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.

5 results for “disallowance”+ Section 72clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai4,109Delhi3,395Bangalore1,162Chennai1,107Kolkata861Ahmedabad547Hyderabad424Jaipur422Pune262Indore261Surat222Chandigarh204Rajkot156Raipur126Visakhapatnam105Cochin102Lucknow80Nagpur79Amritsar73Karnataka66Cuttack54Ranchi50Guwahati45Calcutta43Panaji36Allahabad36Jodhpur26SC22Telangana18Dehradun15Patna13Jabalpur12Varanasi12Kerala8Agra6Punjab & Haryana5MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1RANJAN GOGOI PRAFULLA C. PANT1Uttarakhand1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)5Addition to Income4Section 2(15)3Section 12A3Section 260A2

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)

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

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
Section 2(15)
Section 260A

72. The Tribunal rightly rejected the contention that to fall within the ambit of the words " advancement of any other object of general public utility" the trust must necessarily be involved only in implementing poverty alleviation programs or doing other acts of charity. It is sufficient if it does precisely what the last category in Section 2(15) states namely

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

Section 80-G. (10) The assessee-company had claimed total expenses of Rs.1,97,72,54,772/- under different heads in the P & L Account. No details were furnished by the assessee to prove the genuineness of these expenses. Moreover, the expenses under various heads were allowable only when TDS was deducted and deposited in the Government account. Since

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, JALANDHAR vs. M/S SUPERTECH FORGINGS PVT LTD

Appeal is dismissed

ITA/101/2022HC Punjab & Haryana05 Sept 2023

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

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

disallowed the entire purchases amounting to Rs.4,26,93,470/- holding as unverifiable purchases from the following parties:- Sr. No. Name of the concern Amount of purchases 1. Madan Lal Pahuja M/s. Shiv bholeKirpa Trade, Shivpuri, Ludhiana 1.05 Cr 2. Lovy Steel and Allied Industries, Sector 3, Gobindgarh 0.17 Cr 3. Jatinder Kumar Shree Nath Ispat Udhyog, Gobindgar

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)

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 at the data of previous two years without appreciating the fact that the wastage of percentage accepted by the department