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.

510 results for “disallowance”+ Section 48clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai5,063Delhi4,346Bangalore1,413Chennai1,230Kolkata1,117Ahmedabad711Hyderabad532Jaipur510Indore334Pune283Surat267Chandigarh258Raipur209Amritsar160Cochin160Rajkot133Visakhapatnam127Nagpur121Karnataka114Lucknow100Panaji89Cuttack87Allahabad73Guwahati54Calcutta53Ranchi47Jodhpur43SC41Agra38Telangana25Dehradun22Varanasi18Patna17Kerala17Jabalpur12Punjab & Haryana4Orissa2Rajasthan2ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Uttarakhand1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 26383Addition to Income78Section 36(1)(va)55Section 143(3)55Disallowance43Section 143(1)35Section 13233Section 14732Section 35A31Section 148

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)

48,42,336 931.88 9% 389 70,02,212 4477.20 9% 305 3,74,24,514 6 5.00 9% India Steamship Limited 233 28,726 510.00 9% 233 29,30,055 Total Disallowance 35,92,45,372 21 ITA NO. 201(6)/JP/2017 M/s. Chambal Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. Hence, the AO held that the assessee had utilized a part

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 Jaipur

Showing 1–20 of 510 · Page 1 of 26

...
29
Deduction25
Limitation/Time-bar14
13 May 2022
AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwallaFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT)
Section 40A(2)(b)

48,42,336 931.88 9% 389 70,02,212 4477.20 9% 305 3,74,24,514 6 5.00 9% India Steamship Limited 233 28,726 510.00 9% 233 29,30,055 Total Disallowance 35,92,45,372 21 ITA NO. 201(6)/JP/2017 M/s. Chambal Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. Hence, the AO held that the assessee had utilized a part

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)

48,42,336 931.88 9% 389 70,02,212 4477.20 9% 305 3,74,24,514 6 5.00 9% India Steamship Limited 233 28,726 510.00 9% 233 29,30,055 Total Disallowance 35,92,45,372 21 ITA NO. 201(6)/JP/2017 M/s. Chambal Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. Hence, the AO held that the assessee had utilized a part

GIRNAR SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED,6TH FLOOR, JAIPUR TEXTILE MARKET, B-2, NEAR MODEL TOWN, MALVIYA NAGAR, JAIPUR vs. PCIT – 2, JAIPUR, NEW CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 330/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri PC Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 263

disallowance under section 14A of the Act. 3. Necessary cost be awarded to the assessee. Ground No. 1 & 2 raised by the assessee are inter-connected and inter- related against the order passed under section 263 of the IT Act, 1961 and thereby directing the AO to make addition of Rs. 66,30,268/- under section

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

section 14A(1) of the Act, deduction of that expenditure is not to be allowed which has been incurred by the assessee "in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under this Act". Axiomatically, it is that expenditure alone which has 48 Career Point Limited, Kota. been incurred in relation to the income which

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)

disallowance made by ld. AO for Rs. 1,46,126/- being the amount collected from employees towards contribution to welfare funds but deposited later than the scheduled dates as per provisions of PF Act, but deposited prior to filing the return under section 139(1) of the income Tax Act, 1961 ignoring the binding K.P. Airtech vs. DCIT judgment

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 41/JPR/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Aug 2021AY 2018-19
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)

disallowance made by ld. AO for Rs. 1,46,126/- being the amount collected from employees towards contribution to welfare funds but deposited later than the scheduled dates as per provisions of PF Act, but deposited prior to filing the return under section 139(1) of the income Tax Act, 1961 ignoring the binding K.P. Airtech vs. DCIT judgment

THE EARTH HOUSE RESORTS LLP, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WD-2(3), JAIPUR

In the result, all these appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 28/JPR/2022[2019-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Feb 2022AY 2019-22
For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) a
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

disallowance was made by the AO under section 143(1) of the Act on the basis of remarks in the relevant column of Form no. 3CD report attached with the return of income. In the appeal petition, the appellant has stated that total income returned at Rs.24,87,27,450/- has been processed at Rs.30,48

PRATAP TECHNOCRATS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR RAJASTHAN vs. ADIT, CPC, BENGALURU/ DCIT, CR.1 JAIPUR, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA

In the result, all these appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 18/JPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Feb 2022AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) a
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

disallowance was made by the AO under section 143(1) of the Act on the basis of remarks in the relevant column of Form no. 3CD report attached with the return of income. In the appeal petition, the appellant has stated that total income returned at Rs.24,87,27,450/- has been processed at Rs.30,48

