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.

981 results for “disallowance”+ Section 2(14)(iii)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai7,670Delhi6,518Bangalore2,344Chennai1,974Kolkata1,888Ahmedabad1,449Pune1,221Jaipur981Hyderabad903Chandigarh682Indore529Surat515Raipur431Cochin392Visakhapatnam294Karnataka290Amritsar287Rajkot259Cuttack230Nagpur209Lucknow157Agra120Guwahati106Jodhpur105Telangana84Panaji83Ranchi82SC78Allahabad76Calcutta59Patna54Dehradun39Kerala28Varanasi26Jabalpur19Punjab & Haryana8Rajasthan8Orissa5A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN3Gauhati2Himachal Pradesh2H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1ANIL R. DAVE AMITAVA ROY L. NAGESWARA RAO1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1RANJAN GOGOI PRAFULLA C. PANT1

Key Topics

Section 26380Addition to Income77Section 143(3)57Disallowance56Section 14750Section 14833Section 36(1)(va)32Section 43B27Section 143(1)26Section 35A

SHIVA CORPORATION (INDIA) LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DY. CIT, CC-3, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1219/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Aug 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr.-DR
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(14)

iii)(b)(i) the distance should be less than 2 km\nfrom the municipal limits having population upto 1 lakh. The appellant\nhas also enclosed the printout from the respective government website\n6\nITA No. 1219/JPR/2024\nShiva Corporation (India) Ltd., Jaipur.\nof the Samalkha Municipal Committee showing population of 39\nthousand and of Panipat Municipal Corporation showing population

SMT. BIRMA DEVI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms indicated

Showing 1–20 of 981 · Page 1 of 50

...
25
Deduction23
Exemption16
ITA 678/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: The Hearing Of This Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT-DR)
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 54B

disallowing the deduction claimed by the assessee u/s 54B. (iii) The Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider that the agricultural land sold by assessee is not an asset u/s 2(14)(iii)(a) or (b) as these provisions stood then and therefore no capital gains are leviable. The agricultural land sold by the assessee is not urban but rural agricultural

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

iii) Decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal dated 23/12/2019 passed in ITA No. 347/JP/2017 in the case of M/s Mangala Ispat (Jaipur) Ltd. Vs ACIT. Thus, the ld. AR has submitted that in view of the above decisions, the impugned assessment order is invalid and liable to be quashed. 5. On the other hand

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)

14,794/- which was disallowed as the assessee cannot be said to be carrying on a business of purchase and sale of mutual funds. The AO calculated the disallowance in respect of interest on investment in mutual funds under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act as under:- S. MF Investment Redemption Dividend Interest No Days Income Disallowed

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)

14,794/- which was disallowed as the assessee cannot be said to be carrying on a business of purchase and sale of mutual funds. The AO calculated the disallowance in respect of interest on investment in mutual funds under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act as under:- S. MF Investment Redemption Dividend Interest No Days Income Disallowed

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)

14,794/- which was disallowed as the assessee cannot be said to be carrying on a business of purchase and sale of mutual funds. The AO calculated the disallowance in respect of interest on investment in mutual funds under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act as under:- S. MF Investment Redemption Dividend Interest No Days Income Disallowed

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)

14-\n15.\nHon'ble Court held as under\npage No 5 of the order (PB .. Pg No 79-85)\n“Thus it is clear that the Hon'ble High Court has analyzed the provisions of section\n80P(2) and particularly the term 'attributable' used in the section and held that the word\n'attributable to' is certainly wider in import

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

RADU RAM JAT HUF,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 182/JPR/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Feb 2017AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal & Shri O.P. Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri R.A, Verma (Addl.CIT)
Section 144Section 2(14)(iii)Section 254Section 54BSection 54F

section 2(14)(iii)(a) and this is not a capital asset and therefore the profit from transfer of such land is exempted from capital gains tax. 4. On the fact and in the circumstance of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the action of ld. AO of taking the indexed cost of acquisition

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

M/S. RAJASTHAN CRICKET ASSOCIATION,JAIPUR vs. ADD.CIT. RANGE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the matter is decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and the ground of appeal so taken by the assessee society is thus allowed

ITA 284/JPR/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Nov 2020AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Shyam Lal Agarwal (CA) &For Respondent: Smt. Rooni Paul (Addl.CIT) &

Section 12AA and proviso. 11. If there is any breach of any condition/s then they may cancel the registration, however, they have to follow the procedure. The contention that non communication of changes of purpose will automatically cancel the registration, in our considered opinion, is not a valid argument. However, in view of the specific clause which has been there

