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.

1,220 results for “disallowance”+ Section 11(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai15,270Delhi12,765Bangalore4,494Chennai4,362Kolkata3,783Ahmedabad1,823Pune1,594Hyderabad1,410Jaipur1,220Indore719Chandigarh665Karnataka567Surat495Raipur444Cochin433Visakhapatnam348Rajkot338Lucknow319Nagpur259Amritsar243Panaji145Cuttack144Telangana144Jodhpur124Guwahati119SC117Ranchi111Agra100Patna99Calcutta89Allahabad81Dehradun72Kerala44Jabalpur35Punjab & Haryana21Varanasi21Orissa12Rajasthan11Himachal Pradesh7A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN5Gauhati2D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1Tripura1Uttarakhand1RANJAN GOGOI PRAFULLA C. PANT1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1ANIL R. DAVE AMITAVA ROY L. NAGESWARA RAO1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 26389Addition to Income74Section 143(3)64Disallowance58Section 14743Section 36(1)(va)41Section 43B35Section 14832Deduction27Section 139(1)

SCHOLARS EDUCATION TRUST OF INDIA,JAIPUR vs. CIT EXEMPTION, JAIPUR , JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1225/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Nov 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT
Section 10Section 10(23)(vi)Section 11(5)Section 13(1)Section 13(3)Section 153(5)Section 2(41)

2) and 13(3),\nit will reveal that the status of the Institution cannot be changed from 'charitable' to\n'non charitable' Institution if a minor violation is there. Sub-clause (3) of Section 13\nwould provide that if undue benefit is being provided to any Institution or individual\nbecause of its proximity with the Management, then that undue benefit

Showing 1–20 of 1,220 · Page 1 of 61

...
25
Section 35A25
Exemption14

RAJASTHAN OPHTHALMOLOGICAL SOCIETY, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 582/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. M.L. MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Hemang Gargieya, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR a
Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 234A

disallowed the claim for accumulation under section 11(2), observing that the investment in prescribed modes under section 11(5) was not made

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN CRICKET ASSOCIATION, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 66/JPR/2022[2005]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Jun 2022

Bench: The Hon’Ble Tribunal In The Interest Of Justice.

For Appellant: Shri Shyam Lal Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms Manisha Chandra, CIT fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(15)

11 of the I.T. Act 1961 to the assessee despite the fact that the proviso to section 2(15) is invoked in the case of the assessee as the activities of the assessee are being run on commercial basis, there being no element of charity. 2. Any other question of law as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS), WARD, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN CRICKET ASSOCIATION, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 68/JPR/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: The Hon’Ble Tribunal In The Interest Of Justice.

For Appellant: Shri Shyam Lal Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms Manisha Chandra, CIT fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(15)

11 of the I.T. Act 1961 to the assessee despite the fact that the proviso to section 2(15) is invoked in the case of the assessee as the activities of the assessee are being run on commercial basis, there being no element of charity. 2. Any other question of law as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION),WARD, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN CRICKET ASSOCIATION, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 67/JPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: The Hon’Ble Tribunal In The Interest Of Justice.

For Appellant: Shri Shyam Lal Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms Manisha Chandra, CIT fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(15)

11 of the I.T. Act 1961 to the assessee despite the fact that the proviso to section 2(15) is invoked in the case of the assessee as the activities of the assessee are being run on commercial basis, there being no element of charity. 2. Any other question of law as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances

M/S. RAJDHANI CRAFTS,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4 JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1281/JPR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Jan 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Vedant Agarwal (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT)
Section 10BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

section 143(2) of the Act was issued before passing the assessment order. This fact is also accepted by Ld A.O. in his remand report. 6. On the facts & circumstances of the case and in law also Ld. Lower authorities grossly erred in restricting the deduction u/s 10B of the Act to Rs 9,11,44,609/- as against claim

DCIT, CIRCLE EXEMPTION JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. STATE INSTITUTE OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, JAIPR

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 267/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Pooonia, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT-DR fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 139Section 139(1)Section 288Section 44A

disallowed the deduction for the amount accumulated under provisions of section 11. 5.3.2 In this regard, as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act, to claim exemptions u/s 11 and 12, conditions mentioned u/s 12A are to be fulfilled. The relevant part of the section 12A is reproduced hereunder. 12A [(1)] The provisions of section 11 and section

OM KOTHARI FOUNDATION,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. ITO, (EXEMPTION) WARD-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 57/JPR/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Anish Maheshwari, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl.CIT
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)Section 13(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 164(2)

section u/s 147/148 of 1.T. Act, 1961 & reopened the case. That the Ld. CIT(A) also erred in upholding the action of Ld. A.O. for reopening of Assessment. 2 OM KOTHARI FOUNDATION VS ITO (EXEMPTION), WARD -1 , JAIPUR 2. That the Ld. A.O. grossly erred on Law and Facts in not accepting the order of Higher Authorities

WHOLE SALE CLOTH MERCHANT ASSOCIATION ,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE KOTA , KOTA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 961/JPR/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Sept 2025AY 2014-2015
For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Ranka, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 40

section 11 to 13 of the Income\ntax Act.\n4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case ld. Lower Authorities\ngrossly erred in making addition of Rs. 33,50,772/- to the income of the\nassessee appellant trust while disallowing the benefit of exemption under\nsection 11(2