JAIRAJ,JAIPUR vs. ADIT, CPC, BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, all these appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 26/JPR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Feb 2022AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) a
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

disallowance was made by the AO under section 143(1) of the Act on the basis of remarks in the relevant column of Form no. 3CD report attached with the return of income. In the appeal petition, the appellant has stated that total income returned at Rs.24,87,27,450/- has been processed at Rs.30,48

JAIRAJ,JAIPUR vs. ADIT, CPC, BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, all these appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 24/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Feb 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) a
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

disallowance was made by the AO under section 143(1) of the Act on the basis of remarks in the relevant column of Form no. 3CD report attached with the return of income. In the appeal petition, the appellant has stated that total income returned at Rs.24,87,27,450/- has been processed at Rs.30,48

JAIRAJ,JAIPUR vs. ADIT, CPC, BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, all these appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 25/JPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Feb 2022AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) a
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

disallowance was made by the AO under section 143(1) of the Act on the basis of remarks in the relevant column of Form no. 3CD report attached with the return of income. In the appeal petition, the appellant has stated that total income returned at Rs.24,87,27,450/- has been processed at Rs.30,48

PRAHLAD NARAYAN BAIRWA,JAIPUR vs. ADIT,CPC,BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, all these appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 33/JPR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Feb 2022AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) a
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

disallowance was made by the AO under section 143(1) of the Act on the basis of remarks in the relevant column of Form no. 3CD report attached with the return of income. In the appeal petition, the appellant has stated that total income returned at Rs.24,87,27,450/- has been processed at Rs.30,48

M/S. MAHALAXMI SAWS PVT. LTD., H-39, ROAD NO.2B, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, SIRSI ROAD, BINDAYAKA, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4(2) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 280/JPR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Feb 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 68

disallowance so made and confirmed qua this issue. 10. Ground No. 2 of the appeal raised by the assessee relates to challenging the order of the ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs. 21,80,000/- made by the A.O. U/s 68 of the Act. In this regard, the ld. AR has reiterated the same arguments as were

M/S AMRAPALI EXPORTS,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground No

ITA 454/JPR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Jan 2021AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Bafna (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

disallowances so made by the Assessing officer. 11. The Co-ordinate Bench in case of ITO vs. Anthelio Business Technologies Pvt. Ltd. 78 taxmann.com 203 (Mumbai) in context of deduction under section 10B relying on the aforesaid CBDT Circular has taken a similar view and it would be relevant to refer to the findings of the Co-ordinate Bench which

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)

disallowed u/s 40A(3) of the Act. The Hon’ble High Court held that rule 6DD(j) is not exhaustive of the circumstances in which the proviso to section 40A(3) is applicable and it only illustrative. The Hon’ble High Court refers to the decision of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in case of Smt. Harshila Chordia

DANISH PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-6(1), JAIPUR

In the result, all these appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 257/JPR/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Aug 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: The Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani (C.A.)For Respondent: Ms. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT) a
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

disallowance was made by the AO under section 143(1) of the Act on the basis of remarks in the relevant column of Form no. 3CD report attached with the return of income. In the appeal petition, the appellant has stated that total income returned at Rs.24,87,27,450/- has been processed at Rs.30,48

PRAHLAD NARAYAN BAIRWA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, all these appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 232/JPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Itat & The Delay Occurred May Kindly Be Condoned.

For Appellant: Miss Shivangi Samdhani (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehara (Addl.CIT) a
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

disallowance was made by the AO under section 143(1) of the Act on the basis of remarks in the relevant column of Form no. 3CD report attached with the return of income. In the appeal petition, the appellant has stated that total income returned at Rs.24,87,27,450/- has been processed at Rs.30,48

M/S HARVEST GOLD INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,L-37, INCOME TAX COLONY, TONK ROAD, JAIPUR vs. CPC, BANGALORE , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 115/JPR/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Us.

For Appellant: Shri P.C.Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. A. S. Nehra (Addl.CIT) a
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

48,64,313/- towards employee’s contribution towards ESI and PF. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A), NFAC has confirmed the disallowance made U/s 143(1) on account of assessee’s failure to pay the employee’s contribution of PF/ESI within the prescribed due dates as per Section

M/S ZARI SILK (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 78/JPR/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Us.

For Appellant: Shri R.K. Bhatra (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT) a
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

48,142/- towards employee’s contribution towards ESI and PF. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A), NFAC has confirmed the disallowance made U/s 143(1) on account of assessee’s failure to pay the employee’s contribution of PF/ESI within the prescribed due dates as per Section