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.

5 results for “disallowance”+ Section 35D(2)(c)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai175Delhi169Ahmedabad67Chennai51Bangalore27Kolkata25Hyderabad24Raipur19Chandigarh12Cochin11Pune8Visakhapatnam5Cuttack5Jaipur5Karnataka5Rajkot5Guwahati3SC3Amritsar1Punjab & Haryana1Agra1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Telangana1Indore1Kerala1Lucknow1

Key Topics

Section 2636Section 405Section 1483Disallowance3Addition to Income3Section 1952Section 143(2)2Section 142(1)2Section 143(3)2Section 147

DCIT, C-4, JAIPUR vs. M/S. JLC ELECTROMET PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 166/JPR/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Apr 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra GargieyaFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

c) or business connection in India or (d) any other presence in any manner whatsoever in India. Thus, Explanation speaks of the payer only and not of the payee. 5.3 Alternatively and without prejudice, even assuming for a moment that Explanation 2 applies, the way the ld. AO interpreted yet however, on the factual matrix the conditions mentioned therein were

2
Deduction2
Exemption2

DATA INFOSYS LIMITED,ALWAR vs. DCIT, ALWAR

In the result, revenue’s ground no

ITA 58/JPR/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 May 2017AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri R.A.Verma (Addl. CIT)
Section 10ASection 35D

section 35D. 2. That the commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Alwar has erred in law as well as on the facts and circumstances of the case in restricting the disallowance of Rs.75,000/- to Rs.25,000/- made by the AO on account of plant running and maintenance expenses. M/s Data Infosys Ltd. vs.DCIT(Hqrs.), Alwar 3. That the commissioner

AKSH OPTIFIBRE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 2, ALWAR

In the result, all the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 170/JPR/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 May 2025AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Akul Agarwal, C.A. (thr. V.C.)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 156Section 234ASection 250

disallowed that claim, that view was upheld..........\n28. This court notices that there are not less than 100 instances. For instance. Section\n35A. 35AB (3), 35ABB, 35D (5): 35DDA; 358; 41 (1) (Any benefit accrued by the\namalgamated co.) from cessation of liability of amalgamating company shall be taxed in\nthe hands of the amalgamated company

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. PR.CIT, , UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4/JPR/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 04/Jp/2021 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shree Cement Limited, Cuke Pr.Cit, Vs. Bangur Nagar, Post Box No. 33, Udaipur. Beawar. Pan No.: Aaccs 8796 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Dilip Desai (Ca) Shri Vijay Shah (Ca) Shri Mohit Choudhary (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 01/04/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 23/06/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Pcit, Udaipur Dated 03.02.2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The Act) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax – Udaipur, (Here- In- After Referred To As Ld. Pr. Cit) Was Not Justified In Initiating Proceedings U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Since The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (A.O.) Was Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri Dilip Desai (CA)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT-DR)
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

section 263 by the Commissioner proper and valid. [Para 16] (c) In the case of Jeevan Investment & Finance (P.) ltd. Vs CIT [2017] 88 taxmann.com 552 (Bombay], it has been held by the Hon'ble High Court that: " ..... merely asking a question which goes to the root of the matter and not carrying it further is a case

RAJASTHAN STATE MINES & MINERALS LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 253/JPR/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 May 2017AY 2007-08

C-89-90, Janpath, Circle-6, Lal Kothi, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN No. AAACR 7857 H vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri P.C.Parwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri Variendar Mehta (CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 02.5.2017. ?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@ Date