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.

17 results for “disallowance”+ Section 14A(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai5,377 Delhi3,391 Kolkata1,504 Chennai1,493 Bangalore827 Ahmedabad467 Pune245 Hyderabad209 Karnataka158 Jaipur96 Chandigarh90 Cochin86 Lucknow75 Indore74 Raipur60 Visakhapatnam58 Amritsar52 Ranchi50 Rajkot43 Surat40 Calcutta38 Telangana23 Cuttack20 Guwahati19 Jodhpur17 Nagpur15 Panaji15 Orissa6 Dehradun5 Punjab & Haryana5 Varanasi4 Jabalpur4 SC3 Kerala3 Patna2 Himachal Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 26344 Section 143(3)29 Section 14A25 Section 80I15 Disallowance14 Section 36(1)(viia)12 Revision u/s 2639 Section 1477 Section 143(2)6 Section 148

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

3) of section 14A. The sub section (2) of Section 14A basically lays down the manner in which the disallowance

THE LAKE PALACE HOTELS & MOTELSPRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. PCIT,CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

6

Addition to Income4

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 52/JODH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur27 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 43

Disallowance under section 14A of the I T Act: (i) With regard to your honor’s invoking revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 of the I.T. Act, we humbly submit that your honor has duly accepted and stated that AO has made a query with reference to section 14A r.w.r 8D during assessment u/s 143(3

SUNIL KUMAR DOSHI,BARMER vs. DCIT, CPC / ITO, WARD-1,, BANGALORE / BARMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 124/JODH/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur31 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Making Assessment, Which Is Beyond Jurisdiction Of The Present Proceedings. 2. A. The Ld. Ao Has Erred In Not Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 62,641/- Made By The Ld. Ao In 143(1) Order On Account Of Depreciation Claimed. B. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Following The Decision Of Hon’Ble

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 56

disallowance under section 14A of the Act is attracted in respect of such income. The relevant portion of the judgement is reproduced below for ready reference: 8. The ground No. 3

SMT. LEELA DEVI SANKHLECHA,JODHPUR vs. ITO,WARD-3(4), JODHPUR

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

ITA 64/JODH/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur13 Apr 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmismt. Leela Devi Sankhlecha Vs The Ito C-133, Kamla Nehru Nagar Ward 3(4) X-1, Jodhpur Jodhpur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aobps 7384 G

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 244A

3)/250 which is restricted to working of amount to be disallowed u/s 14A r.w.r. D Accordingly, this ground of appeal is dismissed. 08. As regards the appellant's alternative plea that disallowance made by AO is on a higher side, it is stated that I have already directed the AO to re-work out disallowance u/s. 14A r.w.r

ACIT, CIRCLE, PALI. vs. M/S. RAJASTHAN MARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK, , JODHPUR

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

ITA 504/JODH/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur10 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Goutam Chand Baid, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Lovish Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(viia)

3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) 1, Jodhpur erred in sustaining disallowance of Rs. 38,01,442/- being Provision for Standard Assets allowable on provision basis as per the provisions of section 36(1)(viia) on the finding that Hon'ble ITAT in the assessee's own case in appeal

M.G.B. GRAMIN BANK (THROUGH SUCCESSOR RAJASTHANMARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK),JODHPUR vs. ACIT, PALI

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

ITA 518/JODH/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur10 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Goutam Chand Baid, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Lovish Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(viia)

3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) 1, Jodhpur erred in sustaining disallowance of Rs. 38,01,442/- being Provision for Standard Assets allowable on provision basis as per the provisions of section 36(1)(viia) on the finding that Hon'ble ITAT in the assessee's own case in appeal

M.G.B. GRAMIN BANK (THROUGH SUCCESSOR RAJASTHANMARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK),JODHPUR vs. ACIT, PALI

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

ITA 517/JODH/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur10 Nov 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Goutam Chand Baid, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Lovish Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(viia)

3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) 1, Jodhpur erred in sustaining disallowance of Rs. 38,01,442/- being Provision for Standard Assets allowable on provision basis as per the provisions of section 36(1)(viia) on the finding that Hon'ble ITAT in the assessee's own case in appeal

M.G.B. GRAMIN BANK (THROUGH SUCCESSOR RAJASTHANMARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK),JODHPUR vs. ADDITIONAL CIT, PALI

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

ITA 521/JODH/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur10 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Goutam Chand Baid, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Lovish Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(viia)

3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) 1, Jodhpur erred in sustaining disallowance of Rs. 38,01,442/- being Provision for Standard Assets allowable on provision basis as per the provisions of section 36(1)(viia) on the finding that Hon'ble ITAT in the assessee's own case in appeal

M.G.B. GRAMIN BANK (THROUGH SUCCESSOR RAJASTHANMARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK),JODHPUR vs. ADDITIONAL CIT, PALI

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

ITA 520/JODH/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur10 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Goutam Chand Baid, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Lovish Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(viia)

