Search: disallowance | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

926 results for “disallowance”+ Section 37clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai7,467 Delhi6,755 Bangalore2,222 Chennai2,126 Kolkata1,672 Ahmedabad1,581 Hyderabad1,068 Pune931 Jaipur926 Indore528 Chandigarh495 Surat432 Cochin313 Visakhapatnam306 Raipur299 Amritsar243 Cuttack240 Rajkot240 Karnataka216 Nagpur181 Lucknow136 Guwahati117 Ranchi84 Allahabad82 Panaji73 Telangana67 Calcutta67 SC66 Agra64 Jodhpur63 Patna49 Jabalpur40 Dehradun33 Kerala25 Varanasi22 Punjab & Haryana13 Rajasthan3 Himachal Pradesh3 Gauhati2 Orissa2 H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1 MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1 A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1 RANJAN GOGOI PRAFULLA C. PANT1 Tripura1 ANIL R. DAVE AMITAVA ROY L. NAGESWARA RAO1

Key Topics

Section 26393 Addition to Income74 Section 36(1)(va)69 Section 143(3)65 Disallowance52 Section 43B41 Section 153A30 Deduction26 Section 143(1)25 Section 139(1)

GANGAUR EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. THE PCIT-2, JAIPUR

In the result grounds raised by the assessee are allowed and order of Ld

ITA 362/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Mathur, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar (CIT)

Section 135Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37Section 5Section 80GSection 80I

disallowed the CSR expenditure as it is not allowable as per explanation 2 to sub section(1) of section 37

Showing 1–20 of 926 · Page 1 of 47

...

25

VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 96/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani, CA &For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl.CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

disallowable under section 37(7k of disallowable under section 37(7k of 2 disallowance made by the disallowance made by the BP Part

SUPREME BUILDESTATES PVT LTD,MADANGANJ- KISHANGARH vs. DCIT CIRCLE 2 AJMER, JAIPUR ROAD AJMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 495/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Oct 2023AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri C.M. Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT) a

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 2Section 234BSection 37Section 80Section 80G

disallowed by new Explanation 2 to section 37(1), while computing Income under the Head Income from Business and Profession

CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA vs. DCIT, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 201/JPR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 May 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwallaFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT)

Section 40A(2)(b)

37 of the Act. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 6,70,422/-.” Admittedly, there is no change in the facts and circumstances of the case as compared to earlier years where the matter has been decided in favour of the assessee company. By respectfully following the order of the Coordinate Bench

CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA vs. ACIT, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 291/JPR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 May 2022AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwallaFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT)

Section 40A(2)(b)

37 of the Act. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 6,70,422/-.” Admittedly, there is no change in the facts and circumstances of the case as compared to earlier years where the matter has been decided in favour of the assessee company. By respectfully following the order of the Coordinate Bench

M/S. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 744/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 May 2022AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwallaFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT)

Section 40A(2)(b)

37 of the Act. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 6,70,422/-.” Admittedly, there is no change in the facts and circumstances of the case as compared to earlier years where the matter has been decided in favour of the assessee company. By respectfully following the order of the Coordinate Bench

M/S KANAK VRINDAVAN RESORTS LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 543/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145Section 37

disallowance of 3 M/s Kanak Varindavan Resorts Ltd. vs. ITO expenses claimed by the appellant u/s 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without pointing out any defect in the books of account regularly maintained by the appellant and duly audited, and without rejecting such books of account as required under section

AHLUWALIA ERECTORS & FABRICATORS PRIVATE LIMITED, KOTA,KOTA vs. DCIT/ACIT CIR-2, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the appeal of\nthe assessee in ITA no 199/JP/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 198/JPR/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT

Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 250Section 43B

37(1) and/or as a business loss u/s 29 of the Act.\"\nIt is humbly submitted that on one hand the AO has already made disallowance of the entire\namount u/s 43B and on the other hand, the concerned customers/buyers are not paying the entire\namount of the GST, not only the amount of the GST but even the amount

AHLUWALIA ERECTORS & FABRICATORS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOTA vs. DCIT/ACIT CIR-2, KOTA

In the result the appeal of\nthe assessee in ITA no 199/JP/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 197/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT

Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 250Section 43B

37(1) and/or as a business loss u/s 29 of the Act.\"\nIt is humbly submitted that on one hand the AO has already made disallowance of the entire\namount u/s 43B and on the other hand, the concerned customers/buyers are not paying the entire\namount of the GST, not only the amount of the GST but even the amount

AHLUWALIA ERECTORS & FABRICATORS PRIVATE LIMITED, KOTA,KOTA vs. DCIT/ACIT CIR-2, KOTA

In the result the appeal of\nthe assessee in ITA no 199/JP/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 199/JPR/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT

Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 250Section 43B

37(1) and/or as a business loss u/s 29 of the Act.\"\nIt is humbly submitted that on one hand the AO has already made disallowance of the entire\namount u/s 43B and on the other hand, the concerned customers/buyers are not paying the entire\namount of the GST, not only the amount of the GST but even the amount

M/S RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 310/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80

Disallowance of CSR Expenditure – Clear Misinterpretation of Settled Law The assessee claimed deduction for CSR expenses, despite the statutory bar under Explanation 2 to Section 37

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRLCE-1, JAIPUR vs. M/S CUROSIS HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED , JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 351/JPR/2022[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Jaipur14 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri S. L. Poddar (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl. CIT)

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 194HSection 37

section 37 of the Act, the expenditure of hotelstay of JRs. 1,17,1477- is disallowed and added back to the total

RAYS POWER EXPERTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

ITA 1086/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Anand Pareek, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal, CIT- DR a

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 68

disallowed under the relevant sections that allow deductions, or under section 37, which is a residual section for business expenses

DCIT, CR-7, JAIPUR vs. SHRI ANIL GUPTA, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 11/JPR/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: The Hearing” Dcit Vs. Shri Anil Gupta

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal ( C.A.)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl. CIT)a fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 37

37,270/- as professional promotion expenses in the P&L A/c which was to be disallowed as per section 37

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

37. To begin with, let us examine section 251 of the Act. As the assessment year was 1995-96, we will examine the provision as stood then. Before the amendment by Act 18 of 2008, section 251 read as: 251. Powers of the [* * *] Commissioner (Appeals).— (1) In disposing of an appeal, the [* * *] Commissioner (Appeals) shall have the following powers

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

37. To begin with, let us examine section 251 of the Act. As the assessment year was 1995-96, we will examine the provision as stood then. Before the amendment by Act 18 of 2008, section 251 read as: 251. Powers of the [* * *] Commissioner (Appeals).— (1) In disposing of an appeal, the [* * *] Commissioner (Appeals) shall have the following powers

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

37. To begin with, let us examine section 251 of the Act. As the assessment year was 1995-96, we will examine the provision as stood then. Before the amendment by Act 18 of 2008, section 251 read as: 251. Powers of the [* * *] Commissioner (Appeals).— (1) In disposing of an appeal, the [* * *] Commissioner (Appeals) shall have the following powers

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 979/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel (Adv)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 251Section 40

37. To begin with, let us examine section 251 of the Act. As the assessment year was 1995-96, we will examine the provision as stood then. Before the amendment by Act 18 of 2008, section 251 read as: 251. Powers of the [* * *] Commissioner (Appeals).— (1) In disposing of an appeal, the [* * *] Commissioner (Appeals) shall have the following powers

RAMDULARI BANSAL WELFARE SOCIETY,JAIPUR vs. CIT(E), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee society is dismissed

ITA 790/JPR/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Nov 2024

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. P. C. Parwal, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Arvind Kumar, Ld. CIT-DR

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 13(3)Section 80G

section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act being an expense prohibited by the law. This disallowance shall be made

RAMDULARI BANSAL WELFARE SOCIETY,JAIPUR vs. CIT(E), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee society is dismissed

ITA 789/JPR/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Nov 2024

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. P. C. Parwal, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Arvind Kumar, Ld. CIT-DR

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 13(3)Section 80G

section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act being an expense prohibited by the law. This disallowance shall be made