholding the order of the CIT (A) declaring the assessee not entitled

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CHANDIGARH vs. M/S IMPROVEMENT TRUST BATHINDA

The appeals are hereby dismissed

ITA/161/2016HC Punjab & Haryana17 Nov 2025

Bench: MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL,MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA

Section 12A
2
Section 2(15)
Section 260A

48 dated 26.08.2008 (free of cost). (f) The Trust has given as “Charity” of 'town cleaning machine' (vaccum Machine) to the Municipal Corporation, Bathinda, for Rs. 64.86 Lakhs vide Resolution No.56 (app. Rs. Ten Lacs) vide Letter No.1146 dated 24.09.2007 (free of cost). (g) To provide Land as well as construction of building for 14 plots measuring 1512 sq. ydds

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -II, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S GLAXO SMITHKLINE CONSUMERS, PATIALA

ITA/645/2008HC Punjab & Haryana27 Jan 2026

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

Section 260ASection 80Section 80HSection 80M

48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document ITA-645-2008; and ITA-263-2009 -2- 3. The appellant has raised following questions for adjudication by this Court:- (i) Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT is right in law in permitting the change in method of accounting with regard