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.

11 results for “disallowance”+ Section 194clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai935Delhi873Bangalore268Kolkata242Chennai204Ahmedabad178Jaipur157Chandigarh101Pune97Cochin90Hyderabad90Raipur63Nagpur61Indore49Surat45Cuttack39Calcutta36Telangana28Guwahati27Amritsar25Visakhapatnam25Allahabad23Karnataka19Lucknow17Jodhpur11Rajkot10Panaji9Patna9SC8Jabalpur7Kerala5Agra5Ranchi4Dehradun2Varanasi1Punjab & Haryana1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 54F11Addition to Income10Section 143(3)9Section 1549Section 118Section 153A8Section 143(1)7Section 2637Deduction7Disallowance

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

section 263 of the Act. 8 Nahar Colours and Coatings Private Ltd 5. Aggrieved from the order of the PCIT, assessee preferred an appeal before this tribunal on the grounds as reiterated here in above in para 2. A propose to the grounds so raised the assessee has filed a paper book containing the following evidences in support

6
Section 80I5
Business Income4

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

disallowed. Thus, the Commissioner (Appeals) rightly held that the provision contained in section 14A is applicable to the facts of the case. Further, it has been held in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2010] 194

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

disallowed u/s 40a(ia) r.w.s. 194 of the I.T. Act, 1961 and added back t the total income of the assessee.’’ 4. Aggrieved, from the order of the AO passed u/s 154 of the Act, 1961 on 15-10-2019, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who after hearing the contention of the assessee dismissed

PUSHAP RAJ BOHRA ,JALORE vs. DCIT, BARMER CIRCLE, BARMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 158/JODH/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur20 Mar 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosain(Respondent) Pan: Aanpb 4456 C

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 45(2)Section 54BSection 54F

section 45(2). Disallowance of expenditure was restricted to 40% by CIT(A) as against disallowance of 50% by the AO. 5. Against the above order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in further appeal before the ITAT. 6. It was argued by the ld AR of the assessee that the AO issued notice u/s 142(1) dated

RAMESH RAJ BHRA,JALORE vs. DCIT,BARMER CIRCLE,, BARMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 157/JODH/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur20 Mar 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosain(Respondent) Pan: Aappb 7135 G

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 45(2)Section 54BSection 54F

section 45(2). Disallowance of expenditure was restricted to 40% by CIT(A) as against disallowance of 50% so made by the AO. 5. Against the above order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in further appeal before the ITAT. 3 ITA 157/Jodh/2019 Ramesh Raj Bohra Vs DCIT 6. It was argued

JAGJIT SINGH ARORA,UDAIPUR vs. ITO,WARD-1(1), UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 15/JODH/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur28 Nov 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Hearing Of Appeal

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Shri Girish Mehta, JCIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 194

section 194 C of the Act, out of which the assessee might have made further payment so as to arrive at net income or profit. The Assessing Officer applied the NPR of 8% on the receipts as per 26AS Form of i.e; 1,50,61,240/- and worked out the Net Profit at Rs. 12,04,899/-. Since the assessee

TARUN MURADIA,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

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

ITA 848/JODH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur23 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Section 132aSection 132tSection 143(2)Section 153ASection 234ASection 250

section 69A in the year under consideration. 4.2 Accordingly the addition made by the Ld. AO in the proceedings u/s 153A is without jurisdiction/scope u/s 153A hence illegal and uncalled for. In this respect, the ratios of above judgments are fully applicable considering the facts and circumstances which are totally similar and identical to above cases. Hence the assessment

UMED HOSPITAL MEDICARE RELIEF SOCIETY,JODHPUR vs. DCIT, CPC /ITO, EXEMPTION WARDM,, BANGALORE. JODHPUR

ITA 175/JODH/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur06 Oct 2023AY 2015-16
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 288

section 11 and 12 shall apply to the case of the assessee Accordingly no exemption is granted u/s 11(2) of the IT Act for the year under consideration In result the appeal of the appellant is dismissed.” 5. As the assessee did not receive any favour from the appeal filed before ld. NFAC/ CIT(A). The present appeal filed

SUKHDEV CHAYAL,BIKANER vs. PCIT-1,, JODHPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 26/JODH/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur07 Oct 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year: 2016-17 Sukhdev Chayal, Vs. Pr.Cit-1, Near Ratan Sagar Well, Jodhpur. Bikaner. Pan No. Afjpc 9250 J

Section 143(3)Section 263

disallowed and added to the total income of assessee in the head of capital gain under short term capital gain for the relevant year." It was directed by the PCIT that the sale of land be booked under the head Business and Profession rather than STCG. Such type of subjectivity which propagates one line of action and negates another

ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BIKANER vs. MUKESH SHAH, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 399/JODH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur08 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

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

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 24

194(Raj.). Accordingly, ld. AO held that the transaction of sale plots was in the nature of business activities and the claim of the assessee regarding indexation benefit was disallowed. The business income of the assessee from the sale of the plots was recomputed in the following manner:- Total sale consideration - Rs. 2,37,60,000/- Less: Purchase cost

ASHIANA BUILDPROP PRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

ITA 706/JODH/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur26 May 2025AY 2013-14
Section 132Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 250

section 145 are not found to\nbe relevant in the facts of this case. The AO has not disturbed the book results as the cash\ntransactions are not part of regular books of accounts.\nThe ld CIT(A) has also tried to distinguish the decisions relied upon. Thus on the\nbasis of above observations the ld. CIT(A) confirmed