3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) 1, Jodhpur erred in sustaining disallowance of Rs. 38,01,442/- being Provision for Standard Assets allowable on provision basis as per the provisions of section 36(1)(viia) on the finding that Hon'ble ITAT in the assessee's own case in appeal

M.G.B. GRAMIN BANK (THROUGH SUCCESSOR RAJASTHANMARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK),JODHPUR vs. ACIT, PALI

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

ITA 519/JODH/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur10 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Goutam Chand Baid, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Lovish Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(viia)

3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) 1, Jodhpur erred in sustaining disallowance of Rs. 38,01,442/- being Provision for Standard Assets allowable on provision basis as per the provisions of section 36(1)(viia) on the finding that Hon'ble ITAT in the assessee's own case in appeal

PRIME SUITINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,BHILWARA vs. ITO, WARD-4, BHILWARA

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

ITA 440/JODH/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur17 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S Prime Suitings Pvt. Ltd., D- Income Tax Officer, 5-6, Bhilwara Textile Market, Vs Ward-4, Bhilwara Pur Road, Bhilwara Pan: Aaacp8447P Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Ms. Prerana Choudhary-Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing 17.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.08.2023 Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Ajmer Dated 06Th June, 2018 Emanating From Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Passed By Ito, Ward-4, Bhilwara On 30.11.2017. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(C)

3. Ld. DR supported the order of the Lower Authorities. Findings & Analysis 4. In this case, the only issue involved is disallowance under section 14A

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

disallow the claimed capital expenditure of Rs.5,25,52,586/-. Since, the assessee was hit by provision of section 2(15) of the I.T. Act, 1961 the total taxable income comes to Rs.6,71,88,566/- (Rs.1,46,35,981/- + Rs.5,25,52,586/-), therefore, the assessment done at NIL income by the AO is erroneous as the final computation

O.S. MOTORS PVT. LTD.,JODHPUR` vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME , JODHPUR

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

ITA 54/JODH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur16 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmim/S. O.S. Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Pr. Cit Sainiks Motor Building, Chopasani Jodhpur-1 Road, Jodhpur-342001 (Raj) Jodhpur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaco 1896 R

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 194HSection 263Section 36(1)(v)Section 40

3. The scope of revision proceedings initiated under section 263 of the Act was examined by Hon'ble Bombay High Court, in the case of Grasim Industries Ltd. V CIT (321 ITR 92) by taking into account the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The relevant observations are extracted below: “Section 263 of the Income

RAJASTHAN MARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK ,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 125/JODH/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur12 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 250(6)

disallowance of Rs. Rs. 89,18,157/- c. The Hon'ble ITAT may very kindly delete the same. 5. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the detailed facts and figures provided by way of charts in the written submission that the Id. CIT(A) seriously erred in law facts

SATYA NARAYAN DHOOT,JODHPUR vs. PR. CIT-1, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in respect of above said three issues

ITA 49/JODH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur17 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Sandeep Gosain (Jm) I.T.A. No. 49/Jodh/2022 (A.Y. 2017-18) Vs. Pcit-1 Satya Narayan Dhoot C/O Rajendra Jain Advocate Jodhpur 106, Akshay Deep Complex 5Th B Road, Sardarpura Jodhpur, Rajasthan-342 001. Pan : Aanpd4945L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rajendra Jain Department By Smt. Alka Rajvanshi Jain Date Of Hearing 03.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 17 .01.2023 O R D E R Per B.R.Baskaran (Am) :-

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 80I

Disallowance of expenses u/s 14A of the Act. Even though the Ld D.R submitted that the Ld PCIT has taken one more issue, yet we confine ourselves to the above said three issues only, since the argument was advanced on the above said three issues only. 3. The first issue relates to the deduction allowed u/s 80IA

HITKARI AND SWARAJ ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED,BARMER vs. PR. CIT-1, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 61/JODH/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur24 Jan 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 263

disallowance as per the provisions of Section 14A of the Act, the said assessment order will be an erroneous one and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, as envisaged under the provisions of Section 263 of the Act. 70. In the case of CIT vs Amitabh Bachchan (2016) 384 ITR 200 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held

VIMLA DEVI BHATTAR,PHALODI vs. ITO, WARD, PHALODI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 809/JODH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur17 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Blevimla Devi Bhattar Ito, Ward E-51, Industrial Area Khichan Phalodi - 342301 (Phalodi) Jodhpur - 342301 Pan No. Amjpb 6652 J Assessee By Shri Kapil Hirani, Advocate (Virtual) Revenue By Shri Lalit Kumar Bishnoi, Addl. Cit-Dr (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 28.01.2026. Date Of Pronouncement 17.02.2026. Order Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.:

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 234BSection 69A

section 234B, 234C and 234D of the Act as charged. Without prejudice, the levy of interest is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive. 9. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, vary and/or withdraw the above ground of appeal with the kind permission of the Hon’ble Tribunal. 3. The issues raised in the grounds of appeal are inter-related