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.

587 results for “disallowance”+ Section 57clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai4,626 Delhi3,805 Bangalore1,541 Chennai1,211 Kolkata998 Ahmedabad974 Pune815 Jaipur587 Hyderabad583 Indore387 Chandigarh371 Cochin295 Surat265 Visakhapatnam206 Rajkot163 Raipur157 Nagpur145 Lucknow119 Cuttack102 Karnataka89 Amritsar79 Panaji69 Jodhpur57 Allahabad54 Agra54 Ranchi53 Calcutta46 Guwahati46 Telangana42 SC35 Dehradun30 Varanasi25 Jabalpur20 Patna19 Punjab & Haryana6 Kerala6 Orissa2 Rajasthan1 Himachal Pradesh1 Gauhati1 ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1 RANJAN GOGOI PRAFULLA C. PANT1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)70 Addition to Income61 Section 26334 Disallowance34 Section 14731 Section 14830 Section 35A25 Section 271B24 Section 153A20 Section 36(1)(va)

MAGENDRA SINGH RATHORE,ALWAR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 483/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargiya (Adv.) &For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh (Addl. CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 57

disallowed the interest in accordance with the provision of section 36(1)(iii) of the Act and not as per provision of section 57

KAPIL TANEJA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE 3, JAIPUR

Showing 1–20 of 587 · Page 1 of 30

...

16

Natural Justice13

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 13/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

disallowance has been made as per section 57(iii), though provisions of section 57(iii) have not been invoked specifically

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)

57,989/- made by AO since the decision of ld. CIT (A) is not in conformity with the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Abhishek Industries Ltd. (2006) 286 ITR 1 (Punjab) to the effect that all the borrowed funds and assessee’s own funds go into common kitty

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)

57,989/- made by AO since the decision of ld. CIT (A) is not in conformity with the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Abhishek Industries Ltd. (2006) 286 ITR 1 (Punjab) to the effect that all the borrowed funds and assessee’s own funds go into common kitty

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)

57,989/- made by AO since the decision of ld. CIT (A) is not in conformity with the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Abhishek Industries Ltd. (2006) 286 ITR 1 (Punjab) to the effect that all the borrowed funds and assessee’s own funds go into common kitty

SHRI KAILASH CHAND SONI C/O- S.L. PODDAR & COMPANY E-3A, KANTI CHANDRA RAOD, BANI PARK, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, this ground raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 960/JPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Rajendra Singh (JCIT)

Section 143(3)Section 57

disallowance of interest expenses which are in accordance the provisions of section 57(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The assessee

RAMA KANT SABOO,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE 7, BABA SIDDHANATHA BHAWAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1490/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kanodia, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR

Section 143Section 234Section 57

disallowing the claim for the loss of Rs 6,91,662/- under section 57 of the Act, is upheld and the appellant

RAJ KUMAR KANDOI,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed with no orders as to costs

ITA 575/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Meena, Addl. CIT-DR

disallowed the claim of interest expenses having regard to the narrower scope of deductions eligible under section 57(i) of the Act. We thus

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. 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

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

J.K. JEWELLERS,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result the disallowance of interest sustained by the ld

ITA 100/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Was Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 19.11.2018

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh, Add. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 57

section 57(iii) of the Act. (ii) proportionate interest expenditure aggregating to Rs. 9,64,427/- due to the fact that in some cases rate of interest charged is less than rate of interest on which loan is obtained by appellant and the same is disallowed

PREM DEVI BAID,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(5), JAIPUR, NCRB, STATUE CIRCLE, C-SCHEME

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 50/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

For Appellant: Mr. Dheeraj Borad, CA. Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 14ASection 250Section 57Section 68

disallowance of interest amounting to Rs. 22,70,120/- claimed under Section 57 of the Act. 26. Brief facts relating

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. 14Aof Income Tax Act,1961 should be made.” It is clearly evident from the above reply submitted that assessee never admitted that case is covered by the provisions of section 14A of the Act and also the explanatory circular of CBDT No. 5/2014. Accordingly, this revisionary order passed u/s 263 of I. Tax Act is arbitrary assuming wrong

MAYUR UNIQUOTERS LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX NFAC, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assesse are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

ITA 2/JPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri S. S. Nagar, C.AFor Respondent: MonishaChoudhary, JCIT

Section 14ASection 234CSection 80Section 80J

disallowable expense. TheFinance Act 2022 has amended section 40 by inserting Explanation 3 with effectfrom 1-4-2005 to provide that the term ‘tax’ shall include and shall be deemed tohave always included any surcharge or cess. In light of the amendment effectedretrospectively, it is held that Education cess is not an allowable Expense and theadditional ground raised

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KOTA vs. M/S JAINCO ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD., KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 755/JPR/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Dec 2017AY 2014-15

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma (Addl.CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 14ASection 2(24)(x)

57 taxmann.com 28. In that case a similar question arose, viz., whether the ITAT was justified in deleting the disallowance under Section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KOTA vs. SUDHA HOSPITAL & MEDICAL RESEARCH CENTRE, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 671/JPR/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Oct 2017AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma (Addl.CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

57 taxmann.com 28. In that case a similar question arose, viz., whether the ITAT was justified in deleting the disallowance under Section

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)

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

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