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.

1,809 results for “disallowance”+ Section 11(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai15,492Delhi12,748Bangalore4,493Chennai4,339Kolkata3,835Ahmedabad3,148Pune2,984Hyderabad2,040Jaipur1,809Chandigarh1,140Surat1,101Indore1,007Cochin786Raipur678Visakhapatnam661Cuttack562Karnataka545Rajkot521Amritsar472Nagpur430Lucknow367Agra222Panaji221Jodhpur204Guwahati175Ranchi161Telangana145Allahabad128SC116Patna113Dehradun104Calcutta89Jabalpur60Varanasi47Kerala44Punjab & Haryana22Orissa12Rajasthan11Himachal Pradesh7A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN5Gauhati2H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1RANJAN GOGOI PRAFULLA C. PANT1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1ANIL R. DAVE AMITAVA ROY L. NAGESWARA RAO1Andhra Pradesh1Tripura1Uttarakhand1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1

Key Topics

Section 26392Addition to Income75Section 143(3)67Disallowance62Section 14744Section 36(1)(va)40Section 14834Section 43B31Deduction28Section 35A

M/S VIJAYETA BUILDCON PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 980/JPR/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Oct 2020AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Sh. S. R. Sharma (CA) &For Respondent: Sh. B. K. Gupta (CIT)
Section 153ASection 253(5)Section 40A(3)

11 M/s Vijayeta Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT 20. A question may arise as to how this is sought to be achieved where an assessment order had already been passed in respect of all or any of those six assessment years, either under Section 143(1)(a) or Section 143(3) of the Act. If such an order is already

A DAGA ROYAL ARTS,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Showing 1–20 of 1,809 · Page 1 of 91

...
25
Section 143(1)23
Exemption15
ITA 1065/JPR/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 May 2018AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani (C.A)For Respondent: Shri J. C. Kulhari (JCIT)
Section 40A(3)

disallowed u/s 40A(3) of the Act. The Hon’ble High Court held that rule 6DD(j) is not exhaustive of the circumstances in which the proviso to section 40A(3) is applicable and it only illustrative. The Hon’ble High Court refers to the decision of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in case of Smt. Harshila Chordia

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

11(2) amounting to Rs 50,00,00,00. In this regard, the Assessing officer has stated in his assessment order that the assessee society has allowed certain benefits to persons covered under section 13(3) by way of salary and foreign travel expenditure which has been disallowed

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. JADAU JEWELLERS & MFG (P) LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and that of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 502/JPR/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Feb 2017AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal and Shri Gulshan Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma, Addl.CIT - DR
Section 142Section 144Section 153A

3) in the ground no 11 and 12 above and covered by my findings made in ground no 11 & 12 above. Therefore in view of various judicial pronouncements, the addition on account of disallowance made u/s 40(a)(ia) cannot be sustained where the profit was estimated by rejecting the books of account and by applying the provisions of section

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: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 40

section 11 (2) and 11(1)(a) of the Act 33,50,772/- 33,50,772/- 5. Unverifiable Creditors 16,75,286/- 16,75,286/- 6. 15% of Construction Expenses 1,20,00,440/- 1,20,00,440/- 7. Disallowance of Rs 3

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,EXEMPTIONS,CIRCLE,JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. GLOBAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY SOCIETY, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN

In the results the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 175/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh, (Addl.CIT)
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)Section 13(3)Section 143(3)Section 147

disallowing the exemption u/s 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 claimed by the assessee .The assessee has not violated any condition laid down in provisions of section 13 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The provisions of section 13 are quoted below- Section 11 not to apply in certain cases. Section 13. (1) Nothing contained in section 11

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)

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 is to be brought\nto tax but Section 11 and 12 would not be denied to the overall Society/Institution.\nTherefore, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in not analytically examining

ACIT, CIRCLE, BHARATPUR vs. M/S. JAGDAMBE STONE COMPANY, BHARATPUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1171/JPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Mar 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Gupta (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Rooni Paul (Addl.CIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 143(2)Section 194C(6)Section 194C(7)Section 40

