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.

163 results for “disallowance”+ Section 13(8)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai12,527Delhi10,942Bangalore3,802Chennai3,579Kolkata3,023Ahmedabad2,508Pune2,236Hyderabad1,743Jaipur1,500Chandigarh994Surat981Indore918Raipur594Cochin593Visakhapatnam552Cuttack485Karnataka430Rajkot420Amritsar407Nagpur370Lucknow278Agra187Panaji170Jodhpur163Guwahati148Ranchi133Telangana122Allahabad116SC111Patna90Dehradun76Calcutta68Jabalpur43Kerala38Varanasi33Punjab & Haryana12Rajasthan10Orissa7Himachal Pradesh6A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN5Gauhati2D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1RANJAN GOGOI PRAFULLA C. PANT1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1ANIL R. DAVE AMITAVA ROY L. NAGESWARA RAO1Tripura1Uttarakhand1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)107Disallowance72Addition to Income67Section 26362Section 143(1)45Section 15442Section 80I42Section 36(1)(va)37Section 14833Section 139(1)

AJMER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,AJMER vs. CIT(EXEMPTION)/ ITO (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR / JODHPUR

In the result, the stay application filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 89/JODH/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur22 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatshri Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

13(8)(effective from 01.04.2009) read with first and second proviso of section 2(15). However, on review of the said assessment order and records, for the relevant year, it was found that though the AO has denied the benefits of Section 11 and 12 of the Act to the assessee but at the same time, failed

M/S. RAJASTHAN VIKAS SANSTHAN ,JODHPUR vs. CIT(E), JAIPUR

ITA 44/JODH/2020[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur01 Feb 2021AY 2019-20

Showing 1–20 of 163 · Page 1 of 9

...
30
Deduction28
Exemption15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalm/S Rajasthan Vikas Sansthan, Vs. C.I.T.(E) Teesra Prahsar Bhawan, 1St A Jaipur. Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur. Pan No. Aaatr 3975 P Assessee By Shri P.C. Parwal (Ca) Revenue By Shri K.C. Badhok, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 04.11.2020 Date Of Pronouncement 01/02/2021 O R D E R Per: Bench This Is The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(E), Jaipur Dated 03/01/2020 Passed U/S 12Aa(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act). In This Appeal, The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld. Cit(E) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Cancelling The Registration Granted To The Assessee U/S 12Aa Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 By Incorrectly Holding That Funds Of The Trust Has Been Diverted For Purchase Of Personal Property Of The Trustees & In Form Of Highly Unreasonable Security Deposits Given To The Trustees Without Charging Interest, Thereby Violating The Provisions Of Section 13(1)(C)(Ii) R.W.S. 13(2)(A) & 13(2)(G) 1.1 The Ld. Cit(E) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Cancelling The Registration Granted U/S 12Aa Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 By Not Considering The Decision Of Hon’Ble Itat In Assessee’S Own Case Whereby Vide Order Dated 16/12/2011 In Ita No. 11/Jodh/2011 It Was Held That It Case The Trust Fails To Comply With The Requirements As Mentioned In Section 11 & 13 Of The Act, Then Exemption Can Be Denied But Registration Cannot Be Cancelled.

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)

disallowing exemption. Reference is made to the order of the ITAT Chandigarh Bench in the case of Young Scholars Educational 6 ITA 44/Jodh/2020 M/s Rajasthan Vikas Sansthan Vs CIT(E) Society vs ITO 12 ITR (Tribunal) 640. In respect of the payment made to the persons covered u/s 13(3), the assessee has already explained the reasonableness. The reasonableness

ACIT, CIRCLE (EXEMPTION), JODHPUR vs. M/S. VIDYA BHAWAN SOCIETY, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 325/JODH/2019[ 2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur24 Mar 2023

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatshri Manish Boradacit, Vs M/S. Vidya Bhawan Circle (Exemption), Society, Mohan Singh, Jodhpur Mehta Marg, Fatehpur, Udaipur (Raj.) (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Assessee By Shri Amit Kothari, Ca Revenue By Shri S.M.Joshi, Jcit Dr Date Of Hearing 23/03/2023 Date Of 24/03/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Kul Bharat, J.M.: The Present Appeal Filed By The Revenue For The Assessment Year 2014-15 Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-1, Udaipur Dated 27.06.2019. The Revenue Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

Section 11Section 11(5)Section 13(1)(d)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

