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 253(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai498Delhi422Chennai134Indore112Bangalore97Jaipur93Chandigarh88Kolkata86Ahmedabad63Pune60Lucknow56Raipur52Allahabad43Surat40Amritsar32Panaji32Hyderabad27Rajkot22Ranchi20Cochin16Nagpur13Cuttack13Agra12Guwahati8SC6Jodhpur6Varanasi5Patna3Dehradun2Visakhapatnam1Jabalpur1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)18Section 14812Section 80P(2)(d)6Addition to Income6Section 80P5Penalty5Section 133A4Depreciation4Survey u/s 133A4Section 22

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)

253/- from Baroda Rajasthan Gramin Bank Ltd, a Regional Rural Bank is not allowable deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act as this entity is not a cooperative society as provided u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act. He further stated that the interpretation of section 22 of RRB (Regional Rural Bank) Act by the assessee, that the section

2
Deduction2

RAWAT PRABHU PRAKASH SINGH CHUNDAWAT HUF,UDAIPUR vs. DCITL CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 687/JODH/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur02 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Karni Dan, Addl. CIT(Sr. D.R)
Section 133ASection 148Section 271(1)(c)

3 o CIT v. Pushpendra Surana [(2014) 264 CTR (Raj) 204] o CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd. [(2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC)] o PricewaterhouseCoopers (P) Ltd. v. CIT [(2012) 253 CTR (SC) 1] o Narangi Land Development Corp. v. ITO [(2024) 38 NYPTTJ 1256 (Mum)] o Ajoy Sharma v. DCIT [(2024) 114 ITR (Trib) 702 (JP)] o Bhaktvatsal Sadguru

RAWAT PRABHU PRAKASH SINGH CHUNDAWAT HUF,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 690/JODH/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur02 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Karni Dan, Addl. CIT(Sr. D.R)
Section 133ASection 148Section 271(1)(c)

3 o CIT v. Pushpendra Surana [(2014) 264 CTR (Raj) 204] o CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd. [(2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC)] o PricewaterhouseCoopers (P) Ltd. v. CIT [(2012) 253 CTR (SC) 1] o Narangi Land Development Corp. v. ITO [(2024) 38 NYPTTJ 1256 (Mum)] o Ajoy Sharma v. DCIT [(2024) 114 ITR (Trib) 702 (JP)] o Bhaktvatsal Sadguru

RAWAT PRABHU PRAKASH SINGH CHUNDAWAT HUF,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 689/JODH/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur02 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Karni Dan, Addl. CIT(Sr. D.R)
Section 133ASection 148Section 271(1)(c)

3 o CIT v. Pushpendra Surana [(2014) 264 CTR (Raj) 204] o CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd. [(2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC)] o PricewaterhouseCoopers (P) Ltd. v. CIT [(2012) 253 CTR (SC) 1] o Narangi Land Development Corp. v. ITO [(2024) 38 NYPTTJ 1256 (Mum)] o Ajoy Sharma v. DCIT [(2024) 114 ITR (Trib) 702 (JP)] o Bhaktvatsal Sadguru

RAWAT PRABHU PRAKASH SINGH CHUNDAWAT HUF,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 691/JODH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur02 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Karni Dan, Addl. CIT(Sr. D.R)
Section 133ASection 148Section 271(1)(c)

3 o CIT v. Pushpendra Surana [(2014) 264 CTR (Raj) 204] o CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd. [(2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC)] o PricewaterhouseCoopers (P) Ltd. v. CIT [(2012) 253 CTR (SC) 1] o Narangi Land Development Corp. v. ITO [(2024) 38 NYPTTJ 1256 (Mum)] o Ajoy Sharma v. DCIT [(2024) 114 ITR (Trib) 702 (JP)] o Bhaktvatsal Sadguru

M/S. THE CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. ,BHILWARA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, BHILWARA

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

ITA 93/JODH/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur11 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripotem/S.The Central Vs. The Acit, Circle Cooperative Bank Ltd., Bhilwara. Mahendra Gargieya & Rajasthan. Associates, Adv , No537-538,5Thfloor, Mahimatrinity, New Sanganer Road, Jaipur – 302019, Rajasthan. Pan/Gir No. : Aaaat8126B Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Nidhi Nair, Jcit -Dr Date Of Hearing 10.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Ajmer Passed U/S 271(1)(C) & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: M/S. The Central Cooperative Bank Ltd.,Bhilwara. 1.The Impugned Penalty Order U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act Dated 18.05.2017 Is Bad In Law & On Facts Of The Case, For Want Of Jurisdiction & Various Other Reasons & Hence The Same Kindly Be Quashed.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Nair, JCIT -DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e., whether for concealment particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The impugned penalty based on such a notice being contrary to the provisions of law & facts kindly be quashed. 4. The appellant prays your honour indulgences to add, amend or alter