WHOLE SALE CLOTH MERCHANT ASSOCIATION ,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE KOTA , KOTA

ITA 962/JPR/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Sept 2025AY 2015-2016
For Respondent: \nMrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 40

Section 11 to 13 of the Income\ntax Act.\n4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case ld. Lower Authorities\ngrossly erred in making addition of Rs.33,50,772/- to the income of the\nassessee appellant trust while disallowing the benefit of exemption under\nSection 11(2

THE BANK OF RAJASTHAN EMPLOYEES CREDIT & THIRFT COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the results appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 213/JPR/2025[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jun 2025AY 2010-2011
For Appellant: Sh. Mukesh Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

11,47,419/-under the provision of section\n80P(2)(i) of Income Tax Act, 1961. It is not imperative repeat the facts but it is\nnotable that the AO did not accept the claim of the assessee and disallowed

SHRI GOVIND NARAIN JOHARI,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 287/JPR/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Although The Second Round Of Assessment Was Completed At The Directions Of Hon’Ble Itat.

For Appellant: Shri Hanif Khan (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Manisha Choudhary (JCIT)
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

disallowance of Rs. 16,02,991/- on account of interest paid for funds used in the WIP construction without any valid ground and hence needs to be deleted. 9. The assessee carves the right to add, delete, amend or abandon any ground of appeal before or during the course of hearing. The ld. A/R of the assessee has submitted that

THE JEWELLERS ASSOCIATION,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 197/JPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Jul 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal, Addl. CIT
Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 2Section 36

11 of the Act to the assessee holding that the activities of the assesee are purely commercial in nature and the provision of the first proviso to clause (15) of Section 2 read with Section 13(8) become applicable and the plea that the activities are charitable cannot be accepted in view of the amended provisions of Section 2

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN FINANCIAL CORPORATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 199/JPR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Jan 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: The Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Mathur (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT)
Section 115JSection 129(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(17)Section 2(18)

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer on account of bad debts but appellant challenged the action of Assessing Officer for application of provision of section 115JB in appeal. In appeal no. 5 Rajasthan Financial Corporation 610/14-15 dated 30.09.2016, CIT(A) has decided this issue in favour of assessee. Against this, department prefer appeal before Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur

JODHPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JODHPUR vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal in ITA no

ITA 666/JPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT)
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 234A

2(15), has not been breached. Similarly, the insertion of section 13(8), seventeenth proviso to section 10(23C) and third oroviso to section 143(3) (all w.r.e.f. 1-4-2009), reaffirm this interpretation and bring uniformity across the statutory provisions. 5.1.6 All the facts and circumstances related to the impugned action of Ld. AO in disallowing exemption u/s 11

JODHPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JODHPUR vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal in ITA no

ITA 665/JPR/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Apr 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 665 & 666/JPR/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2013-14 Jodhpur Development Authority 1, Opposite Railway Hospital, JDA Circle, Jodhpur. cuke Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption, Jodhpur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAALJ 0478 P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri Amit Kothari (C.A.) jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by:

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT)
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 234A

2(15), has not been breached. Similarly, the insertion of section 13(8), seventeenth proviso to section 10(23C) and third oroviso to section 143(3) (all w.r.e.f. 1-4-2009), reaffirm this interpretation and bring uniformity across the statutory provisions. 5.1.6 All the facts and circumstances related to the impugned action of Ld. AO in disallowing exemption u/s 11

AJAY BAKLIWAL,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

ITA 1275/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Apr 2025AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Sh. Rajendra Sisodia, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 132(1)Section 139Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)Section 250

11 On basis of revenue\naudit objection, Assessing Officer decided to reopen assessment of assessee by issuing\nnotice under section 148-Whether with effect from 1-4-2022, audit objection is one of\nreasons for reopening assessment as per clause (ii) of Explanation 1 to section 148 Held,\nyes Whether therefore, where revenue audit raised an objection that assessment

RAJASTHAN STATE BHARAT SCOUT AND GUIDE,JAIPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

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

ITA 382/JPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 11(5)

disallowing the appellant the benefit of accumulation of funds and investment u/s. 11(5) of the Income Tax Act. Hence, the order of the Assessing Officer is confirmed and appeal of the appellant is dismissed. However, the appellant may file condonation petition for delay before the Commission of Income Tax (Exemption). 7. In the result, the appeal of the appellant

RAJASTHAN STATE BHARAT SCOUT AND GUIDE,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HOLDING CHARGE OF ITO EXEMPTIONS, JAIPUR

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

ITA 381/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 11(5)

disallowing the appellant the benefit of accumulation of funds and investment u/s. 11(5) of the Income Tax Act. Hence, the order of the Assessing Officer is confirmed and appeal of the appellant is dismissed. However, the appellant may file condonation petition for delay before the Commission of Income Tax (Exemption). 7. In the result, the appeal of the appellant

SHRI DIGAMBER JAIN ATIKSHAYA KESHTRA,PADAMPUA vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD 1, KAILASH HEIGHTS

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 424/JPR/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev sogani (C.A)&For Respondent: Ms. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)
Section 11(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 24Section 253(3)

disallowed the claim of the assessee trust u/s 24(a) amounting to Rs.1,48,031 on the ground that no such deduction is available to trusts whose incomes are to be computed as per the provisions of section 11 and 12 of the Act. 2