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.

973 results for “disallowance”+ Section 10(23)(c)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai5,757Delhi5,348Bangalore2,045Chennai1,474Kolkata1,436Ahmedabad1,231Jaipur973Pune812Hyderabad759Chandigarh544Indore474Surat351Raipur329Cochin246Amritsar238Visakhapatnam210Rajkot179Cuttack159Karnataka156Lucknow123Nagpur116Agra107Guwahati87Jodhpur87Allahabad71SC64Panaji54Telangana50Calcutta47Ranchi44Varanasi31Dehradun25Kerala25Jabalpur14Patna11A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN4Rajasthan4Punjab & Haryana3Himachal Pradesh3Orissa2H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1ANIL R. DAVE AMITAVA ROY L. NAGESWARA RAO1Gauhati1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1

Key Topics

Addition to Income76Section 143(3)66Disallowance37Section 6835Section 36(1)(va)33Section 14732Section 143(1)28Section 14825Section 26325Section 11

RADHEY CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 822/JPR/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Apr 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri S.L.Poddar (Advocate)For Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma(Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 22Section 23Section 40A(3)

10. From the above, it becomes clear that it is not necessary that the property has been let out for computing the annual value because what is required u/s 23(1)(a) of the Act is a sum for which property might be let out. In case of let out properties section 23(1)(b) of the Act is applicable

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. GURU PRAGYA INFRA (P) LTD., JAIPUR

Showing 1–20 of 973 · Page 1 of 49

...
22
Deduction19
Reassessment9
ITA 417/JPR/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jan 2017AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Roshanta Meena (JCIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 147Section 80I

disallowed the claim of deduction for the reason that assessee has not fulfilled the following conditions prescribed u/s 80- IB(10):- (i) As per section 80-IB(10)(a), the project must be completed within five years from the end of the financial year in which it is approved by the Local Authority. The period of five years expired

INSTITUTE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE ITI JHALAWAR,JHALAWAR vs. ITO WARD JHALAWAR, JHALAWAR

The appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

ITA 41/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2025AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 10Section 144Section 147Section 151Section 234

c) association or institution referred to in clause (23A) of section 10;\n(ca) person referred to in clause (23AAA) of section 10;\n(d) institution referred to in clause (23B) of section 10;\n(e) fund or institution referred to in sub-clause (iv) or trust or institution referred to\nin sub-clause (v) or any university or other

INSTITUTE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE ITI JHALAWAR ,JHALAWAR vs. ITO WARD JHALAWAR, JHALAWAR

The appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

ITA 39/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 10Section 144Section 147Section 151Section 234

c) association or institution referred to in clause (23A) of section 10;\n(ca) person referred to in clause (23AAA) of section 10;\n(d) institution referred to in clause (23B) of section 10;\n(e) fund or institution referred to in sub-clause (iv) or trust or institution referred to\nin sub-clause (v) or any university or other

VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, the penalty is directed to be deleted and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 730/JPR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Dec 2018AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta (C.A.) &For Respondent: Smt. Roli Agarwal (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 92C

23. Our attention was drawn to Explanation 7 to section 271(1)(c) which reads as under: “Explanation 7.—Where in the case of an assessee who has entered into an international transaction or specified domestic transaction defined in section 92B, any amount is added or disallowed in computing the total income under sub-section (4) of section 92C, then

VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, the penalty is directed to be deleted and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 731/JPR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Dec 2018AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta (C.A.) &For Respondent: Smt. Roli Agarwal (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 92C

23. Our attention was drawn to Explanation 7 to section 271(1)(c) which reads as under: “Explanation 7.—Where in the case of an assessee who has entered into an international transaction or specified domestic transaction defined in section 92B, any amount is added or disallowed in computing the total income under sub-section (4) of section 92C, then

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 197/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Hemang Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (through V.C.) a
Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)

10 Shri Nath Corporation & Ors., Jaipur. income for such year has not been furnished before the said date of search. Therefore, wherever the Legislature intended to impose a penal liability covering a case where return was yet to be filed, a deeming fiction has been consciously provided. In the absence of any such deeming fiction imposing penalty in a case

KANHAIYALAL RAMESHWAR DAS,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

ITA 1454/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Oct 2025AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Rajnikant Bhatra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR (Thru: V.C)
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 154Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

disallowance of unabsorbed depreciation.\nThe assessee filed the appeal before the Id. CIT(A)-4, Jaipur which\nwas disposed off vide order 04-04-2018 by the Id. CIT(A). After giving the\neffect of the above order, the assessed income was reduced to\nRs.1,05,94,050/- which was as declared in the revised return of income\nfiled

RAJASTHAN STATE TEXT BOOK BOARD,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-CIRCLE, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 252/JPR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Gupta (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)
Section 10Section 10(22)Section 143(3)

c) Utilizing the funds given by the Government of Rajasthan, Central Government or other institutions for schemes of publication of amenities of educational interest, teaching aids reference books, and the like. (29) To do and execute, in general, such lawful acts, deeds, matters and things as are conducive or incidental to or for the attainment of the aforesaid objects

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA , JAIPUR vs. SHRI NATH CORPORATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 267/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Sept 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Hemang Gargieya, Adv. &
Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)

10,463/- which was detected during the survey proceedings u/s 133A of the I.T. Act?\"\n3.3 In ITA No. 197/JPR/2024, the Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:-\n\"1. 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of this case, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in deleting the penalty of Rs.1,01,50,594/- u/s 271(1)(c

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 JAIPUR vs. SHRI PRAKASH CHAND SHARMA, C-42, GOKUL PATH VAISHALI NAGAR, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 778/JPR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Ao On The Charge Of Concealment Of Income.

