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.

173 results for “disallowance”+ Section 120(4)(b)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,151Mumbai1,089Bangalore448Kolkata274Ahmedabad242Chennai241Pune223Jaipur173Hyderabad142Chandigarh136Cochin92Indore91Raipur85Surat65Cuttack51Lucknow38Calcutta36Amritsar31Visakhapatnam31Karnataka28Rajkot26Allahabad26Guwahati24Nagpur19Panaji16Ranchi14Jodhpur12SC11Patna10Agra9Varanasi5Jabalpur3Kerala2Telangana2A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2Rajasthan1Punjab & Haryana1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Dehradun1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1

Key Topics

Addition to Income72Section 143(3)70Disallowance47Section 271(1)(c)43Section 271A42Section 6835Section 15430Section 145(3)25Section 35A25Section 14A

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

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 the penalty under section 271AAB

Showing 1–20 of 173 · Page 1 of 9

...
19
Deduction19
Penalty15

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

JAJOO RASHMI REFRACTORIES LIMITED,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 4-JAIPUR,, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purposes

ITA 209/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Aug 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Ms. Prabha Rana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT-DR
Section 131Section 145Section 147Section 69C

B. P. Mundra\nPage 7 of 8\n7\nITA NOP. 209/JPR/2025\nJAJOO RASHMI REFRACTORIES LTD VS DCIT, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR\nThus, treating purchases worth Rs.1,82,05,040/- as bogus purchases without rejecting\nbooks of accounts is bad in law & facts.\n2. Kindly allow to submit GOA 2 and GOA 4 to GOA 6 together.\nGOA 2: \"That the order

SHRI MANOJ MOONDHRA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

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

ITA 857/JPR/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Mar 2019AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Advocate)For Respondent: Smt. Neena Jeph (JCIT)
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153(1)(b)Section 154Section 271Section 271A

disallowance of certain expenses, the AO accepted the returned income of the assessee. The AO subsequently initiated the penalty proceedings under section 271AAB of the Act by issuing the notices dated 29th February, 2016 and 09.08.2016. The AO initially levied the penalty under section 271AAB vide order dated 30.08.2016 @ 10% of the undisclosed income total amounting

SHRI MANOJ MOONDHRA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

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

ITA 225/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Mar 2019AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Advocate)For Respondent: Smt. Neena Jeph (JCIT)
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153(1)(b)Section 154Section 271Section 271A

disallowance of certain expenses, the AO accepted the returned income of the assessee. The AO subsequently initiated the penalty proceedings under section 271AAB of the Act by issuing the notices dated 29th February, 2016 and 09.08.2016. The AO initially levied the penalty under section 271AAB vide order dated 30.08.2016 @ 10% of the undisclosed income total amounting

SHRI RITESH AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 418/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Jul 2018AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar and Ms Isha Kanungo (Advocates)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153B(1)(b)Section 271A

disallowance of interest as part of the cost of the assets while computing long term capital gain. The AO initiated penalty proceedings under section 271AAB of the Act against the surrendered amount of Rs. 7,22,00,000/- by issuing show cause notice dated 28th March, 2016 and 12.08.2016. The assessee raised the objections against the initiation of penalty proceedings

SHRI SURESH CHAND MITTAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 931/JPR/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Jul 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar and Ms Isha Kanungo (Advocates)For Respondent: Smt. Seema Meena (JCIT)
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274Section 80C

disallowance of claim under section 80C of Rs. 9,400/-. Subsequently, the AO initiated the proceedings under section 271AAB of the Act by issuing the show cause notice dated 23rd March, 2016 and again by notice dated 12.08.2016. The assessee objected to initiation of penalty proceedings as well as levy of penalty proposed by the AO, however, could not succeed

CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA vs. ACIT, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 291/JPR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 May 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwallaFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT)
Section 40A(2)(b)

120,000,000 29-Jun-11 250,000,000 5-Jul-11 282,161.21 6 177,534.25 30-Jun-11 130,000,000 5 160,273.97 150,000,000 26-Aug-11 150,000,000 30-Aug-11 107,178.73 4 147,945.21 DSP Black 19-Apr-11 13 Rock

CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA vs. DCIT, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 201/JPR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 May 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwallaFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT)
Section 40A(2)(b)

120,000,000 29-Jun-11 250,000,000 5-Jul-11 282,161.21 6 177,534.25 30-Jun-11 130,000,000 5 160,273.97 150,000,000 26-Aug-11 150,000,000 30-Aug-11 107,178.73 4 147,945.21 DSP Black 19-Apr-11 13 Rock

M/S. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 744/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 May 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwallaFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT)
Section 40A(2)(b)

120,000,000 29-Jun-11 250,000,000 5-Jul-11 282,161.21 6 177,534.25 30-Jun-11 130,000,000 5 160,273.97 150,000,000 26-Aug-11 150,000,000 30-Aug-11 107,178.73 4 147,945.21 DSP Black 19-Apr-11 13 Rock