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) read with section 194C of the Act. IN this regard, he placed reliance on the judgement of ITAT Kolkata in the case of Soma Rani Ghosh Vs DCIT Kolkata, ITA No. 1420/KOL/2015. Once the conditions of Section 194C(6) is satisfied, the liability to deduct the TDS would cease and accordingly, application of section

SUBHASH PARETA,KOTA vs. ACIT, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and the revenue are disposed off with above directions

ITA 434/JPR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Oct 2017AY 2011-12
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S.L.Chandel (Addl. CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 142Section 40A(3)Section 69Section 69C

disallowance under section 40A(3) has been rightly deleted by the ld CIT(A). The ground no. 2 of revenue’s appeal is accordingly dismissed. 29. Regarding ground No. 3 of the Revenue’s appeal relating to deletion of addition on account of unexplained expenditure of Rs 1,18,34,723 under Section 69C, briefly the facts of the case

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN vs. NAVRATAN VIDHA MANDIR SHIKSHA SAMITI, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN

In the result appeal filed by the Department is dismissed and the C

ITA 201/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri P.C.Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 11(5)Section 13(1)(d)Section 145(3)

disallowance of Rs.30,35,538/- being 10% of the amount of Rs. 3,03,53,582/- claimed as application of income. 3. First of all, we take up the appeal of the Department for adjudication in relation to the above mentioned grounds of appeal. 3.1 Apropos Ground No. 1 to 3 raised by the Department wherein

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE, JAIPUR vs. MODERN SCHOOL SOCIETY, KOTA

In the result, this appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1362/JPR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Jan 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1361 & 1362/Jp/2018 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner Of Cuke M/S Modern School Society, Vs. Income Tax (Exemptions) Sector-A, Talwandi, Kota Circle, Jaipur. (Rajasthan) Pan No.: Aaatm 7045 H Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 357/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Deputy Commissioner Of Cuke M/S Modern School Society, Vs. Income Tax (Exemptions) Sector-A, Talwandi, Kota Circle, Jaipur. (Rajasthan) Pan No.: Aaatm 7045 H Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Rooni Paul (Addl.Cit-Dr) Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Rajiv Sogani (Ca) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 21/12/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 18/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Jaipur Dated 04/09/2018 & 12/12/2018 For The A.Y. 2011-12 To 2013-14 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Sogani (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Rooni Paul (Addl.CIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 10Section 11Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(1)(d)Section 13(2)(h)Section 13(3)

11(5) of the Income Tax Act. 26. Undue Benefit given to the specified persons: The ld. CIT(E) noted that the assessee made payment on account of salary to the persons allegedly covered u/s 13(3) of the Act. The details of the payments are given in para 6.1 of the impugned order as under:- 36 ITA 1361 & 1362/JP/2018

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE, JAIPUR vs. MODERN SCHOOL SOCIETY, KOTA

In the result, this appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1361/JPR/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Jan 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1361 & 1362/Jp/2018 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner Of Cuke M/S Modern School Society, Vs. Income Tax (Exemptions) Sector-A, Talwandi, Kota Circle, Jaipur. (Rajasthan) Pan No.: Aaatm 7045 H Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 357/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Deputy Commissioner Of Cuke M/S Modern School Society, Vs. Income Tax (Exemptions) Sector-A, Talwandi, Kota Circle, Jaipur. (Rajasthan) Pan No.: Aaatm 7045 H Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Rooni Paul (Addl.Cit-Dr) Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Rajiv Sogani (Ca) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 21/12/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 18/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Jaipur Dated 04/09/2018 & 12/12/2018 For The A.Y. 2011-12 To 2013-14 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Sogani (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Rooni Paul (Addl.CIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 10Section 11Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(1)(d)Section 13(2)(h)Section 13(3)

11(5) of the Income Tax Act. 26. Undue Benefit given to the specified persons: The ld. CIT(E) noted that the assessee made payment on account of salary to the persons allegedly covered u/s 13(3) of the Act. The details of the payments are given in para 6.1 of the impugned order as under:- 36 ITA 1361 & 1362/JP/2018

