Search: disallowance | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

64 results for “disallowance”+ Section 29clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai7,325 Delhi6,235 Bangalore2,189 Chennai2,062 Kolkata1,894 Ahmedabad1,002 Jaipur714 Hyderabad693 Pune553 Indore421 Chandigarh351 Surat326 Raipur312 Rajkot234 Karnataka224 Amritsar186 Lucknow174 Cochin174 Nagpur169 Visakhapatnam143 Agra116 Cuttack87 Guwahati71 Panaji69 Jodhpur64 SC63 Patna59 Calcutta54 Ranchi51 Telangana50 Allahabad48 Dehradun34 Varanasi26 Kerala22 Jabalpur14 Punjab & Haryana7 A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN3 Orissa3 Rajasthan3 MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1 Himachal Pradesh1 H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1 ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1 Tripura1 ANIL R. DAVE AMITAVA ROY L. NAGESWARA RAO1 Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)86 Section 26358 Addition to Income43 Section 14833 Disallowance33 Section 143(1)29 Section 153A29 Section 35A22 Section 69A20 Section 147

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

29,13,664/- in view of provision of section 80IA of the Act, disallowance of Rs. 51,58,174/- u/s. 14A of the act and disallowance

SUNIL KUMAR DOSHI,BARMER vs. DCIT, CPC / ITO, WARD-1,, BANGALORE / BARMER

Showing 1–20 of 64 · Page 1 of 4

16

Natural Justice10

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

disallowance made in order u/s 143(1), by the ld. AO is bad in law and bad on facts, and such adjustment made was not justified u/s 143(1), as was not an apparent addition. b. The addition was not an apparent mistake of fact or law and even after the order of the ld. AO has directed to collect

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR , JODHPUR vs. JODHPUR HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD., JODHPUR

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 541/JODH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur26 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Section 139Section 148Section 35ASection 801A(7)Section 80J

29,24,592/-made on account of disallowance of\ndeduction claimed u/s 35AD r.w.s. 80-IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by\nholding that the assessee has fulfilled all the conditions for claiming\n2\nITA No. 541,544and 545/Jodh/2024\n(Assessment Years 2016-17 to 2018-19)\ndeduction u/s 35AD, by not appreciating the fact the assessee has failed

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR , JODHPUR vs. JODHPUR HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD., JODHPUR

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 544/JODH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur26 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Section 139Section 148Section 35ASection 801A(7)Section 80J

29,24,592/-made on account of disallowance of\ndeduction claimed u/s 35AD r.w.s. 80-IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by\nholding that the assessee has fulfilled all the conditions for claiming\ndeduction u/s 35AD, by not appreciating the fact the assessee has failed\nto comply with statutory requirement of provision of section

APNA GHAR ASHRAM,JODHPUR vs. DDIT, CPC / ITO, WARD (EXEMPTION), BANGALORE / JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 730/JODH/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur02 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Karni Dan, Addl. CIT(Sr. D.R)

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)

29. Quite apart from the above, we also bear in mind the underlying intent of Section 11(2) and the submission of Form 10 in connection therewith which were aspects succinctly explained by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Nagpur Hotel Owners' Assn. (2001) 2 SCC 128/[2001] 114 Taxman 255/247 ITR 201 (SC) . The Bench

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JODHPUR , JODHPUR vs. JODHPUR HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD., JODHPUR

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 545/JODH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur26 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Anikesh Banerjee, Hon'Ble

Section 139Section 148Section 35ASection 801A(7)Section 80J

29,24,592/-made on account of disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 35AD r.w.s. 80-IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by holding that the assessee has fulfilled all the conditions for claiming deduction u/s 35AD, by not appreciating the fact the assessee has failed to comply with statutory requirement of provision of section

SHRI SEWARAM CHARITABLE TRUST ,KOTA vs. ITO, WARD, EXEMPTION, UDAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7/JODH/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur10 Aug 2023AY 2020-21

Section 1Section 11Section 119Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ba)Section 139Section 139(4)Section 139(4)(a)Section 143(1)

disallowing the expenditure claimed by the assessee as a trust that too without considering audit report filed in form No.10B. 7. This issue has already been decided by the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Hon’ble High Court Calcutta & Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of CIT vs. Devradhan Madhavlal Genda Trust

DUSHKAL GO SEWA SAMITI,SUMERPUR vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), JODHPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5/JODH/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur06 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Section 11Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154

Section 273B, no penalty will be levied but in case of trust / institutions who has got its accounts audited but just could not upload audit report in Form 10B online then in such case, all the expenditures will be disallowed and total income will be taxed @ MMR. This is really very unfortunate and unreasonable. (H) Please refer the attached Form

DUSHKAL GO SEWA SAMITI,SUMERPUR vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), JODHPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 9/JODH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur06 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Section 11Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154

