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.

375 results for “disallowance”+ Section 144clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,110Delhi1,540Kolkata674Bangalore543Chennai530Ahmedabad427Jaipur375Pune333Hyderabad317Surat208Chandigarh166Cochin164Visakhapatnam150Indore147Rajkot128Amritsar121Raipur108Cuttack83Lucknow81Nagpur71Agra53Allahabad52Patna39Guwahati39Jodhpur38Karnataka36Calcutta36Panaji25Telangana22Jabalpur19Dehradun17SC16Ranchi12Varanasi8Rajasthan2Punjab & Haryana2Kerala2A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1Orissa1

Key Topics

Section 26365Section 143(3)65Addition to Income49Section 14739Section 14839Section 14431Section 142(1)26Section 271B24Section 143(2)23Disallowance

PRINCESS INFRA & DEVELOPMENT LLP,KOTA vs. ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE-KOTA , KOTA

In the result, both the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicate hereinabove

ITA 858/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Saurav Harsh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR
Section 144Section 153B(1)(b)Section 153CSection 56(2)(X)Section 68

disallowance Aggrieved by the aforesaid addition the appellant has preferred the present appeal. 5. Ground No. 1 of appeal relates to passing ex-parte assessment order under section 144

Showing 1–20 of 375 · Page 1 of 19

...
19
Natural Justice19
Deduction16

PRINCESS INFRA & DEVELOPMENT LLP,KOTA vs. ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE-KOTA, KOTA

In the result, both the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicate hereinabove

ITA 859/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Saurav Harsh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR
Section 144Section 153B(1)(b)Section 153CSection 56(2)(X)Section 68

disallowance Aggrieved by the aforesaid addition the appellant has preferred the present appeal. 5. Ground No. 1 of appeal relates to passing ex-parte assessment order under section 144

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

144, the Assessing Officer exercising his jurisdiction cannot act arbitrarily or capriciously. The assessment must proceed on judicial considerations in the light of relevant material that may be brought on record. The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Surjeetsingh Maheskumar (1994) 210 ITR 83 has held that in every case of best judgment, the element

RADHAKISHNA BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

ITA 694/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT
Section 139Section 144Section 147rSection 148Section 148ASection 194CSection 251Section 68

section 144 of the Act in the assessment order is incorrect or at best related to adhoc disallowance of expenses

RADHAKISHAN BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

ITA 695/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT
Section 139Section 144Section 147rSection 148Section 148ASection 194CSection 251Section 68

section 144 of the Act in the assessment order is incorrect or at best related to adhoc disallowance of expenses

DEEP JYOTI COMPANY,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 134/JPR/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Feb 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: The Hearing Of This Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Advocate)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 44A

144 which is illegal and unjustified. We pray to for goodselves kindly allow this ground of appeal. 8 Deep Jyoti Company, Jaipur. In the appellant case the A.O. reject the books of account only and only on the basis of not filling confirmation and address of the outstanding creditors for labour and raw form material of Rs14

THIKARIYA GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LTD ,THIKARIYA vs. AO CPCITO WARD SIKAR, SIKAR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 772/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Mar 2024AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 80P

144/- made by the ld. AO by disallowing the deduction u/s 80P which was made without any basis and also erred in not considering the vital facts and material available on record in their true perspective and sense. Hence the addition so made by the ld. AO and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) is also being contrary

PALAS GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED,SIKAR vs. ITO, SIKAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

ITA 1017/JPR/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Oct 2025AY 2020-2021
For Appellant: Sh. Jitendra Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gajendra Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 144Section 250Section 253(5)Section 80A(2)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

144 ex parte, without adjudicating on the\nlegal question of whether deduction under Section 80P could exceed the\nassessee's Gross Total Income. The CIT(A) failed to examine the contents of the\nreturn or consider the legal bar under Section 80A(2), resulting in a mechanically\nsustained addition of 34,49,015/- by disallowing

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

144 of Income Tax Act by applying provisions of section 145(3). Thus for all practical purposes, he has rejected the books of accounts named as “Jadavji” also though not admitted by words in the assessment order because he wanted to make huge addition by disallowance

M/S KANAK VRINDAVAN RESORTS LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 543/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145Section 37

section 144. Thus, while disbelieving the claim of the assessee and that too in part he has not given the required notice pointing out any specific defects in the books of account and thereby proceeded to made the lump sum disallowance

SH. NAWAL KISHORE DANGAYACH,A-34-A, RAM NAGAR, SHASTRI NAGAR, JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4, , JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 304/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary ( Addl. CIT) a
Section 14ASection 37

144 taxmann.com 2 confirmed the disallowance made by AO. 3. The relevant provisions of section 40(a)(ii) & 2(43) where

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)

Section 144. 9.3 Thus in the present case, it is seen that the books of account were not produced before the A.O along with the bills and vouchers for expenses. 28 ACIT (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-JAIPUR VS NAVRATAN VIDHA MANDIR SHIKSHA SAMITI Accordingly, the A.O was unable to verify the same. Hence there was reason for the A.O to exercise

SHRI SATISH CHANDRA KATTA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

ITA 437/JPR/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Dec 2024AY 2011-12
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153A

section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The action\nof the ld. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may\nplease be granted by quashing the said disallowance of Rs. 12,16,500.\n4. The assessee company craves its right to add, amend or alter any of the grounds

SHRI BABOO LAL ,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-6(1), JAIPUR

In the result, ground no. 1 & 3 are dismissed, ground no

ITA 1370/JPR/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Feb 2020AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri G. M. Mehta (C.A.)For Respondent: Miss Chanchal Meena (JCIT)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 154Section 32Section 44A

disallowed due to specific provisions of section 184(5) which provides that where there is a failure on part of the firm as is mentioned in section 144

SH. SURENDER MEENA,36, PRATAP NAGAR, SHASTRI NAGAR, JAIPUR vs. PCIT-1, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 162/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Jul 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Avdhesh Kumar (CIT)
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54Section 54F

section 144 he was required to disallow interest and remuneration paid to partners as per section 184(5) — He thus

SH. NARENDAR KUMAR AGARWAL,JAWALI BHAWAN, STATION ROAD, ALWAR vs. PCIT, JAIPUR-1, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 133/JPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Jul 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Avdhesh Kumar (CIT)
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 271FSection 50CSection 54F

section 144 he was required to disallow interest and remuneration paid to partners as per section 184(5) — He thus

M/S TRADITIONAL GALLERY PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 108/JPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 May 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

section 36(1)(iii) and disallowance of Rs. 33,83,847/- on account of disallowance u/s 14A of the IT Act. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT (A). The ld. CIT (A) confirming the order of the AO, sustained the addition of Rs. 91,15,011/-. Now the assessee

M/S TRADITIONAL GALLERY PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 107/JPR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 May 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

section 36(1)(iii) and disallowance of Rs. 33,83,847/- on account of disallowance u/s 14A of the IT Act. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT (A). The ld. CIT (A) confirming the order of the AO, sustained the addition of Rs. 91,15,011/-. Now the assessee

RAYS POWER EXPERTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

ITA 1086/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Anand Pareek, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal, CIT- DR a
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 68

Disallowance under section 14A of ITA 1961 of Rs.69,374 was made. Notice under section 250 were issued, however, there was no compliance and appeal is being decided based on material available on record. Grounds of appeal are adjudicated as follows- Ground of Appeal One is general in nature and not adjudicated thus. Ground of Appeal Two is qua addition

PAPPU JAISWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 281/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Sh. S. B. Natani, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69

144 of the Income Tax Act, [ for short “Act”] by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 2 (2), Jaipur. 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: - 1. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the order passed by the learned AO under section 147/144