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.

6 results for “disallowance”+ Section 207clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi704Mumbai696Chennai311Bangalore190Kolkata145Ahmedabad139Jaipur118Hyderabad77Chandigarh71Pune65Raipur45Surat34Indore31Cuttack21Visakhapatnam20Allahabad18Guwahati15Lucknow14Karnataka12Kerala11Telangana9Ranchi9Amritsar9SC8Cochin8Jodhpur6Agra6Nagpur6Rajkot5Dehradun3Rajasthan3Patna3Punjab & Haryana2MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1Varanasi1Jabalpur1D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1Calcutta1

Key Topics

Section 26310Section 40A(3)7Section 80P(2)(d)6Disallowance6Section 80P5Section 194Q4Deduction4Section 143(3)3Section 35(1)(iv)3TDS

SHRI GAUTAM SHARMA,JODHPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 120/JODH/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur04 Sept 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: : Shri Ramesh C.Sharmavk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 120/Jodh/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2012-13 Cuke Shri Gautam Sharma The Dcit Vs. 221-222, Shyam Nagar, Scheme, Pali Central Circle Link Road, Jodhpur Jodhpur Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Awdps 1276 K Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Amit Kothari, Ca Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@Revenue By: Shri Abhimanyu Yadav, Jcit-Dr Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 29/06/2020 ?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 04/09/2020 Vkns'K@ Order Per Ramesh C. Sharma, Am This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Udaipur Dated 12-02-2019 For The Assessment Year 2012-13, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 147/ R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2.1 Due To Prevailing Covid-19 Pandemic Condition, The Hearing Of The Appeal Is Concluded Through Video Conference. The Only Grievance Of The Assessee Relates To Disallowance Of Rs.40.57 Lacs Paid Towards Purchase Of Land, By Invoking The Provisions Of Section 40A(3) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari, CAFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Yadav, JCIT-DR
Section 147Section 40A(3)

disallowance of Rs.40,57,000/- u/s 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2.4 By impugned order, the ld.CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO against which the assessee is in further appeal before this Bench. 2.5 It was argued by the ld.AR of the assessee that the source of payment is also not in dispute

3
Addition to Income3
Section 44A2

BHIKHAM CHAND MOHTA HUF,HANUMANGARH vs. ITO WARD - 1, HANUMANGARH, HANUMANGARH

Appeals of the assessee are allowed in the manner discussed as above

ITA 506/JODH/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur17 Jun 2025AY 2023-24

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

Section 143(1)Section 194QSection 44A

207/- in respect with assessment year 2022-23. Thus disallowed the claim of TDS on the ground that gross receipts as per form 26AS is more than that of what were shown in the ITR. This appears due to TDS deducted by the buyer under section

BHIKHAM CHAND MOHTA HUF,HANUMANGARH JUNCTION vs. ITO WARD - 1, HANUMANGARH, HANUMANGARH

Appeals of the assessee are allowed in the manner discussed as above

ITA 505/JODH/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur17 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

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

Section 143(1)Section 194QSection 44A

207/- in respect with assessment year 2022-23. Thus disallowed the claim of TDS on the ground that gross receipts as per form 26AS is more than that of what were shown in the ITR. This appears due to TDS deducted by the buyer under section

ACIT, PAOTA C ROAD vs. VARAHA INFRA LIMITED, PAOTA B ROAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 160/JODH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur01 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhaithe Acit Vs M/S. Vardha Infra Ltd. Room No. 215, Aayakar Bhawan 6 Jalam Vilas Scheme Paota C Road, Jodhpur Paota B Road, Jodhpur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccv 7972 K

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40

207/- and M/s JMC Projects India Ltd. (difference of Rs. 2,56,778/-). 6. That the tax effect involved in this case is above the limit laid down in Circular No. 17/2019 dated 08.08.2019 issued by the CBDT, (Judicial Section) New Delhi." That the appellant reserves its right to add, amend or alter the ground(s) of appeal

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BHILWARA, SHASTRI NAGAR, BHILWARA vs. BHILWARA ZILA DUGDH UTPADAK SAHKARI SANG LIMITED, AJMER ROAD, BHILWARA

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

ITA 134/JODH/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur16 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Smt. Raksha Birla, C.A. and Sh. Rajendra Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Nair, JCIT-DR
Section 22Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(d)

disallowances of 2 ITO v. Bhilwara Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sang Ltd. deduction of Rs.2,49,72,207/- made by the AO u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Brief facts as per the record are that the appellant assessee is a registered cooperative society under the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act and engaged in the business

P I INDUSTRIES LIMITED ,UDAIPUR vs. PR. CIT, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

ITA 4/JODH/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur08 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year:2016-17 Pi Industries Limited, Vs. Pr.Cit, Udaisagar Road, Udaipur. Udaipur-313001. Pan No. Aabcp 2183 M

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 32ASection 35(1)(iv)Section 80ISection 92C

Section 92E at all or has not disclosed the said transactions in the Accountant’s report filed; (b)where there has been a transfer pricing adjustment of ₹10 Crore or more in an earlier assessment year and such adjustment has been upheld by the judicial authorities or is pending in appeal; and (c)where search and seizure or survey operations