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.

2,265 results for “disallowance”+ Section 3clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai22,411Delhi16,940Chennai6,496Kolkata6,108Bangalore5,780Ahmedabad4,582Pune3,777Hyderabad2,659Jaipur2,265Chandigarh1,512Surat1,443Cochin1,441Indore1,272Visakhapatnam895Karnataka795Raipur753Cuttack737Rajkot708Amritsar622Nagpur584Lucknow510Panaji306Jodhpur298Agra280Ranchi249Guwahati243Telangana222Calcutta205Patna190Dehradun170SC152Allahabad145Jabalpur140Kerala75Varanasi60Punjab & Haryana44Orissa20Rajasthan11Himachal Pradesh8A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN7Gauhati2Andhra Pradesh2Uttarakhand2ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1ANIL R. DAVE AMITAVA ROY L. NAGESWARA RAO1RANJAN GOGOI PRAFULLA C. PANT1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1J&K1Tripura1D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1Bombay1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1

Key Topics

Section 26392Addition to Income73Section 143(3)62Disallowance61Section 36(1)(va)54Section 14745Section 14834Section 143(1)30Deduction30Section 43B

M/S VIJAYETA BUILDCON PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 980/JPR/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Oct 2020AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Sh. S. R. Sharma (CA) &For Respondent: Sh. B. K. Gupta (CIT)
Section 153ASection 253(5)Section 40A(3)

3) has been amended to provide for disallowance of 20% of the expenditure incurred in cash and Rule 6DD(j) was omitted. Thereafter, by virtue of another amendment, disallowance under section

A DAGA ROYAL ARTS,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Showing 1–20 of 2,265 · Page 1 of 114

...
27
Section 35A25
Limitation/Time-bar13
ITA 1065/JPR/2016[2013-14]Status: Disposed
ITAT Jaipur
15 May 2018
AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani (C.A)For Respondent: Shri J. C. Kulhari (JCIT)
Section 40A(3)

disallowance under sub-section (3) of section 40A shall be made and no payment shall be deemed to be the profits

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

section 145(3) of I.T. Act. Further, the fact remains that the assessee itself has disallowed Rs. 3,07,550/- u/s 40A(3

ACIT, CIRCLE, BHARATPUR vs. M/S. JAGDAMBE STONE COMPANY, BHARATPUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1171/JPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Mar 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Gupta (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Rooni Paul (Addl.CIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 143(2)Section 194C(6)Section 194C(7)Section 40

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) read with section 194C of the Act. IN this regard, he placed reliance on the judgement of ITAT Kolkata in the case of Soma Rani Ghosh Vs DCIT Kolkata, ITA No. 1420/KOL/2015. Once the conditions of Section 194C(6) is satisfied, the liability to deduct the TDS would cease and accordingly, application of section

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

disallowance under section 40A (3). The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance made under section 40A(3). Revenue aggrieved with the order

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,EXEMPTIONS,CIRCLE,JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. GLOBAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY SOCIETY, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN

In the results the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 175/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh, (Addl.CIT)
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)Section 13(3)Section 143(3)Section 147

section 13(1) (c)". 3 ACIT vs. Global Institute of Technology i. "Whether Id. CIT(A) justified in holding entire reassessment is considered void and illegal without considering the merits of the addition of disallowances

M/S SKYWAYS TOWNSHIP PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of the assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 824/JPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jun 2021AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Vedant Agarwal (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Ambrish Bedi (CIT-DR)
Section 2(22)(e)Section 40A(3)

3) has been amended to provide for disallowance of 20% of the expenditure incurred in cash and Rule 6DD(j) was omitted. Thereafter, by virtue of another amendment, disallowance under section

SMT. MANJU GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of the assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 251/JPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jun 2021AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Vedant Agarwal (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Ambrish Bedi (CIT-DR)
Section 2(22)(e)Section 40A(3)

3) has been amended to provide for disallowance of 20% of the expenditure incurred in cash and Rule 6DD(j) was omitted. Thereafter, by virtue of another amendment, disallowance under section

