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.

3 results for “disallowance”+ Section 80Mclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai107 Delhi67 Bangalore21 Chennai11 Chandigarh10 Kolkata9 Ahmedabad7 Raipur5 Karnataka5 Pune5 Hyderabad4 Jaipur3 Punjab & Haryana2 SC2 Telangana2 Cochin2 Jodhpur1 Surat1 Orissa1 Indore1

Key Topics

Section 14A5 Section 2635 Section 143(3)3 Addition to Income2

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 under Section 80M of the Act on the presumption that when the funds available to the assessee were both

DYNAMIC POWERTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 4, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 231/JPR/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 May 2025AY 2023-24

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

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 154Section 250

disallowed the assessee company's claim under Section 10AA and raised a demand of Rs.66,11,560/-. The appellant immediately filed a rectification request under Section 154 on 22.01.2024 (Rectification Request No. 9091774400220124) highlighting the error in CPC's processing. However, CPC rejected the application on the ground that there was no mistake apparent from the record. A subsequent rectification

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S MANGLAM BUILD DEVELOPERS LTD, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 373/JPR/2022[2013]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Apr 2023

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

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri James Kurian (CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 133ASection 14A

80M of the Act where it was held that deduction would be made of net receipt from dividend and not the gross receipt. Thus this decision is not in 24 ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR VS MANGLAM BUILD DEVELOPERS LTD. context of section 14A. Whereas, I find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT