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 55Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai96Delhi31Kolkata13Bangalore11Ahmedabad9Surat7Pune7Raipur6Chandigarh4Jaipur3Lucknow3Rajkot3Chennai3Hyderabad2Indore1SC1Nagpur1Karnataka1

Key Topics

Section 1473Section 69A3Section 54F3Section 543Section 482Section 242Deduction2Addition to Income2Long Term Capital Gains2

SHRI NARESH JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 159/JPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Aug 2020AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.C. Gupta, JCIT
Section 45Section 48Section 54F

disallowed the carry forward the long term capital loss of Rs. 14,76,729/- for the current year on sale of shares. 2 ITA159/JP/2019 Shri Naresh Jain vs ACIT, Circle-3, Jaipur 2.2 By the impugned order, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO against which the assessee is in further appeal before us. 2.3 We have

BHAGWAN SWAROOP AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

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

ITA 263/JPR/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Oct 2017AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Punam Rai (D.CIT)
Section 24Section 48Section 54

55A(b)(ii) of the IT Act. The AO is not an expert of valuation and therefore, carrying out the valuation himself on the basis of vague presumption is not justified. Hence, the ld. AR has pleaded that when the 8 ITA 263/JP/14_ Sh. Bhagwan Swaroop Agarwal Vs. ITO assessee has submitted all the conclusive evidences and the action

SHAMBHU DAYAL,KOTA vs. ITO, WARD -2(2), KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 988/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 271(1)(c)Section 69ASection 80C

55A. 6. Under the facts and circumstances, Ld. CIT(A) has erred by allowing the deduction of Rs. 1,50,000/-u/s 80C of the Income Tax Act 7. Under the facts and circumstances, the Ld. A.O. has erred by initiating penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.’’ 2.1 Brief facts of the case