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.

13 results for “disallowance”+ Section 56(2)(viia)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai206Bangalore82Delhi78Chennai66Hyderabad24Pune19Visakhapatnam17Kolkata15Cochin14Jaipur13Indore12Nagpur9Chandigarh9Surat8Cuttack8Ahmedabad6Jodhpur6Varanasi6Rajkot4Allahabad2Amritsar2SC2Patna1Karnataka1Agra1Guwahati1Raipur1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)11Section 14A10Addition to Income10Section 409Section 56(1)8Disallowance6Section 56(2)(viib)5Section 144Section 145(3)4Section 40A(3)

HOLIDAY TRIANGLE TRAVEL PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 67/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Dilip Shivpuri, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 56(2)(viib)

disallowance vide his order dated 05.12.2023. 4. Aggrieved by the said order of the CIT(A), the assessee preferred appeal before us. At the time of hearing before us, the ld. A/R of the assessee has submitted his written submission as under :- “ The assessee, during the year had sold 1013 equity shares of the company, and had received share premium

4
TDS4
Survey u/s 133A3

M/S GANPATI EXCLUSIVE DESIGNER SAREES PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1081/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Mar 2019AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna (JCIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 56Section 56(1)

viia)… (viib) Where a company, not being a company in which the public are substantially interested, receives, in any previous year, from any person being a resident, any consideration for issue of shares that exceeds the face value of such shares, the aggregate consideration received for such shares as exceeds the fair market value of the shares:’’ This has also

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S GANPATI EXCLUSIVE DESIGNER SAREES PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 696/JPR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Mar 2019AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna (JCIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 56Section 56(1)

viia)… (viib) Where a company, not being a company in which the public are substantially interested, receives, in any previous year, from any person being a resident, any consideration for issue of shares that exceeds the face value of such shares, the aggregate consideration received for such shares as exceeds the fair market value of the shares:’’ This has also

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER vs. M/S SILVERTOSS COMMODITIES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

The appeals of the revenue stand dismissed and the cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 86/JPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

disallowance can be made in relation to that assessment year in exercise of powers under section 153A of the Act and the earlier assessment shall have to be reiterated. In this regard, this court is in complete agreement with the view adopted by the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Jai Steel (India) v. Asst. CIT (supra). Besides

AJAY BAKLIWAL,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRLE, KOTA, KOTA

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

ITA 1277/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Apr 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Rajendra SisodiaFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250

section 132 of the Income Tax act together. The documents related to dissolution of JV of both of them were found from the premises of both the persons. Both of them accepted that the transaction in question was not loan but an accommodation entry against the settlement of dispute. In fact, some of the amounts as per seized paper

SHREE SIDDHI VINAYAK INDUCTION PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. 01/JPR/2021 for A

ITA 116/JPR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Aug 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. P. R. Meena (PCIT)
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 43B

viia) of sub-section (1) of section 36. 15. The ld. DR also draw our attention to the facts and findings of the decision relied upon and in particular he draw our attention to the detailed findings given in the case of CIT Vs. Knight Frank (India) Private Limited : “4. In appeals for both the assessment years, the Commissioner

M/S SHRI SIDDHI VINAYAK INDUCTION P. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. 01/JPR/2021 for A

ITA 279/JPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Aug 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. P. R. Meena (PCIT)
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 43B

viia) of sub-section (1) of section 36. 15. The ld. DR also draw our attention to the facts and findings of the decision relied upon and in particular he draw our attention to the detailed findings given in the case of CIT Vs. Knight Frank (India) Private Limited : “4. In appeals for both the assessment years, the Commissioner

SHREE SIDDHI VINAYAK INDUCTIONS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. 01/JPR/2021 for A

ITA 1/JPR/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Aug 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. P. R. Meena (PCIT)
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 43B

viia) of sub-section (1) of section 36. 15. The ld. DR also draw our attention to the facts and findings of the decision relied upon and in particular he draw our attention to the detailed findings given in the case of CIT Vs. Knight Frank (India) Private Limited : “4. In appeals for both the assessment years, the Commissioner

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. STATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 41/JPR/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Aug 2017AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Rolly Agarwal (CIT)
Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)

viia) at Rs. 220,50,86,829/- as against allowable claim of Rs. 230,67,63,914/-. 4. Appellant craves to add, amend, alter or modify any of the ground of appeal. 5. The appropriate cost be awarded to the assessee.” 3. Ground no. 1(i) to (iii) are against disallowance made by invoking the provisions of Rule

M/S S B B J,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 921/JPR/2009[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Aug 2017AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Rolly Agarwal (CIT)
Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)

viia) at Rs. 220,50,86,829/- as against allowable claim of Rs. 230,67,63,914/-. 4. Appellant craves to add, amend, alter or modify any of the ground of appeal. 5. The appropriate cost be awarded to the assessee.” 3. Ground no. 1(i) to (iii) are against disallowance made by invoking the provisions of Rule

A DAGA ROYAL ARTS,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1065/JPR/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 May 2018AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani (C.A)For Respondent: Shri J. C. Kulhari (JCIT)
Section 40A(3)

viia) The relevant extract of Rule 6DD is reproduced as under: “6DD. No disallowance under sub-section (3) of section 40A shall be made and no payment shall be deemed to be the profits and gains of business of profession under sub-section (3A) of section 40A where a payment or aggregate of payments made to a person

SHRI VIKRAM SINGH SHEKHAWAT,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 484/JPR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jan 2020AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.C. Gupta, JCIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 154Section 234A

2. Please note that the above definition covers both the activities of manufacture and production of any article or thing. 3. The word ‘produce’ is defined in Webster new international dictionary to mean “ something which is brought forth or yielded either naturally or as a result of effort and work”. In shorter oxford dictionary, the meaning given is “ To bring

RADHEY RAM GODARA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for Statistical purposes

ITA 349/JPR/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Nov 2017AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma, Addl.CIT -DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234A

disallowed . Thus this ground no. 2 of appeal is partly allowed. 4.1 Apropos Ground No. 3.1 & 3.2 of the assessee, the facts as emerges from the order of the ld. CIT(A) is as under:- 3.3.2 Determination (i) I have carefully perused the submissions of the appellant, assessment order and the material placed on record. The AO mode addition