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.

87 results for “disallowance”+ Section 36clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai7,834 Delhi7,031 Bangalore2,375 Chennai2,291 Kolkata2,046 Ahmedabad1,119 Hyderabad894 Jaipur849 Pune798 Chandigarh565 Indore529 Surat382 Raipur290 Visakhapatnam235 Rajkot230 Karnataka228 Cochin227 Amritsar218 Nagpur208 Lucknow182 Cuttack141 Agra107 Guwahati100 Telangana88 Jodhpur87 Ranchi76 Allahabad73 SC73 Panaji69 Calcutta61 Patna47 Jabalpur43 Kerala33 Varanasi31 Dehradun31 Punjab & Haryana15 Rajasthan7 Himachal Pradesh5 Orissa3 A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2 ANIL R. DAVE AMITAVA ROY L. NAGESWARA RAO1 RANJAN GOGOI PRAFULLA C. PANT1 ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1 Andhra Pradesh1 H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1 Tripura1 MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1 A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)94 Addition to Income64 Disallowance59 Section 143(1)54 Section 36(1)(va)53 Section 26349 Section 15445 Section 14832 Deduction26 Section 35A

M/S TARUN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,WARD NO.24, NEAR BHAGAT SINGH CHOWK, SURATGARH vs. CPC, BANGALORE/ ITO, WARD-1, SRIGANGANAGAR , SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result, appeals are dismissed

ITA 108/JODH/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur21 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. Brr Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. P.C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Rajeev Mohan, JCIT-DR

Section 10ASection 139Section 142Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

disallowed the deduction claimed by the assessee under section 36(1)(va) of the Act. The disallowances made in respective

Showing 1–20 of 87 · Page 1 of 5

22

M/S TARUN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,WARD NO.24, NEAR BHAGAT SINGH CHOWK, SURATGARH vs. CPC, BANGALORE/ ITO, WARD-1, SRIGANGANAGAR, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result, appeals are dismissed

ITA 109/JODH/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur21 Sept 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. Brr Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. P.C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Rajeev Mohan, JCIT-DR

Section 10ASection 139Section 142Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

disallowed the deduction claimed by the assessee under section 36(1)(va) of the Act. The disallowances made in respective

PUSHAPRAJ KOTHARI,JASOL vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, BARMER, BARMER

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

ITA 111/JODH/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur25 Jan 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Years : 2018-19 Puspapraj Kothari Vs. The Acit, Yashwal, Nakoda Road, Jasol, Barmer Circle, 344024 Barmer Pan No: Aaupk1365N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. S.M. Joshi, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43

disallowed under Section 43B or under Section 36(1)(va) of the IT Act.” 16. The said decision has subsequently

MONA MARBLES PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, the captioned appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 139/JODH/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur18 Jan 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavahearing Though Video Conferencing

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S.M. Joshi, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 2Section 36(1)(va)

disallowed under Section 43B or under Section 36(1)(va) of the IT Act.” 16. The said decision has subsequently

MEGA TEX PRINTS,PALI vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE / ITO, WARD-1, PALI

In the result, the captioned appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 105/JODH/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur18 Jan 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavahearing Though Video Conferencing

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S.M. Joshi, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 2Section 36(1)(va)

disallowed under Section 43B or under Section 36(1)(va) of the IT Act.” 16. The said decision has subsequently

MONA MARBLES PVT. LD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, the captioned appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 117/JODH/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur18 Jan 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavahearing Though Video Conferencing

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S.M. Joshi, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 2Section 36(1)(va)

disallowed under Section 43B or under Section 36(1)(va) of the IT Act.” 16. The said decision has subsequently

MEGA TEX PRINTS,PALI vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE / ITO, WARD-1, PALI

In the result, the captioned appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 106/JODH/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur18 Jan 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavahearing Though Video Conferencing

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S.M. Joshi, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 2Section 36(1)(va)

disallowed under Section 43B or under Section 36(1)(va) of the IT Act.” 16. The said decision has subsequently

AKBAR MOHAMMAD,NAGAUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(3), JODHPUR

The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 109/JODH/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur25 Jan 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavahearing Though Video Conferencing

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S.M. Joshi, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

disallowed under Section 43B or under Section 36(1)(va) of the IT Act.” 16. The said decision has subsequently

AKBAR MOHAMMAD,NAGAUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(3), JODHPUR

The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 108/JODH/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur25 Jan 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavahearing Though Video Conferencing

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S.M. Joshi, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

disallowed under Section 43B or under Section 36(1)(va) of the IT Act.” 16. The said decision has subsequently

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

disallowed u/s 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) of the IT. Act, 1961. It was categorically observed

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. 38,01,442/- being Provision for Standard Assets allowable on provision basis as per the provisions of section 36

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. 38,01,442/- being Provision for Standard Assets allowable on provision basis as per the provisions of section 36

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. 38,01,442/- being Provision for Standard Assets allowable on provision basis as per the provisions of section 36

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. 38,01,442/- being Provision for Standard Assets allowable on provision basis as per the provisions of section 36

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. 38,01,442/- being Provision for Standard Assets allowable on provision basis as per the provisions of section 36

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. 38,01,442/- being Provision for Standard Assets allowable on provision basis as per the provisions of section 36

THE LAKE PALACE HOTELS & MOTELSPRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. PCIT,CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 52/JODH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur27 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 43

disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) of the IT Act, the provisions of section are clear that deduction under this section

SHRI SIDDHESH KUMAR GAUR ,JODHPUR vs. ADIT, CPC, ACIT, CIRCLE-3, BENGALURU / JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 18/JODH/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur22 Sept 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Rajeev Mohan, JCIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 43

disallowance under section 36(1)(va). 3. Because the learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the alternate plea that even

SH. MAHENDRA SINGH,FLAT NO.303, ASHAPURA TOWER, PAOTA, JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 20/JODH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur18 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhaishri Mahendra Singh Vs Theacit Flat No. 303, Ashapura Tower Circle-3 Paota, Jodhpur Jodhpur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Csdps 5573B

Section 2Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

36(1)(iii) and in section 37(1) had not been served by the appellant and resultantly why the interest expenditure claimed by the appellant to the extent of Rs. 1,18,90,400/- was required to be disallowed

ANAND SWAROOP MENAWAT,JODHPUR vs. CPC, BENGALURUE / ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7/JODH/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur01 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

36(1)(va) and Section 43B by Finance Act, 2021 will be applicable in the case of assessee. (6) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in recording irrelevant finding in the order and thereby sustaining arbitrary addition in a hypothetical way by putting the assessee to erroneous harassment