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.

7 results for “disallowance”+ Section 271Eclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai47Chennai30Bangalore28Delhi25Indore19Ahmedabad13Hyderabad13Kolkata10Agra8Jaipur7Surat7Panaji5Cochin5Pune4Visakhapatnam3Nagpur2Chandigarh2Raipur2SC1Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)9Section 271C6Section 271(1)(c)5Penalty5Addition to Income5Section 684Section 404Disallowance4Section 2743Section 271A

DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, NCRB, JAIPUR vs. BARMER LIGNITE MINING COMPANY LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 71/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

Section 271E is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied. These appeals are, accordingly, dismissed.’’ 9.3 Though the above decision is in respect to the penalty u/s 271 E but it made clear that when the original assessment order itself is set aside, the satisfaction recorded therein for the purpose of initiation

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

3
Section 271D2
Limitation/Time-bar2

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

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

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 6, 8 & 9 of the order reads as under:- 6. Any loan is a type of debt, which entails the redistribution of financial assets over a time between

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

271E Repaid any deposit specified in section 269T in contravention to its provisions. 5 DHANRAJ SETHIA VS ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR 271F Failed to furnish return of income as required by section139 before the end of the relevant assessment year. 272A(1) Refused or failed to: (a) Answer questions. (b) Sig. Statements. (c) Attene to give evidence or produce books

ISYS SOFTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. CIT (A), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 528/JPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Sh. G. M. MehtaFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 195(1)Section 271CSection 40Section 9(1)(vi)

271E, 271F and so on of the 1.T. Act are independent of the quantum appeal and therefore provision of section 275(1)(c) of the Act is applicable and not the provision of section 275(1)(a), if at all the penalty is initiated in the assessment order. The appellant has rightly pointed out that limitation of penalty

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

GURJANT SINGH,JAIPUR vs. PCIT-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 356/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 May 2024AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri S. K.Gogra (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh (Addl.CIT) a
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 270ASection 271ASection 44ASection 68

disallowed. 4 Shri Gurjant Singh vs. PCIT 4. On culmination of proceedings, the ld. PCIT called for the assessment recorded upon examination ld. PCIT noted that an addition of Rs. 16,61,53,771/- was made under section 68 of the IT Act on account of unexplained sundry creditors. The FAO has initiated penalty under section 270A