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.

54 results for “disallowance”+ Section 154clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,488Delhi2,153Bangalore813Chennai533Kolkata512Ahmedabad440Pune335Jaipur320Cochin267Indore259Hyderabad226Chandigarh204Surat130Visakhapatnam114Raipur112Nagpur101Lucknow98Agra80Amritsar67Guwahati62Jodhpur54Rajkot51Cuttack43Karnataka42Calcutta42Allahabad28Patna26Telangana21Panaji20Jabalpur18SC15Kerala9Ranchi9Dehradun8Punjab & Haryana7Varanasi5Rajasthan2Gauhati1Himachal Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 15490Section 143(1)48Section 143(3)41Disallowance38Addition to Income30Section 80P(2)(d)22Deduction22Section 80P21Section 1120Section 263

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

disallowance of expenditure under Section14AtobeRs. 183.63/acs. 1. It is accepted and admitted that the Assessing Officer had not applied Section 14A and no deduction under the said Section was made. In respect of the present assessment year, i.e., Assessment Year 2000-01, the contention of the respondent- assessee is that in view of the proviso to Section

Showing 1–20 of 54 · Page 1 of 3

18
Section 36(1)(va)18
Rectification u/s 15417

M/S. KARNAWAT INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO, RAJSAMAND

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 36/JODH/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur11 Aug 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

Section 10ASection 10BSection 154Section 155

154 r.w.s. 155( 11A) of the Act. M/s Karnawat International Pvt. Ltd. 5.1 The assessee had claimed exemption under section 10B of the Act. Assessee is a exporter for the A.Y. 2006-07 & 2007-08. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer made a disallowance

M/S. KARNAWAT INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO, RAJSAMAND

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 35/JODH/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur11 Aug 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

Section 10ASection 10BSection 154Section 155

154 r.w.s. 155( 11A) of the Act. M/s Karnawat International Pvt. Ltd. 5.1 The assessee had claimed exemption under section 10B of the Act. Assessee is a exporter for the A.Y. 2006-07 & 2007-08. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer made a disallowance

SHRI KAILASH CHANDRA,BARMER vs. ITO,WARD-1, BARMER

In the result, appeal of the assesse is allowed

ITA 119/JODH/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur22 Sept 2023AY 2014-15
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 194Section 194ISection 40Section 40a

disallowance of deduction u/s 40(a)(ia) is outside the jurisdiction of Section 154 of the Act. 4. That on the facts

SUNIL PAGARIA,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 198/JODH/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur09 Oct 2023AY 2013-14
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234Section 54F

disallowed to the extent, vide rectification u/s 154. (3) Alternatively: how assessment completed u/s 143 (3), proceeding u/s 154 is not amenable? Copy of reply dated 04/05/2018 attached at Pg No 54 to 97. Yet the Ld. AO did not consider without considering case laws furnished. In first appeal, it has been argued on similar line like:  Provision of section

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 under section 43B read with section 36(1)(va) of the Act in view of the binding decisions of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court. 19. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA No. 28 & 29/JODH/2021 ITA No. 05, 28, 29 & 43/JODH/2021 11 Mohangarh Engineers and Construction Co. & Others vs. CPC 20. Heard

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)

154 application had rightly been rejected by the NFAC. 6.0 We have considered the submission of both the parties and perused the material available on record. In the present cases, it is not in dispute that the assessee deposited the contribution of PF & ESI belatedly in terms of section 36(1)(va) of the Act. However, the said deposits were

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)

154 application had rightly been rejected by the NFAC. 6.0 We have considered the submission of both the parties and perused the material available on record. In the present cases, it is not in dispute that the assessee deposited the contribution of PF & ESI belatedly in terms of section 36(1)(va) of the Act. However, the said deposits were

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

section 143(1) / 154 and on facts also the same is outside the scope of such adjustment. 1.2. It is well settled that no addition can be made in a order u/s 143(1) / 154 where detailed reasoning is required for making any addition. The disallowance

AZTEC SHIVA HANDICRAFTS & ARTS PVT. LTD.,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, JODHPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 161/JODH/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur13 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

section 154 and hence the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in upholding such illegal action of Ld. AO. 04. Without prejudice to the above, even if the employees contribution to PF/ESI is not allowable u/s 36(1)(va) then the same is allowable u/s 37(1) as business expenditure. 05. That the appellant reserves the right to add, alter

M/S. SARDA GUMS & CHEMICALS,PALI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE1- PALI,, PALI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 115/JODH/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur03 Aug 2023AY 2012-13
Section 143(3)Section 154

section 143(3)/154 of the Income Tax Act, by the ACIT, Circle- Pali. 2. The assessee has marched this appeal on the following grounds:- “1. The ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in upholding the order of AO passed u/s 154 of the Act. 2. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred on facts