PROFESSIONAL AUTOMOTIVES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 812/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील /ITA Nos.809 to 815/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years :2013-14 to 2019-20 Professional Automotives Pvt. बनाम ACIT, Ltd. Bahu Plaza, Bahu Plaza, Jammu Vs. Central Circle- 1, and Kashmir Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं./जी.आई.आर. सं./PAN/GIR No.:AAACP9608E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्र]त्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by :Shri Tarun Mittal, CA राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

Section 194 and 200 were challenged. It was noted in P. RatnakarRao and others V. Govt. Of A.P. and others (1996 (5) SCC 359) that the discretion given under Section 200(1) to the State Government to prescribe maximum rates for compounding the offence is not unguided, uncanalised and arbitrary. It was, inter alia, held as follows: ……………….. ………………. It is indisputable

OM INFRA LIMITED,JAIPUR RAJASTHAN vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, we find no substantial question of law being involved in this appeal

ITA 811/JPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra (Addl. CIT)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 154Section 80Section 801C(2)(b)Section 80I

disallowing the deduction is a matter of discussion and legal matter which cannot be rectified in order u/s 154. Thus it is debatable issue hence cannot be covered u/s 154 of I.T. Act, 1961. Section 154, scope of.-Section 154 confers jurisdiction on the Assessing Officer carry out rectification in respect of apparent mistakes which are self-evident from

CASTAMET WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,KHARWA vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR

ITA 187/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Oct 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Sh. Prakul Khurana (Adv.) &For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(va)

120; (iii) an order under section 92CA by the Transfer Pricing Officer:] (b) "record" shall include and shall be deemed always to have included all records relating to any proceeding under this Act available at the time of examination by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal] Commissioner or Commissioner; (c) where any order referred to in this

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 500/JPR/2023[215-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Feb 2024

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

For Appellant: Sh. Dilip B Desai(C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Alka Gautam (CIT) (V.H) &
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144B(1)(xvi)Section 80Section 80I

Section 80IA(8), the word "OR" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the ACIT vs. Shree Cement Ltd. Act. It is noted that as per provisions of Section 80A(6), if any goods or services whether sold or acquired falls within the category specified domestic transactions of Section 92BA then in such case it is mandatory

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 496/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

For Appellant: Sh. Dilip B Desai(C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Alka Gautam (CIT) (V.H) &
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144B(1)(xvi)Section 80Section 80I

Section 80IA(8), the word "OR" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the ACIT vs. Shree Cement Ltd. Act. It is noted that as per provisions of Section 80A(6), if any goods or services whether sold or acquired falls within the category specified domestic transactions of Section 92BA then in such case it is mandatory

MAYUR UNIQUOTERS LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX NFAC, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assesse are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

ITA 2/JPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Nov 2022AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri S. S. Nagar, C.AFor Respondent: MonishaChoudhary, JCIT
Section 14ASection 234CSection 80Section 80J

b). No doubt, many of these decisions also dealt with Section 36(va) with its explanation. However, the primary consideration in all the judgments, cited by the assessee, was that they adopted the approach indicated in the ruling in Alom Extrusions. As noticed 14 ITANo.2&212/JPR/202 2 MayurUniquotersLtd. V, previously, AlomExtrutions did not consider the fact of the introduction

KATRATHAL GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED ,KATRATHAL vs. ITO WARD 1 SIKAR, SIKAR

ITA 1001/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Oct 2025AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, Adv.\rFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT\r
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 147rSection 148Section 148ASection 151Section 234ASection 250

120 OF 2019/11 OF 2022, MARCH 14, 2023) wherein it is held as under :-\r\n\"On a reading of section 80A(5) and section 80AC as they stood prior to 1-4-2018,\r\nit is found that when the latter provision was amended by Finance Act 2018, it\r\nwould reveal that the statutory scheme under

VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 96/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani, CA &For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl.CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

120/-. The Return of the assessee company was processed u/s 143(1), vide order dated 6.03.2019, wherein ld. AO (CPC) made various disallowances amounting to Rs. 96,13,158. Such disallowances made by the ld. AO(CPC) were mistake apparent on record. Resultantly, assessee company filed 3 VAIBHAV GLOBAL LTD VS DCIT, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR rectification

RAM NIWAS MODI CHARITABLE SOCIETY,JAIPUR vs. CIT-EXEMPTION, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are disposed off\nthereby allowing the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 118/JPR/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Nov 2025AY 2022-23
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, Ld. JCIT
Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)

disallowed to\ntheassessee out of his business expenditure. Now, the income of the assessee isnot\ncomputed as a business income. The Tribunal observed that the assessee was a\ncharitable institution and its income should be computed undersections 11, 12 and 13.\nClause (b) of section 40A(2) provides six categoriesof assessee, along with the list of\npersons who could

M/S. JAIPUR ZILA DUGDH UTPADAK SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

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

ITA 1178/JPR/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Feb 2020AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT)
Section 12ASection 56Section 80GSection 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

b) ………….. (c) ………….. (d) in respect of any income by way of interest or dividends derived by the co-operative society from its investments with any other co-operative society, the whole of such income.” 13. The aforesaid provisions have been examined at length by this Bench in case of ITO Vs. Shree Keshorai Patan Sahakari Sugar Mill (Supra