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.

8 results for “disallowance”+ Section 65(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai4,141Delhi3,519Bangalore1,276Chennai1,186Kolkata940Ahmedabad515Hyderabad376Jaipur375Pune306Indore279Chandigarh195Surat177Cochin126Raipur109Rajkot99Lucknow96Nagpur94Karnataka75Visakhapatnam72Amritsar62Ranchi57Cuttack56Calcutta45Guwahati43Allahabad41Patna38Jodhpur37SC29Agra26Telangana18Dehradun14Jabalpur8Punjab & Haryana8Panaji8Varanasi6Rajasthan4Kerala3Himachal Pradesh2Orissa2ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 807Addition to Income7Section 260A6Disallowance6Section 271(1)(c)5Deduction5Section 115J4Section 80H2Depreciation

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)

65,663 13.16% 7. 1981-82 6,69,732 66,855 9.08% 8. 1982-83 (3 months) 1,72,537 16,376 8.66% 9. 1983-84 5,08,958 76,336 13.04% Thus, it was submitted that the A.O went on an erroneous presumption by assuming that the percentage of wastage of 13.04% is excessive just by looking

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)
2

65,810/-. In appeal, the 1st Appellate Authority quashed the disallowance of `7,70,72,993/- and addition was restricted to `1,85,92,817/-. For the addition sustained, penalty proceedings were initiated under Section

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX FARIDABAD vs. M/S NHPC LTD

The appeals stand disposed of

ITA/336/2015HC Punjab & Haryana20 Sept 2019

Bench: MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI,MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 2Section 2(24)Section 24Section 260ASection 28

1. “Whether, on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble ITAT was right in law in dismissing appeal of the Revenue observing that ‘ in view of categorical finding of the Supreme Court we hold that the CIT(A) was correct in holding that advance against depreciation cannot be added under the computation

SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CONSUMER BRANDS LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX PATIALA

ITR/33/1995HC Punjab & Haryana22 Dec 2025

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

Section 143Section 37Section 37(1)

1. As common issues are involved in the captioned petitions, with the consent of both sides, the same are hereby disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioner-M/s Smithkline Beecham Consumer Health Care Ltd. (for short ‘assessee’) is engaged in the business of manufacture of consumer products. The assessee is selling its products inside as well

CIT CHANDIGARH vs. M/S SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CONSUMER

ITA/351/2007HC Punjab & Haryana29 Jan 2026

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

Section 260ASection 43BSection 80Section 80H

1. The appellant through instant appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘1961 Act’) is seeking setting aside of order dated 28.02.2005 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh. 2. The appellant has raised following questions for adjudication by this Court:- (i) Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 CHANDIGARH vs. M/S SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CONSUMER HEALTHCARE LTD

ITA/325/2016HC Punjab & Haryana04 Feb 2026

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

Section 260ASection 80

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘1961 Act’) is seeking setting aside of order dated 05.04.2016 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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -II, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CONSUMER HEALTH CARE LTD.(NOW GLAXO SMITHKLINE CONSUMER HEALTHCARE LTD.)

Appeal stands disposed of

ITA/269/2009HC Punjab & Haryana19 Jan 2026

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

Section 260ASection 80

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is seeking setting aside of order dated 31.01.2025 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh. 2. 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

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

1. As common issues are involved in the captioned petitions, with the consent of both sides, the same are hereby disposed of by this common order. For the sake of brevity and convenience, facts are borrowed from ITA- 645-2008. 2. The appellant through instant appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short