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.

3 results for “disallowance”+ Section 32A(6)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai118Delhi86Kolkata29Bangalore28Hyderabad21Indore17Ahmedabad13Pune11SC7Chennai6Guwahati6Chandigarh5Lucknow4Jaipur3Visakhapatnam3Calcutta2Telangana2Cochin2Cuttack1Surat1Karnataka1Jodhpur1

Key Topics

Section 40A(2)(b)5Addition to Income3Section 1482Section 35(1)(ii)2Disallowance2

RASHLEELA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CEN CIR 3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalrashleela Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., C-5, Krishna Balram, Calgiri Road, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur 302017. Pan No.: Aadcr2594J ...... Appellant Vs.

For Appellant: Mr. Rajeev Sogani, CA, Ld. AR &For Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT- Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 35Section 35(1)Section 35(1)(ii)

disallowance of donation claimed under Section 35(1)(ii) amounting to Rs. 1,00,00,000. The action of the Ld. CIT (A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by allowing the claim under Section 35(1) (ii). 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case

ACIT, KOTA vs. SHIV AGREVO LTD., BARAN

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 453/JPR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 May 2017AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra GargieyaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (JCIT)
Section 143(2)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(2)(b)

32A, 33 and 41 which deal with concepts like depreciation. 3. The provisions under section 36(1)(iii) make no distinction between money borrowed to acquire a capital asset and a revenue asset. Under the circumstances of the case and the legal interpretations available, it can be held that not only did the assessee use the borrowed funds for business

SHRI ARJUN SINGH ,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 317/JPR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Jun 2018AY 2009-10
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Shanmuga Priya (JCIT)

Section 32A” and answered the same in negative and in favour of Revenue relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. N.C. Budharaja & Co. and Anr. (1993) 114 CTR (SC) 420 where the Supreme Court held that the aforesaid provision of the Income Tax Act does not comprehend within its ambit