Section 273B, no penalty will be levied but in case of trust / institutions who has got its accounts audited but just could not upload audit report in Form 10B online then in such case, all the expenditures will be disallowed and total income will be taxed @ MMR. This is really very unfortunate and unreasonable. (H) Please refer the attached Form

M.G.B. GRAMIN BANK (THROUGH SUCCESSOR RAJASTHANMARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK),JODHPUR vs. ADDITIONAL CIT, PALI

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

ITA 521/JODH/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur10 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Sh. Goutam Chand Baid, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Lovish Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(viia)

disallowance of Rs. 2,47,29,991/- being Provision for Standard Assets allowable on provision basis as per the provisions of section

M.G.B. GRAMIN BANK (THROUGH SUCCESSOR RAJASTHANMARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK),JODHPUR vs. ADDITIONAL CIT, PALI

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

ITA 520/JODH/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur10 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Sh. Goutam Chand Baid, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Lovish Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(viia)

disallowance of Rs. 2,47,29,991/- being Provision for Standard Assets allowable on provision basis as per the provisions of section

M.G.B. GRAMIN BANK (THROUGH SUCCESSOR RAJASTHANMARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK),JODHPUR vs. ACIT, PALI

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

ITA 519/JODH/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur10 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Sh. Goutam Chand Baid, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Lovish Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(viia)

disallowance of Rs. 2,47,29,991/- being Provision for Standard Assets allowable on provision basis as per the provisions of section

M.G.B. GRAMIN BANK (THROUGH SUCCESSOR RAJASTHANMARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK),JODHPUR vs. ACIT, PALI

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

ITA 518/JODH/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur10 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Sh. Goutam Chand Baid, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Lovish Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(viia)

disallowance of Rs. 2,47,29,991/- being Provision for Standard Assets allowable on provision basis as per the provisions of section

M.G.B. GRAMIN BANK (THROUGH SUCCESSOR RAJASTHANMARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK),JODHPUR vs. ACIT, PALI

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

ITA 517/JODH/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur10 Nov 2023AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Sh. Goutam Chand Baid, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Lovish Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(viia)

disallowance of Rs. 2,47,29,991/- being Provision for Standard Assets allowable on provision basis as per the provisions of section

ACIT, CIRCLE, PALI. vs. M/S. RAJASTHAN MARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK, , JODHPUR

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

ITA 504/JODH/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur10 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Sh. Goutam Chand Baid, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Lovish Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(viia)

disallowance of Rs. 2,47,29,991/- being Provision for Standard Assets allowable on provision basis as per the provisions of section

AJMER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,AJMER vs. CIT(EXEMPTION)/ ITO (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR / JODHPUR

In the result, the stay application filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 89/JODH/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur22 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatshri Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

section 263(2), the notice issued on 30-4- 2009 was barred by limitation. 6.4 In Tata Power Company Ltd. Vs. PCIT (2021) 90 ITR TRIB (Trib) 554 (Mum), it was held that: 23 | P a g e "10. A perusal of the reasons recorded for reopening of assessment under s. 147 of the Act, as reproduced in the body

MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 139/JODH/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur12 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 145Section 153A

29,06,036/- 73,19,547/- Neemuch - 82,81,566/- Ujjain - 22,81,646/- Total 5,59,63,834/- 10,38,94,812/- Whereas in the "Total" column in the seized document, the yearwise gross receipts are FY 2010-11 2011-12 Total receipts noted in seized document in 5,82,45,480/- 1.02E+08 (total Column) However, in the "Total

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR vs. M/S MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD., UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 167/JODH/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur12 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Section 143(3)Section 145Section 153A

29,06,036/- 73,19,547/- Neemuch - 82,81,566/- Ujjain - 22,81,646/- Total 5,59,63,834/- 10,38,94,812/- Whereas in the "Total" column in the seized document, the yearwise gross receipts are FY 2010-11 2011-12 Total receipts noted in seized document in 5,82,45,480/- 1.02E+08 (total Column) However, in the "Total

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR vs. M/S MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD., UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 168/JODH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur12 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 145Section 153A

29,06,036/- 73,19,547/- Neemuch - 82,81,566/- Ujjain - 22,81,646/- Total 5,59,63,834/- 10,38,94,812/- Whereas in the "Total" column in the seized document, the yearwise gross receipts are FY 2010-11 2011-12 Total receipts noted in seized document in 5,82,45,480/- 1.02E+08 (total Column) However, in the "Total

MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 144/JODH/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur12 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Section 143(3)Section 145Section 153A

29,06,036/- 73,19,547/- Neemuch - 82,81,566/- Ujjain - 22,81,646/- Total 5,59,63,834/- 10,38,94,812/- Whereas in the "Total" column in the seized document, the yearwise gross receipts are FY 2010-11 2011-12 Total receipts noted in seized document in 5,82,45,480/- 1.02E+08 (total Column) However, in the "Total