DUSHKAL GO SEWA SAMITI,SUMERPUR vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), JODHPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5/JODH/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur06 Oct 2023AY 2018-19
Section 11Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154

154 without providing any opportunity of hearing by the Assessing Officer. 2. Ld. CIT(A) also erred in law in arbitrarily confirming the Ld. AO's action in not rectifying the mistake as adjustments were made beyond the A.O. jurisdiction/ powers provided under clause (i) to (vi) of section 143(1)(a). 3. Ld. CIT(A) erred

DUSHKAL GO SEWA SAMITI,SUMERPUR vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), JODHPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 9/JODH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur06 Oct 2023AY 2017-18
Section 11Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154

154 without providing any opportunity of hearing by the Assessing Officer. 2. Ld. CIT(A) also erred in law in arbitrarily confirming the Ld. AO's action in not rectifying the mistake as adjustments were made beyond the A.O. jurisdiction/ powers provided under clause (i) to (vi) of section 143(1)(a). 3. Ld. CIT(A) erred

NAGAUR URBAN COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,NAGAUR vs. ITO, WARD-1,, NAGAUR

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

ITA 882/JODH/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur28 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Blenagaur Urban Coop Bank Income Tax Officer, Ward – 1 Limited Nagaur - 341001 Head Office Bal Samand, Nagaur - 341001 Pan No. Aaaan 7788 B Assessee By None (Adjournment Application) Shri K.C. Meena, Addl. Cit-Dr (Virtual) Revenue By Date Of Hearing 12.01.2026. Date Of Pronouncement 28.01.2026. Order Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.: The Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Nfac/Cit Appeal”] Dated 27.09.2024 With Respect To Assessment Year 2022-23 Challenging Therein Disallowance Of Rs. 6,51,147/- By Cpc Invoking Provisions Of Section 154 Of The Income Tax Act.

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

disallowance of Rs. 6,51,147/- by CPC invoking provisions of Section 154 of the Income Tax Act. 2. None

RAJ KUMAR GOLECHA,PALI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JODHPUR, AAYKAR BHAWAN, JODHPUR

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 515/JODH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur10 Mar 2025AY 2014-15
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250

disallowance can only be made from the materials found during the time of search. It is in violation of the principles of natural justice, arbitrary, mechanical and without any independent application of mind and the AO has not discharged the burden of proof, proving that the income determined and sought to be taxed were not from the materials seized during

KAUSHALIYA DEVI DHOOT,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 779/JODH/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur30 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble

Section 11Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 801A

disallowance of brought forward capital loss of Rs. 13,01,585/- and TDS Credit of Rs. 46,662/- in the computation of income. 4. We have heard both the sides and perused material on record. From the impugned order, it is seen that the learned JCIT (A) rejected the appeal qua the assessee by observing vide para5, as under

GURPREET SINGH SONI,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 263/JODH/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur25 Nov 2019AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Shri Girish Mehta, JCIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 24

disallowing the claim of the assessee amounting to Rs. 1,50,000/- under section 24(b) of the Act for the reason that no documentary evidence was furnished. The assessee moved an application under section 154

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR vs. VIKRAM ANJANA, CHITTORGARH

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

ITA 274/JODH/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur09 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosaindy. Commissioner Of Vs Sh. Vikram Anjana Income-Tax, Kesunda, Chhoti Central Circle-01, Udaipur Sadri, Chittorgarh (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Afkpa 0575 R

Section 40A(2)(a)Section 40A(2)(b)

154/- @12% 5. The AO noticed that the assessee has paid interest @ 10% to many unrelated parties. Accordingly he took the view that the rate of interest paid in excess of 10% to related parties would be liable for disallowance u/s 40A(2)(a) of the Act. Accordingly he restricted the interest rate to 10% 3 DCIT vs. Sh. Vikram

SUSHIL KUMAR MARLECHA,PALI vs. DEPUTY/ASSTT, CIT (CPC-TDS) / ITO, TDS-1,, GHAZIABAD / JODHPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 123/JODH/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur04 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Its Hearing Before Your Honour.”

Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 201Section 205CSection 206CSection 234E

section should be construed strictly and reasonably. The Bombay High Court in the case of Dattatraya Gopal Shette vs. CIT (1984) 41 CTR (Bom) 393 : (1984) 150 ITR 460 (Bom), has also taken the same view. The Bombay High Court was dealing with a case where an application for renewal of registration was not signed by one of the partners

ROYAL SUITINGS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BHILWARA vs. ITO, WARD-1, BHILWARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 261/JODH/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur09 Aug 2023AY 2010-11
Section 143(3)Section 154

section 154 dated 31.08.2018. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:- “1. That assessee company made addition in plant & machinery of Rs. 21, 45,124/- and claimed depreciation thereon. 2. That A.O. disallowed