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.

7 results for “disallowance”+ Section 50(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai7,714Delhi6,407Chennai2,029Bangalore1,967Kolkata1,798Ahmedabad1,515Hyderabad866Jaipur816Pune647Indore530Chandigarh465Surat454Cochin335Raipur322Rajkot279Nagpur222Visakhapatnam180Amritsar172Lucknow162Cuttack154Karnataka150Allahabad93Jodhpur80Agra68Guwahati67Telangana65Ranchi60Patna59Calcutta59SC55Panaji55Dehradun37Jabalpur28Varanasi24Kerala19Punjab & Haryana7Orissa3Himachal Pradesh3Rajasthan3A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2Bombay1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Uttarakhand1Gauhati1ANIL R. DAVE AMITAVA ROY L. NAGESWARA RAO1

Key Topics

Addition to Income6Section 271(1)(c)5Penalty3Disallowance3Section 1432Section 2712Section 260A2Deduction2

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

3. Sin Assessment Yea impugned order years is the sam and decision at r BRIEF FACTS 4. The business of man 1997-1998, the (O&M) and other connected ca HARMA, J. ese appeals pertaining to Assess have been preferred against ord e Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cha 5 for the Assessment Years 1998 e following substantial questions Whether in fact

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 271
Section 36(1)(vii)
Section 36(2)
Section 41(1)
Section 56
Section 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-I CHANDIGARH vs. M/S PB.INFO&COMM. TECH. CORP. LTD. CHD.

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/398/2009HC Punjab & Haryana18 Jan 2023

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

Section 143Section 271

3) of the Act before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Chandigarh (for short “CIT (A)”) who vide order dated 09.11.2006, allowed the appeal of the assessee and deleted the disallowances so made. It was now the turn of the revenue to feel aggrieved by the order of CIT (A) who filed appeal before the Tribunal challenging the deletion

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

50,000/- received by the company was furnished. Hence, in the absence of records the same was treated as unexplained share application money and the same was added to the declared total income. (3) Addition of Rs.1,45,57,286/- was made as the assessee failed to prove the identity, creditworthiness of the parties from whom the alleged loans were

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX FARIDABAD vs. M/S PIYUSH COLONIZERS LTD.

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/300/2019HC Punjab & Haryana10 Feb 2020

Bench: MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI,MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN

Section 260ASection 271(1)(c)

50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court,Chandigarh ITA No. 300 of 2019 [3] dated 29.12.2009 by disallowing claim of indirect expenses thereby making an addition of `9,56,65,810/-. In appeal, the 1st Appellate Authority quashed the disallowance of `7,70,72,993/- and addition was restricted

M/S INDUSTRIAL CABLES (INDIA) LTD., RAJP vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATIALA & OR

ITA/129/2000HC Punjab & Haryana20 Jan 2020

Bench: MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI,MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN

Section 260

Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh in ITA No.487/Chandi/1992 for the assessment year 1990-1991 disallowing the credit of Rs.89,854/- to the sister concerns on the specific ground that the advances given to the sisters concerns were not proved to be relating

M/S SHREE DIGVIJAYA WOOLLEN MILLS LTD. AMRITSAR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOMT-TAX, AMRITSAR

ITR/3/2010HC Punjab & Haryana22 Mar 2024

Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA

Section 256(2)

50’s was near About Rs.7-8 per Kg. Therefore, the Cost of PVC wire was about Rs.15- TRIPTI SAINI 2024.03.22 11:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2024:PHHC:041731-DB ITR-3-2010 (O&M) -6- 16 per Kg. i.e. 5-6 yards. On a liberal Estimate the value is taken at Rs.20