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.

7 results for “disallowance”+ Section 194A(3)(v)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai170Bangalore121Delhi81Chennai65Cochin43Pune41Kolkata40Ahmedabad40Chandigarh39Hyderabad33Visakhapatnam32Jaipur26Cuttack21Rajkot20Surat13Guwahati11Raipur11Nagpur10Jodhpur7Allahabad4Indore3Lucknow3Ranchi3Panaji3SC2Karnataka2Jabalpur1Amritsar1

Key Topics

Section 406Section 234E6Section 143(3)5Section 194A(3)(iii)5Section 2005Section 2634Section 206C4TDS4Section 200A3Deduction

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

3
Disallowance2
Addition to Income2

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

V Commissioner of Arnod Road, Pratapgarh, s Income Tax, Circle Rajasthan. Chittorgarh. PAN: AADCR 5871 J Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Shri Amit Kothari – AR Revenue by Ms. Nidhi Nair – JCIT(DR) Date of hearing 11/08/2023 Date of pronouncement 30/10/2023 आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the 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

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

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. Since, the rate of TDS is same i.e. 10% under both the Sections. Therefore, there is no escapement of income from the clutches of revenue. 24 ITA 26/Jodh/2021 Sukhdev Chayal Vs PCIT 12. After analyzing the totality of facts and circumstances and after evaluating the documents placed on record

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

3) on 29.12.2016 at Rs.25,28,470/-. 3.1 Subsequently, the case was reopened under section 147 on the ground that the assessee had failed to deduct tax at source on certain payments of interest (u/s 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

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