M/S SKYWAYS TOWNSHIP PVT LTD. 1/2 LIC FLATS, VIDYADHAR NAGAR, SECTOR-6, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of the assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 250/JPR/2019[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jun 2021AY 2015-2016
For Appellant: Shri Vedant Agarwal (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Ambrish Bedi (CIT-DR)
Section 2(22)(e)Section 40A(3)

3) has been amended to provide for disallowance of 20% of the expenditure incurred in cash and Rule 6DD(j) was omitted. Thereafter, by virtue of another amendment, disallowance under section

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

section 13(3) by way of salary and foreign travel expenditure which has been disallowed, contribution to Jaipur National University

M/S. SILVEX & COMPANY INDIA LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-7(4), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and cross appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 834/JPR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Oct 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal(C.A.)For Respondent: Shri P.R. Meena (CIT) a
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

disallowance can be made under section 40A(3) – [Section 145, Read with section 40A(3), of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 – Method

ITO WARD-7(2), JAIPUR, WARD-7(2), JAIPUR vs. M/S. SILVEX & COMPANY G-1/35 TO 37, 47, 48 EPIP, JEWELLERY ZONE, SITAPURA INDUSTRIAL AREA, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and cross appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 845/JPR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Oct 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal(C.A.)For Respondent: Shri P.R. Meena (CIT) a
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

disallowance can be made under section 40A(3) – [Section 145, Read with section 40A(3), of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 – Method

ASHOK SHARMA,KOTA vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2 - KOTA, KOTA

ITA 359/JPR/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Nov 2024AY 2014-2015
For Appellant: Shri Priyank Kabra (C.A.) (V.C.)For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 40A(3)

disallowed the said amount as per the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act while passing order under section

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)

section 50C ignoring the fact that transfer was made vide sale agreement on dated 22.01.2006. 12. On the facts & circumstances of the case and law also ld. Ld. CIT (A) grossly erred in modifying the assessment order passed u/s 147/143(3) of the Act to the order passed u/s 147/144 of the Act without giving any opportunity for same

GLOBAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY SOCIETY,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1066/JPR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Nov 2018AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(2)(b)Section 143(3)Section 164(2)

3) of the Act as well as the advance paid to the specified persons. The Assessing Officer has also made disallowances in respect of the salary paid to the specified ITA 1066/JP/2018_ 5 Global Institute of Technology Vs. DCIT(E) persons. However, some of these disallowances made by the Assessing Officer were deleted

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, BHARATPUR vs. M/S ARIHANT TRADING CO., BHARATPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1113/JPR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Mar 2019AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri K. C. Gupta (JCIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 194CSection 194C(6)Section 194C(7)Section 40

disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act @ 30% of Rs. 14,37,81,491/- amounting to Rs. 4,31,34,447/- was made and added back to the income of the assesseee. 3. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before ld. CIT(A). Regarding obtaining PAN details of all such transporters at the time of making

GETTWELL HEALTH & EDUCATION SAMITI,BHARATPUR vs. CIT-EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 638/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Oct 2018AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT)
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 254Section 263

Section 263 of the Act and submitted that the order passed by the Assessing Officer shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue if in the opinion of the Commissioner, the order is passed without making enquiry or verification, which should have been made. Thus, when the Assessing Officer

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. ZUBERI ENGINEERING COMPANY, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

ITA 1122/JPR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Dec 2018AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel (Adv)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 251Section 40

3))and thus, the same is hereby sustained. Disallowance of Rs. 1,56,38,649/- (vii) The AO has disallowed the sum of Rs. 1,56,38,649/- by observing that the appellant has not complied with the provisions of section

ZUBERI ENGINEERING COMPANY,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

ITA 977/JPR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Dec 2018AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel (Adv)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 251Section 40

3))and thus, the same is hereby sustained. Disallowance of Rs. 1,56,38,649/- (vii) The AO has disallowed the sum of Rs. 1,56,38,649/- by observing that the appellant has not complied with the provisions of section

ZUBERI ENGINEERING COMPANY,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

ITA 978/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Dec 2018AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel (Adv)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 251Section 40

3))and thus, the same is hereby sustained. Disallowance of Rs. 1,56,38,649/- (vii) The AO has disallowed the sum of Rs. 1,56,38,649/- by observing that the appellant has not complied with the provisions of section