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.

12 results for “disallowance”+ Section 272Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai47Bangalore27Delhi27Ahmedabad17Jaipur12Kolkata12Chandigarh12Cuttack12Pune10Chennai9Panaji5Lucknow5Surat5Hyderabad5Raipur3Agra3Amritsar3Nagpur2Patna2Rajkot2Cochin1Jodhpur1Dehradun1SC1Visakhapatnam1Jabalpur1Varanasi1

Key Topics

Addition to Income11Section 4010Deduction7Disallowance7Section 145(3)6Section 143(3)6Section 234A5Penalty5Section 80I4Section 271(1)(c)

M/S DANISH PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

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

ITA 623/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Jul 2019AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani (CA) &For Respondent: Shri K.C. Meena (Addl. CIT )
Section 139Section 194CSection 40

disallowance is called for under section 40(a)(ia). The default for not furnishing of declaration to the CIT as prescribed will attract the provisions of section 272A

SHRI NEERAJ PUROHIT,JAIPUR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

4
Section 271C4
Section 694
ITA 109/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed
ITAT Jaipur
20 Jul 2018
AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Manish AgarwalFor Respondent: Smt. Seema Meena, JCIT - DR
Section 269SSection 269TSection 271(1)Section 271ESection 40A(3)

272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA] or [ section 272B or] [sub-section (1) [or sub-section (1A)] of section 272BB or] [sub-section (1) of section 272BBB or] clause (b) of sub-section (1) or clause (b) or clause (c) of sub- section (2) of section 273, no penalty shall be imposable on the person or the assessee

STATE BANK OF INDIA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), JAIPUR

In the result, the penalty so levied under section 271C is hereby directed to be deleted

ITA 1135/JPR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Dec 2018AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Smt. Neelam Ashok (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri J.C. Kulhari (JCIT) a
Section 10(5)Section 192Section 201Section 201(1)Section 271C

272A, sub-section 6 State Bank of India vs. ACIT (TDS) (1) of section 272AA or section 272B or sub-section (1) of section 272BB or clause (b) of sub-section (1) or clause (b) or clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 273, no penalty shall be impossible on the person or the assessee, as the 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

BLUEPRINT INFRAHOMES LLP,JAIPUR vs. ADIT CPC BENGALURU OR ITO WARD 6(1) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

ITA 68/JPR/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Aug 2023AY 2021-22

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

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)
Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 801BSection 80I

Section 139. Accordingly, we hold that the assessee deserves to succeed in principle. The matter is remanded to the AO for the purposes of verification. Needless to say that the assessee shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard 2.3 In the case of Gemini Communication Ltd. vs. ACIT inITA No. 1252/Mds/2012 August

SHANKAR JHALANI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1053/JPR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: The Itat By Taking Following

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma (Addl.CIT)
Section 144Section 40

272A(1)(c) was imposed by the JCIT, Range for non compliance of summon issued under section 131 of the IT Act. It is also noted from the remand report of the AO that again an opportunity was provide to the appellant by the AO to explain its case, however, still no compliance was made on the date fixed. This

GOVINDAM BRJ INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIR-6,JPR, JAIPUR

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1115/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Oct 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Deepak Somani, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 250Section 270A(1)Section 271Section 44A

disallowance is arbitrary and not based on any material evidence establishing that\nthe expenses were not genuine or inflated.\n2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO and\nCIT (A) have erred in treating sundry creditors of Rs.18,24,000/- as unexplained cash\ncredit based on mere suspicion without establishing that

GOVINDAM BRJ INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIR-6,JPR, JAIPUR

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1114/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Somani, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 250Section 270A(1)Section 271Section 44A

disallowance is arbitrary and not based on any material evidence establishing that the expenses were not genuine or inflated. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO and CIT (A) have erred in treating sundry creditors of Rs. 18,24,000/- as unexplained cash credit based on mere suspicion without establishing

SILVER WINGS LIFE SPACES,KOTA vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1 KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 511/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Learned Cit(A), Which Appeal Was Filed By The Assessee

For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra(Addl. CIT)
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 69

disallowances of claims, if any, relating to its business income. 9. In view of this, since the aforesaid surrender is not covered under the provisions of Section 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C and 69D, the provisions of Section 115BBE are not attracted in this case. 10. In view of the above, the action of the lower authorities in invoking provisions

JAGDISH KUMAR ARORA,BHAWANIMANDI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1195/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 69

disallowances of claims, if any, relating to its business income. 9. In view of this, since the aforesaid surrender is not covered under the provisions of Section 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C and 69D, the provisions of Section 115BBE are not attracted in this case. 10. In view of the above, the action of the lower authorities in invoking provisions

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

272A(1) Refused or failed to: (a) Answer questions. (b) Sig. Statements. (c) Attene to give evidence or produce books of accounts etc. in compliance with summons under section 131(1). (d) Apply for allotment of permanent account number in term sof Section 139A. You are hereby requested to appear before me on 21-03-2014 at Room

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. SHRI PRATEEK KOTHARI, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 552/JPR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Nov 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: The Hon’Ble High Court.”

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA)For Respondent: Prithviraj Meena (Addl. CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 132(4)Section 68

disallowance of interest amounting to Rs 8,10,000 on such loan transaction which is solely based on findings of the AO in previous assessment year 2012-13 is hereby deleted. 10. In respect of unsecured loan of Rs 1.00 crore taken by assessee from M/s Ankita Exports during the financial year relevant to impunged assessment year