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.

673 results for “disallowance”+ Section 41clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai5,717 Delhi4,884 Bangalore1,814 Chennai1,582 Kolkata1,264 Ahmedabad1,201 Hyderabad772 Pune761 Jaipur673 Indore501 Chandigarh418 Surat368 Cochin251 Raipur249 Visakhapatnam227 Nagpur201 Cuttack187 Amritsar185 Rajkot178 Lucknow169 Karnataka127 Agra110 Guwahati90 Allahabad83 Ranchi64 Panaji50 Calcutta49 SC46 Telangana43 Jodhpur40 Dehradun33 Patna31 Varanasi22 Jabalpur21 Kerala15 Punjab & Haryana7 Rajasthan5 Orissa2 A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2 ANIL R. DAVE AMITAVA ROY L. NAGESWARA RAO1 Himachal Pradesh1 H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1 Bombay1 Tripura1

Key Topics

Addition to Income77 Section 36(1)(va)60 Section 143(3)55 Disallowance55 Section 26349 Section 143(1)45 Section 14836 Deduction29 Section 132(4)28 Section 35A

SAKET AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 2(3) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 646/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Ms. Satwika Jhan, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam (CIT) a

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 41(1)

section 41(1) for making additions or disallowing deductions, that the respondent's liabilities towards these creditors have ceased in accordance

ITO, WAR-4(1), JAIPUR vs. SHRI AMIT AGARWAL, JAIPUR

Showing 1–20 of 673 · Page 1 of 34

...

25

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 267/JPR/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri G.M. Mehta (CA)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (PCIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 143(3)Section 41Section 41(1)Section 68

disallowed in the year in which it was claimed, or could have been treated as unexplained cash credit in the hands of the assessee under section 68 of the Act in relevant assessment years, but the same cannot be taxed under section 41

THE RAJASTHAN STATE CO-OP. BANK LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 266/JPR/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Apr 2017AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (C.A)For Respondent: Shri R.A.Verma (JCIT)

Section 143(3)Section 41Section 41(1)Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(4)

section 80P(4) by Finance Act, 2006 w.e.f 1-4-07. The original assessment was completed u/s 143(3) at an income of Rs. 32,94,27,120/- making disallowance of Rs. 1,18,99,651/- on account of transfer to statutory Reserve out of carried forward account of provision for expenses treating the same as taxable u/s 41

ANIL KUMAR DANGAYACH HUF,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 976/JPR/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Mar 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar &For Respondent: Shri L.R. Meena (CIT)

Section 41(1)Section 44A

disallowing purchases. 4. The assessee craves your indulgence to add, amend or alter all or any grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing. The assessee HUF filed its return of income on 22nd September, 2012 2. declaring total income of Rs. 3,72,450/-. The assessee is running business in the name of M/s. R.S. Gems dealing

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)

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 20.4. Further, the assessee has made investment in the mutual funds from the cash credit account maintained with HDFC Bank. HDFC bank has charged a total interest of Rs. 78,56,936/- for the year under consideration. Hence, the disallowance cannot be Rs. 90,14,795/- which exceeds the amount of interest itself

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)

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 20.4. Further, the assessee has made investment in the mutual funds from the cash credit account maintained with HDFC Bank. HDFC bank has charged a total interest of Rs. 78,56,936/- for the year under consideration. Hence, the disallowance cannot be Rs. 90,14,795/- which exceeds the amount of interest itself

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)

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 20.4. Further, the assessee has made investment in the mutual funds from the cash credit account maintained with HDFC Bank. HDFC bank has charged a total interest of Rs. 78,56,936/- for the year under consideration. Hence, the disallowance cannot be Rs. 90,14,795/- which exceeds the amount of interest itself

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

41,42,000/-, in Para 11 of the assessment order, no penalty proceedings has been imitated with reference to this disallowance and therefore when AO has not recorded any satisfaction for initiation of penalty proceedings in respect of RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD VS DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR disallowance of CSR expenses, the penalty imposed on this disallowance