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE, JAIPUR vs. MODERN SCHOOL SOCIETY, KOTA

In the result, this appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 357/JPR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Jan 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1361 & 1362/Jp/2018 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner Of Cuke M/S Modern School Society, Vs. Income Tax (Exemptions) Sector-A, Talwandi, Kota Circle, Jaipur. (Rajasthan) Pan No.: Aaatm 7045 H Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 357/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Deputy Commissioner Of Cuke M/S Modern School Society, Vs. Income Tax (Exemptions) Sector-A, Talwandi, Kota Circle, Jaipur. (Rajasthan) Pan No.: Aaatm 7045 H Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Rooni Paul (Addl.Cit-Dr) Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Rajiv Sogani (Ca) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 21/12/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 18/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Jaipur Dated 04/09/2018 & 12/12/2018 For The A.Y. 2011-12 To 2013-14 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Sogani (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Rooni Paul (Addl.CIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 10Section 11Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(1)(d)Section 13(2)(h)Section 13(3)

11(5) of the Income Tax Act. 26. Undue Benefit given to the specified persons: The ld. CIT(E) noted that the assessee made payment on account of salary to the persons allegedly covered u/s 13(3) of the Act. The details of the payments are given in para 6.1 of the impugned order as under:- 36 ITA 1361 & 1362/JP/2018

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)

11 of I.T. Act. 1961 and also held that the 'A' has made investment in violation of Sec. 13(1) (d) and thereby taxed the income u/s. 164(2) and(3). That the Ld. CIT(A) also erred in not allowing the ground. 4. That the Id A.O. grossly erred disallowing the donation Expenses

M/S SKYWAYS TOWNSHIP PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of the assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 824/JPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jun 2021AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Vedant Agarwal (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Ambrish Bedi (CIT-DR)
Section 2(22)(e)Section 40A(3)

disallowed the same stating that it is in violation of Section 40A(3). It was submitted before us by the ld AR that the cheques of Rs. 42,00,000/- which are placed at page Nos. 11

SMT. MANJU GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of the assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 251/JPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jun 2021AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Vedant Agarwal (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Ambrish Bedi (CIT-DR)
Section 2(22)(e)Section 40A(3)

disallowed the same stating that it is in violation of Section 40A(3). It was submitted before us by the ld AR that the cheques of Rs. 42,00,000/- which are placed at page Nos. 11

M/S SKYWAYS TOWNSHIP PVT LTD. 1/2 LIC FLATS, VIDYADHAR NAGAR, SECTOR-6, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of the assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 250/JPR/2019[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jun 2021AY 2015-2016
For Appellant: Shri Vedant Agarwal (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Ambrish Bedi (CIT-DR)
Section 2(22)(e)Section 40A(3)

disallowed the same stating that it is in violation of Section 40A(3). It was submitted before us by the ld AR that the cheques of Rs. 42,00,000/- which are placed at page Nos. 11

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

3 Rajasthan Ophthalmological Society, Jaipur. . appellant’s account with Oriental Bank of Commerce (a Scheduled Bank) as on 31.03.2018, and was subsequently invested in fixed deposit receipts on 07.04.2018 and 09.04.2018 with the same bank. 4.1 The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim for accumulation under section 11

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)

disallowing the benefit u/s 11 assessed the total income of Rs 20,28,203/-. The AO mentioned in the order dated 29.03.2013 that withdrawal of registration by Ld. CIT (Exemptions) was sufficient reason to believe that surplus or expenditure which has been claimed as exempted was not exempt and the assessee society is not entitled to exemption u/s 11

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)

disallowing the benefit u/s 11 assessed the total income of Rs 20,28,203/-. The AO mentioned in the order dated 29.03.2013 that withdrawal of registration by Ld. CIT (Exemptions) was sufficient reason to believe that surplus or expenditure which has been claimed as exempted was not exempt and the assessee society is not entitled to exemption u/s 11