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.

9 results for “disallowance”+ Section 269Tclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai31Chennai21Indore20Ahmedabad14Delhi14Hyderabad13Bangalore12Nagpur10Visakhapatnam9Jaipur9Surat7Kolkata5Lucknow5Chandigarh2Pune2Jodhpur1Rajkot1SC1Jabalpur1Cuttack1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)17Section 40A(3)9Addition to Income8Disallowance7Section 685Section 271(1)(c)4Condonation of Delay4Section 403Section 2743

M/S LOK VIKAS HOUSING FUNDS LTD.( NOW LOK VIKAS HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION LTD. ,JAIPUR vs. THE ADDL.CIT RANGE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 452/JPR/1999[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Jan 2023AY 1995-96

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

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra (Addl. CIT)
Section 254(1)Section 269DSection 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

269T, and if for any reason, such contravention is noticed, it stands condoned under s. 273B and thereby, the proceedings initiated under ss. 271D and 271E of the Act are declared as untenable. Ridhi Sidhi Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. Vs. JCIT ITA No.49/JU/2013 order dt. 18.03.2013 (Jodhpur) (Trib.) (Case Laws Compilation PB 36-57) The relevant Para

Section 1323
Section 153A3
Search & Seizure3

M/S MORANI CARS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WARD-6, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 184/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Jul 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Sh. Suhani Maharwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehara (Addl.CIT)
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40ASection 40aSection 68

Section 36(1) specifically disallows the interest payment on borrowed funds taken to purchase fixed assets upto the period before put to use. Since no funds were borrowed and no interest was paid the disallowance is illegal and to be quashed. Your honour, here I want to place the decision of Hon`ble high court of Rajasthan in case

PRAKASH CHAND VARINDANI,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CERTAL CIRLCE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1146/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Apr 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Sh. Abhishek Soni, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT-DR
Section 144Section 68

disallowance u/s.\n40A(3) the revenue observed clear violation of section 40A (3) of the Act\nand therefore, the addition is required to be sustained.\n12. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the orders of the lower\nauthority and material placed on record. The bench noted that the assessee\nis engaged in the wholesale and retail business

NEERAJ SUWALKA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 160/JPR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Dec 2019AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 40A(3)

disallowance, such purpose has to be kept in mind and provisions of the Act cannot be applied straightway, as it may result in undue hardship to assessees. Similar is the case of section 40A(3), the intention of the Legislature in enacting section 40A(3) particularly was to ensure that payments exceeding the sum specified are made by a crossed

NEERAJ SUWALKA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 158/JPR/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Dec 2019AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 40A(3)

disallowance, such purpose has to be kept in mind and provisions of the Act cannot be applied straightway, as it may result in undue hardship to assessees. Similar is the case of section 40A(3), the intention of the Legislature in enacting section 40A(3) particularly was to ensure that payments exceeding the sum specified are made by a crossed

NEERAJ SUWALKA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 159/JPR/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Dec 2019AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 40A(3)

disallowance, such purpose has to be kept in mind and provisions of the Act cannot be applied straightway, as it may result in undue hardship to assessees. Similar is the case of section 40A(3), the intention of the Legislature in enacting section 40A(3) particularly was to ensure that payments exceeding the sum specified are made by a crossed

DHANRAJ SETHIA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 169/JPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Saraswat, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 194ASection 194A(3)(iii)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40

disallowance. Aggrieved thereby, assessee is in appeal. In the facts of the case, it is clear that asssessee was fully aware that the claims of deduction made were inadmissible because he has not deducted TDS on the payments. Despite that he took a chance because had the case not selected for scrutiny, he would have reduced tax liability. It cannot

JAGAT SINGH RATHORE,TONK vs. ITO WD 7(2), , JAIPUR

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

ITA 139/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CITa
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 68

disallowance so made and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) is totally contrary to the provisions of law and facts on the record and hence the same kindly be deleted in full. 3. The AO erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in charging interest u/s 234A & 234B of the Act. The appellant totally denies

MORANI MOTORAS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result the ground no

ITA 434/JPR/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Aug 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Sh. Suhani Maharwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehara (Addl.CIT)
Section 68

disallowances made by the Assessing officer which have been sustained by the ld CIT(A). The assessee has filed an appeal before us. In the assessment proceeding the ld. AO noted that the assessee has received share application money from various persons in cash details of which is as under:- S. Name No. of Issue Fresh Share Cheque Cash