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

disallowance made U/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act is deleted. 16.1 As regards the disallowance sustained by the ld. CIT(A), we find merits in the alternative plea of the ld AR that the amendment brought into the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act by the Finance Act, 2015 has been held as remedial in nature

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

disallowance made U/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act is deleted. 16.1 As regards the disallowance sustained by the ld. CIT(A), we find merits in the alternative plea of the ld AR that the amendment brought into the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act by the Finance Act, 2015 has been held as remedial in nature

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

disallowance made U/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act is deleted. 16.1 As regards the disallowance sustained by the ld. CIT(A), we find merits in the alternative plea of the ld AR that the amendment brought into the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act by the Finance Act, 2015 has been held as remedial in nature

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

disallowance made U/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act is deleted. 16.1 As regards the disallowance sustained by the ld. CIT(A), we find merits in the alternative plea of the ld AR that the amendment brought into the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act by the Finance Act, 2015 has been held as remedial in nature

NIRMAL KUMAR BARDIYA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 260/JPR/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Smt. Runi Paul, Addl. CIT

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

41 & 42/Agra/2021 dated 14-6-2021(Para – 18 26) Further it is submitted that for bringing clarity on the issue the Finance Bill, 2021 proposed to add an Explanation – 2 to section 36 (1) (va) and Explanation – 5 to section 43B specifically to disallow

RMC GEMS INDIA LTD,JAIPUR vs. ADIT, CPC, BANGLORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 259/JPR/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2022AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Smt. Runi Paul, Addl. CIT

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

41 & 42/Agra/2021 dated 14-6-2021(Para – 18 26) Further it is submitted that for bringing clarity on the issue the Finance Bill, 2021 proposed to add an Explanation – 2 to section 36 (1) (va) and Explanation – 5 to section 43B specifically to disallow

SHANTI LAL BHANDARI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

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

ITA 73/JPR/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Apr 2017AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri B.P. Moondra (CA)For Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma (Addl.CIT)

Section 145(3)Section 41(1)

section 41(1)(a) is hereby deleted. The ground no. 3 is accordingly allowed in favour of the assessee.” 8.1 After considering the facts of the case and the case laws relied upon, I am of the view that the assessee has not written of the amount in its books of account. The assessee has also not denied the payment

AMIT SINGH,BHIWADI (ALWAR) vs. DCIT, CPC- BENGALURU, CPC- BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

ITA 284/JPR/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Mar 2022AY 2018-2019

For Appellant: Shri Rahish Mohammed (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT) a

Section 143(1)Section 2(24)Section 36(1)(va)

41 taxmann.com 100 (Gujarat) is as under: "Section 43B, read with section 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Business disallowance

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

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

ITA 309/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

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

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

section 275(1)(a). Hence the penalty order should have\nbeen passed before 31.10.2018 and therefore the penalty order dt.31.03.2019 passed by AO\nis clearly barred by limitation.\n\n6. On merits it is submitted that the penalty has been imposed by the AO for concealment of\nincome on two issues namely disallowance of CSR expenses and disallowance

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

disallowances in certain cases notwithstanding that those amounts are allowed generally under other sections. The computation under section 29 is to be made under section 145 on the basis of the books regularly maintained by the assessee. If those books are not correct or complete, the Assessing Officer may reject those books and estimate the income to the best

CAREER POINT LIMITED,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 242/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik (CIT)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

disallowance u.s. 14A of Income Tax Act,1961 should be made. This fact can be easily verifiable from the Balance Sheet available before ld FAO. Ld PCIT has not specifically pointed out any credible defects in that. The ld. AO satisfied himself about the genuineness of the 27 Career Point Limited, Kota. explanation of assessee. When the legislature has empowered

K.P. AIRTECH,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 42/JPR/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Aug 2021AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Khandelwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Miss. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT) a

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 253(5)Section 36(1)(va)

disallowed under section 43B read with section 36(1)(va) of the Act. K.P. Airtech vs. DCIT In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 16/08/2021. ¼ lanhi xkslkbZ ½ ¼foØe flag ;kno½ (Sandeep Gosain) (Vikram Singh Yadav) U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member