For Appellant: Shri PC Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

disallowance of certain expenses, since this issue has been set aside by the Tribunal to the record of the AO, therefore the addition itself is no more in existence and consequently the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) in respect of such addition would not survive. Therefore, the penalty levied by the AO against the additions made

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 JAIPUR vs. SHRI PRAKASH CHAND SHARMA, C-42, GOKUL PATH VAISHALI NAGAR, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 776/JPR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Ao On The Charge Of Concealment Of Income.

For Appellant: Shri PC Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

disallowance of certain expenses, since this issue has been set aside by the Tribunal to the record of the AO, therefore the addition itself is no more in existence and consequently the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) in respect of such addition would not survive. Therefore, the penalty levied by the AO against the additions made

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 JAIPUR vs. SHRI PRAKASH CHAND SHARMA, C-42, GOKUL PATH VAISHALI NAGAR, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 777/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Ao On The Charge Of Concealment Of Income.

For Appellant: Shri PC Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

disallowance of certain expenses, since this issue has been set aside by the Tribunal to the record of the AO, therefore the addition itself is no more in existence and consequently the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) in respect of such addition would not survive. Therefore, the penalty levied by the AO against the additions made

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAIPUR vs. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 196/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Sept 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Hemang Gargieya, Adv. &
Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)

10,463/- which was detected during the survey proceedings u/s 133A of\nthe I.T. Act?\"\n3.3 In ITA No. 197/JPR/2024, the Revenue has raised the following\ngrounds of appeal:-\n\"1. 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of this case, the Ld. CIT(A) is\njustified in deleting the penalty of Rs.1,01,50,594/- u/s 271(1)(c

SHARMA MODERN PUBLIC SCHOOL SHIKSHA SAMITI,JAIPUR vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), ALWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 462/JPR/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Jun 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: The Ld. Cit (A)

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal &For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Jha (Addl. CIT)
Section 10

23,55,266/- was claimed as exempt under section 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Act. The ld. A/R has submitted that the entire gross receipt of the assessee society is from running of educational institution and, therefore, the assessee is wholly and exclusively earning income from the activity of imparting education. Thus the ld. A/R has contended that when

ACIT(EXEMPTION), JAIPUR vs. MAHIMA SHIKSHA SAMITI, JAIPUR

In the result, all the grounds taken by the Revenue are dismissed and ground taken by the assessee society is allowed

ITA 105/JPR/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Mar 2017AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta (CA)For Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar (CIT)
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 143(3)Section 32

disallowance relating to salary, foreign travel and treating contribution to Jaipur National University as application of income. The assessee society is in appeal against the order of ld CIT(A) for not treating the allowance of depreciation as application of income. 4. The first question that arises in the present appeal is the entitlement of the assessee society to exemption

RUPESH TAMBI,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is Partly allowed

ITA 1470/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Oct 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri S. R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 1Section 132Section 133ASection 271Section 271A

disallowances and additions. The penalty proceeding\nu/s 271AAB of the IT Act, 1961 has been initiated on the ground that assessee\nduring the course of search in the statement recorded u/s 132(4) offered a sum of\nRs.49,50,000/- on account of investment in construction of house and\nRs.20,28,903/- on account of excess value of stock found

VISION JEWELLERS,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 530/JPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

disallow said payments under section 40A(3), assessee offered that its income might be computed by applying net profit rate of 8 per cent of gross receipts - Assessing Officer having accepted 8 VISION JEWELLERS VS DCIT CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR assessee's offer, made addition in terms of section 44AD - He also passed a penalty order under section 271(1)(c

SMT. JYOTI AGARWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA nos

ITA 1373/JPR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Mar 2019AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 271A

23,519/- on account of disallowance of interest claim expenses. The AO then initiated the proceedings for levy of penalty under section 271AAB of the IT Act by issuing a show cause notice dated 27.12.2017. The AO while passing the penalty 3 ITA Nos. 1373(4)-18/JP/2018 Smt. Jyoti Agrawal, Kota. order dated 27st June, 2018 has levied

SMT. INDIRA AGRAWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1384/JPR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Mar 2019AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 271A

disallowance of interest claim expenses. The AO then initiated the proceedings for levy of penalty under section 271AAB of the IT Act by issuing a show cause notice dated 27.12.2017. The AO while passing the penalty order dated 27th June, 2018 has 3 ITA Nos. 1384(4)/JP/2018 Smt. Indira Agrawal, Kota. levied the penalty under section 271AAB