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.

12 results for “disallowance”+ Section 194Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai242Delhi159Bangalore140Kolkata89Chennai75Ahmedabad68Pune61Hyderabad52Chandigarh47Cochin47Visakhapatnam39Cuttack35Jaipur34Rajkot23Raipur22Surat19Jodhpur12Guwahati12Nagpur12Amritsar10Panaji5Ranchi4Allahabad4Indore4Karnataka3Lucknow3SC2Jabalpur1Patna1

Key Topics

Section 4010Section 234E6Section 143(3)5Section 194A(3)(iii)5Section 2005TDS5Disallowance5Section 2634Section 206C4Deduction

RAJTECH INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. ,PRATAPGARH. vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, CHITTORGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 363/JODH/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur30 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

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

Section 143(3)Section 194A(3)(iii)Section 40

section 194A(3)(iii) of the Act. 2 Rajtech Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., [A] Findings & Analysis : 4. In this case, assessee has paid Rs.13,52,500/- to M/s.Hinduja Leyland Finance, Mahindra Finance and Indesand Finance. Since no TDS was made, Assessing Officer(AO) disallowed

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BIKANER vs. SMT. ALPANA GUPTA, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 45/JODH/2020[2017-18]Status: Disposed
4
Addition to Income4
Section 200A3
ITAT Jodhpur
01 Feb 2021
AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwala.C.I.T. Vs. Smt. Alpana Gupta, 4-A-15, Central Circle, Jawahar Nagar, Bikaner. Sriganganagar. Pan No. Aiepg 8893 R

Section 40

194A and consequently the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) are not applicable. Simply because the assessee has agreed for disallowance

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

194A rather than 1941(b) which relates to Rental Income. The rate of TDS is same i.e. 10% under both the 11 ITA 26/Jodh/2021 Sukhdev Chayal Vs PCIT Sections. Thus there is no escapement of income from the clutches of revenue. It is therefore sincerely requested that the impugned order passed by Pr. CIT u/s 263 of the Income

AHUJA AND SONS,SHOP AT NEW DHAN MANDI vs. ADDL COMMISSIONER APPEAL, KOLKATA

Appeal of the assesse is allowed in the manner discussed as above

ITA 45/JODH/2025[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur27 May 2025AY 2023-2024

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, HonʼBle & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble

Section 194QSection 199

disallowing the TDS amounting to Rs. 112921.00. That the Id. AO has further erred in allowing the TDS •in proportion to the turnover/receipts in Form 26AS in relation to TDS deducted under section 194Q,194H,194A

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR vs. M/S. ADARSH CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. , SIROHI.

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes, as indicated above

ITA 211/JODH/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur30 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Prakul Khurana, Advocate and Shri Mukesh Soni, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 33Section 35Section 40Section 56Section 5ASection 67(1)Section 73

Section 5A: Act to override bye-laws/resolutions. 7. On the above plinth, AO held status as AOP, applied s.194A & s.40(a)(ia) to interest, invoked s.40(ba) for commission to members, disallowed advertisement & professional/law charges for stated reasons, and disallowed penalty in terms of Expl.1 to s.37(1). Quantification and computation are set out verbatim in the assessment order

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR vs. M/S. ADARSH CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. , SIROHI.

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes, as indicated above

ITA 212/JODH/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur30 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Prakul Khurana, Advocate and Shri Mukesh Soni, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 33Section 35Section 40Section 56Section 5ASection 67(1)Section 73

Section 5A: Act to override bye-laws/resolutions. 7. On the above plinth, AO held status as AOP, applied s.194A & s.40(a)(ia) to interest, invoked s.40(ba) for commission to members, disallowed advertisement & professional/law charges for stated reasons, and disallowed penalty in terms of Expl.1 to s.37(1). Quantification and computation are set out verbatim in the assessment order

LAXMAN SINGH SOLANKI (FIRM),PALI vs. ITO, , PALI

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

ITA 795/JODH/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur30 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar Gehlot, Addl. CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 194ASection 194C

194A) and JCB hire charges (u/s 194C). As there was no response to various statutory notices, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment ex parte under section 147 r.w.s. 144/144B on 27.03.2022 determining income at Rs.1,03,78,887/- by disallowing

ITO, WARD-1, CHITTORGARH , CHITTORGARH vs. M/S. C.K. MOTORS , CHITTORGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 118/JODH/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur23 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad118/Jodh/2020 (Assessment Year- 2012-13) The Ito Vs M/S. C.K. Motors Ward-1 10A, Old Indusrial Chittorgarh Area, Chittorgarh (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No.Aadfc 8845 L

Section 194ASection 201(1)Section 40

section 40(a)(ia) is applicable prospectively w.e.f. 01- 04-2013 and therefore, the same is not applicable for the A.Y. 2012-13.’’ 2.1 During the course of hearing, the DR relied upon the order of the AO. 2.2 On the other hand, the ld. AR of the assessee supported the order of the ld.CIT(A) and further submitted that

SUBHASH CHAND JAIN ,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 111/JODH/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur28 Jan 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 250

194A of the IT Act 1961 but same was not done by the assessee, hence the AO disallowed the interest of Rs. 1,20,370.00 u/s 40 (a)(ia). The ld CIT (A) has discussed this issue at page No 11 of the appeal order and restricted this addition to Rs. 36111.00. The AR of the assessee submitted that

SUBHASH CHAND JAIN ,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 112/JODH/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur28 Jan 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 250

194A of the IT Act 1961 but same was not done by the assessee, hence the AO disallowed the interest of Rs. 1,20,370.00 u/s 40 (a)(ia). The ld CIT (A) has discussed this issue at page No 11 of the appeal order and restricted this addition to Rs. 36111.00. The AR of the assessee submitted that

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

194A being imposed is not a ground to hold that an opportunity need not be given to rectify the defective nature of the declarations. As already held by me, the section is not intended to impose the liability for filing defective declaration forms, but the liability is sought to be imposed for the failure to deduct income-tax. Further

M/S. RAJASTHAN STATE MINES & MINERALS LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-TDS, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 343/JODH/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur26 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: Shri P.C. ParwalFor Respondent: Shri Girish Mehta JCIT DR
Section 206Section 206CSection 206C(7)Section 2O

disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act." We also find support from the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Vipin P. Mehta Vs. ITO (2011) 46 SOT 71 (Mum.) wherein it was held that, "Sub-section (1A) of section 197A of the Act merely requires the declaration to be filed by payee