13 | P a g e income, while the net income along with donations other than corpus donation, will form the eligible base out of which the Assessee is expected to apply 85%. This has also been explained in CBDT circular no. 5P dated 19.06.1998. Therefore, there is no question of making separate disallowance for loss on sale of fixed assets

NAHAR COLOURS AND COATINHGS PRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OFINCOMETAX, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 140/JODH/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur09 Aug 2023AY 2018-19
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 801ASection 80I

13,664/- in view of provision of section 80IA of the Act, disallowance of Rs. 51,58,174/- u/s. 14A of the act and disallowance of Rs. 15,24,003/- in terms of 7 Nahar Colours and Coatings Private Ltd section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act. Therefore, due to lack of enquiry

SHREE VISHWAKARMA SUTRADHAR SAMPATI TRUST,BIKANER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION, BIKANER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 305/JODH/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur28 Mar 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Hearing On The Case.

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari (CA)For Respondent: Shri Karni Dan, Addl. CIT
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 250

13(8) of the Income-tax Act. The assessee’s submission was carefully considered. As per the provisions of Section 11 and 12AA of the Income-tax Act, the registration of the trust under Section 12AA is mandatory in order to claim the exemption under Section 11 of the Act. In the absence of the registration u/s 12AA

COUNTRY ART AND CRAFT LLP,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 85/JODH/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur08 Nov 2021AY 2015-16
For Appellant: ShriRajendra Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.M. Joshi, JCIT DR
Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)

8. In the present cases, it is not in dispute that the assessees deposited the contribution of PF & ESI belated in terms of section 36(1)(va) of the Act, however, the said deposits were made prior to filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act. 8.1 Identical issue with the similar facts have already been adjudicated

ACIT, PAOTA C ROAD vs. VARAHA INFRA LIMITED, PAOTA B ROAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 160/JODH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur01 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhaithe Acit Vs M/S. Vardha Infra Ltd. Room No. 215, Aayakar Bhawan 6 Jalam Vilas Scheme Paota C Road, Jodhpur Paota B Road, Jodhpur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccv 7972 K

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40

13 In the computation of total income the assessed had already made disallowance of 30% of the expenditure amounting to Rs. 1.25.21.09.040/- on which TDS had not been deducted. The disallowance of Rs. 37,56,32,712/- has been made in the computation of total Income. The addition for the said disallowance has already been made by the assessee

U AND T TRACTOR SPARES PRIVATE LIMITED,JODHPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

ITA 43/JODH/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur06 Aug 2021AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Raksha Birla (C.A.) & Shri Mohit Soni (C.A.)For Respondent: Miss Kajal Singh (JCIT)
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

disallowed in terms of section 36(1)(va) while processing the return of income u/s 143(1) and has been rightly confirmed by the ld CIT(A) following the decisions of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs Bharat Hotels Ltd, Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of PCIT vs Suzlon Energy Ltd 115 Taxmann.com

M/S TARUN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,WARD NO.24, NEAR BHAGAT SINGH CHOWK, SURATGARH vs. CPC, BANGALORE/ ITO, WARD-1, SRIGANGANAGAR , SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result, appeals are dismissed

ITA 108/JODH/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur21 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. Brr Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. P.C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Rajeev Mohan, JCIT-DR
Section 10ASection 139Section 142Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

8. The Finance Act, 2021 had introduced the following amendment by bringing in Explanation 2 to section 36(1)(va) of the Act: “[Explanation 2.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the provisions of section 43B shall not apply and shall be deemed never to have been applied for the purposes of determining the "due date

M/S TARUN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,WARD NO.24, NEAR BHAGAT SINGH CHOWK, SURATGARH vs. CPC, BANGALORE/ ITO, WARD-1, SRIGANGANAGAR, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result, appeals are dismissed

ITA 109/JODH/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur21 Sept 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. Brr Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. P.C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Rajeev Mohan, JCIT-DR
Section 10ASection 139Section 142Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

8. The Finance Act, 2021 had introduced the following amendment by bringing in Explanation 2 to section 36(1)(va) of the Act: “[Explanation 2.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the provisions of section 43B shall not apply and shall be deemed never to have been applied for the purposes of determining the "due date

PUSHAPRAJ KOTHARI,JASOL vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, BARMER, BARMER

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 111/JODH/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur25 Jan 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Years : 2018-19 Puspapraj Kothari Vs. The Acit, Yashwal, Nakoda Road, Jasol, Barmer Circle, 344024 Barmer Pan No: Aaupk1365N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. S.M. Joshi, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43

8. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the assessees deposited the contribution of PF & ESI belatedly in terms of section 36(1)(va) of the Act. However, the said deposits were made prior to filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act. 8.1 Identical issue on similar facts have already been adjudicated

MONA MARBLES PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, the captioned appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 139/JODH/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur18 Jan 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavahearing Though Video Conferencing

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S.M. Joshi, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 2Section 36(1)(va)

8. In the present cases, it is not in dispute that the assessees deposited the contribution of PF & ESI belated in terms of section 36(1)(va) of the Act, however, the said deposits were made prior to filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act. 8.1 Identical issue with the similar facts have already been adjudicated

MEGA TEX PRINTS,PALI vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE / ITO, WARD-1, PALI

In the result, the captioned appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 105/JODH/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur18 Jan 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavahearing Though Video Conferencing

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S.M. Joshi, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 2Section 36(1)(va)

8. In the present cases, it is not in dispute that the assessees deposited the contribution of PF & ESI belated in terms of section 36(1)(va) of the Act, however, the said deposits were made prior to filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act. 8.1 Identical issue with the similar facts have already been adjudicated

MONA MARBLES PVT. LD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, the captioned appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 117/JODH/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur18 Jan 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavahearing Though Video Conferencing

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S.M. Joshi, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 2Section 36(1)(va)

8. In the present cases, it is not in dispute that the assessees deposited the contribution of PF & ESI belated in terms of section 36(1)(va) of the Act, however, the said deposits were made prior to filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act. 8.1 Identical issue with the similar facts have already been adjudicated

MEGA TEX PRINTS,PALI vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE / ITO, WARD-1, PALI

In the result, the captioned appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 106/JODH/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur18 Jan 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavahearing Though Video Conferencing

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S.M. Joshi, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 2Section 36(1)(va)

8. In the present cases, it is not in dispute that the assessees deposited the contribution of PF & ESI belated in terms of section 36(1)(va) of the Act, however, the said deposits were made prior to filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act. 8.1 Identical issue with the similar facts have already been adjudicated

PREM KISHORE AGARWAL,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(2), JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 103/JODH/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur11 Nov 2021AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Surendra Chopra, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.M. Joshi, JCIT DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

8. In the present cases, it is not in dispute that the assessees deposited the contribution of PF & ESI belated in terms of section 36(1)(va) of the Act, however, the said deposits were made prior to filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act. 8.1 Identical issue with the similar facts have already been adjudicated

HISTORIC RESORT HOTELS PVT. LTD.,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 91/JODH/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur08 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of The Return.

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.M. Joshi, JCIT DR
Section 139(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43

8. In the present cases, it is not in dispute that the assessees deposited the contribution of PF & ESI belated in terms of section 36(1)(va) of the Act, however, the said deposits were made prior to filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act. 8.1 Identical issue with the similar facts have already been adjudicated

ZEPHYRSUN ELECTRO MECH PRIVATE LIMITED,JAISALMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAISALMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 92/JODH/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur08 Nov 2021AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Manish Vyas, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.M. Joshi, JCIT DR
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

8. In the present cases, it is not in dispute that the assessees deposited the contribution of PF & ESI belated in terms of section 36(1)(va) of the Act, however, the said deposits were made prior to filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act. 8.1 Identical issue with the similar facts have already been adjudicated

AKBAR MOHAMMAD,NAGAUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(3), JODHPUR

The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 108/JODH/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur25 Jan 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavahearing Though Video Conferencing

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S.M. Joshi, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

8,44,938/- u/s 143(1) of the Act after making an adjustment of Rs. 1,13,490/- being EPF and ESI payments which were deposited beyond the prescribed date but before the filing of the return of income. In this year also, the application moved by the assessee u/s 154 of the Act was dismissed and subsequently the assessee

AKBAR MOHAMMAD,NAGAUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(3), JODHPUR

The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 109/JODH/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur25 Jan 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavahearing Though Video Conferencing

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S.M. Joshi, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

8,44,938/- u/s 143(1) of the Act after making an adjustment of Rs. 1,13,490/- being EPF and ESI payments which were deposited beyond the prescribed date but before the filing of the return of income. In this year also, the application moved by the assessee u/s 154 of the Act was dismissed and subsequently the assessee