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), WARD-1, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN CRICKET ASSOCIATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the matter is decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and the ground of appeal so taken by the assessee society is thus allowed

ITA 1355/JPR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Dec 2019AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Shyam Lal Agarwal (CA) &For Respondent: Smt. Rooni Paul (Addl.CIT) &

Section 12AA and proviso. 11. If there is any breach of any condition/s then they may cancel the registration, however, they have to follow the procedure. The contention that non communication of changes of purpose will automatically cancel the registration, in our considered opinion, is not a valid argument. However, in view of the specific clause which has been there

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), WARD-1, JAIPUR vs. M/S RAJASTHAN CRICEKT ASSOCIATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the matter is decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and the ground of appeal so taken by the assessee society is thus allowed

ITA 1356/JPR/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Dec 2019AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Shyam Lal Agarwal (CA) &For Respondent: Smt. Rooni Paul (Addl.CIT) &

Section 12AA and proviso. 11. If there is any breach of any condition/s then they may cancel the registration, however, they have to follow the procedure. The contention that non communication of changes of purpose will automatically cancel the registration, in our considered opinion, is not a valid argument. However, in view of the specific clause which has been there

RAMAKANT SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 264/JPR/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Dec 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 264/Jp/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Shri Ramakant Sharma, Cuke I.T.O., Vs. S/O- Shri Ramesh Chand Sharma, 1 Ward-3(5), Vimal Kunaj, Vidyut Nagar, Behind Jaipur. Bharat Petrol Pump, Jaipur. Pan No.: Bjrps 5130 A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Vedant Agarwal (Adv) & Shri Satish Gupta (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Ambrish Bedi (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 26/11/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 07/12/2020 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Jaipur Dated 05/12/2016 For The A.Y. 2007-08. Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law Also Ld. Lower Authorities Grossly Erred In Initiating Reassessment Proceedings U/S 147 Of The Act. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law Also Ld. A.O. Grossly Erred In Resuming Jurisdiction Without Serving Notice U/S 148 On The Appellant Assessee As Notice Issued U/S 148 Was Not Served On The Appellant.

For Appellant: Shri Vedant Agarwal (Adv) &For Respondent: Shri Ambrish Bedi (CIT-DR)
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 50CSection 50C(2)

disallowed in assessment order." 2. The hearing of the appeal was concluded through video conference in view of the prevailing situation of Covid-19 Pandemic. 3. Earlier, the present appeal of the assessee has also been dismissed by the Coordinate Bench vide its order dated 02/12/2019 for want of prosecution. Against the order of the ITAT, the assessee has filed

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

14,73,987.00 2003-04 2,83,71,052.55 9,65,26,288.00 2004-05 2,80,82,530.20 7,

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)

disallowed the claim u/s 80P(2)(d) to that extent. 7. In this regard, it was submitted that assessee has not incurred any interest expenditure in earning the interest income on FDR with Jaipur Central Co-operative Bank. This is because assessee has interest free funds by way of share capital and accumulated profit of Ms Jaipur Zila Dugdh Utpadak

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

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

ITA 1243/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)

disallowed the claim u/s 80P(2)(d) to that extent. 7. In this regard, it was submitted that assessee has not incurred any interest expenditure in earning the interest income on FDR with Jaipur Central Co-operative Bank. This is because assessee has interest free funds by way of share capital and accumulated profit of Ms Jaipur Zila Dugdh Utpadak

VINAYA SHARMA,KOTA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

ITA 628/JPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Oct 2024AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam, CIT (V.H)
Section 10Section 132Section 132(1)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(14)Section 234

14) (iii) by placing wrong interpretation and ignoring the material placed on record. The subjected land being beyond the limits prescribed under the statute hence, was not a capital asset. The treatment so given by taxing the long term capital gain being contrary to the provisions of law and facts, the said land be declared as not a case

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN COOPERATIVE DAIRY FEDERATION LTD, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 200/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 143(2)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

iii) Disallowance of loss claimed, if return of the previous year for which set off of loss is claimed was furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139; Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd. (iv) Disallowance of expenditure [or increase in income]indicated in the audit report but not taken into account in computing the total

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN COOPERATIVE DAIRY FEDERATION LTD, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 350/JPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 143(2)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

iii) Disallowance of loss claimed, if return of the previous year for which set off of loss is claimed was furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139; Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd. (iv) Disallowance of expenditure [or increase in income]indicated in the audit report but not taken into account in computing the total