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.

140 results for “disallowance”+ Section 36clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai7,682 Delhi6,963 Bangalore2,335 Chennai2,247 Kolkata2,013 Ahmedabad1,801 Pune1,336 Jaipur1,170 Hyderabad1,133 Chandigarh767 Indore659 Surat450 Cochin428 Visakhapatnam402 Amritsar316 Raipur312 Rajkot261 Cuttack253 Nagpur242 Karnataka228 Lucknow196 Jodhpur140 Guwahati132 Agra127 Ranchi100 Telangana88 Allahabad86 Panaji73 SC73 Calcutta61 Jabalpur57 Patna48 Kerala33 Dehradun32 Varanasi31 Punjab & Haryana15 Rajasthan7 Himachal Pradesh5 Orissa3 A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2 Andhra Pradesh1 RANJAN GOGOI PRAFULLA C. PANT1 ANIL R. DAVE AMITAVA ROY L. NAGESWARA RAO1 ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1 MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1 Tripura1 H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1 A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)90 Addition to Income78 Section 36(1)(va)77 Disallowance71 Section 143(1)53 Section 26345 Section 15443 Section 139(1)38 Section 3632 Section 43B

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 140 · Page 1 of 7

30

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

WHEEL O CITY,SRI GANGANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, SRI GANGANAGAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 62/JODH/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur29 Sept 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosainassessment Year : 2018-19 Arpit Gulecha, Vs. The Dcit, Jodhpur Cpc, Bengaluru Pan No: Ahdpg9415D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Shashi Maheshwari, Vs. The Adit, Jodhpur Cpc, Bengaluru Pan No: Aaspm0358H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2018-19 Opel Sulz Private Limited, Vs. The Dcit, Bhilwara Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Aaaco2585R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Opel Sulz Private Limited, Vs. The Adit, Bhilwara Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Aaaco2585R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Kishori Lal Singhvi Vs. The Dcit, Balotra Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Abnps1994F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Smt.Raksha Birla, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha, JCIT DR

Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 43B

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

SHASHI MAHESHWARI,JODHPUR vs. ADIT, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 58/JODH/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur29 Sept 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosainassessment Year : 2018-19 Arpit Gulecha, Vs. The Dcit, Jodhpur Cpc, Bengaluru Pan No: Ahdpg9415D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Shashi Maheshwari, Vs. The Adit, Jodhpur Cpc, Bengaluru Pan No: Aaspm0358H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2018-19 Opel Sulz Private Limited, Vs. The Dcit, Bhilwara Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Aaaco2585R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Opel Sulz Private Limited, Vs. The Adit, Bhilwara Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Aaaco2585R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Kishori Lal Singhvi Vs. The Dcit, Balotra Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Abnps1994F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Smt.Raksha Birla, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha, JCIT DR

Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 43B

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

OPEL SULZ PRIVATE LIMITED,BHILWARA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, BHILWARA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 74/JODH/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur29 Sept 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosainassessment Year : 2018-19 Arpit Gulecha, Vs. The Dcit, Jodhpur Cpc, Bengaluru Pan No: Ahdpg9415D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Shashi Maheshwari, Vs. The Adit, Jodhpur Cpc, Bengaluru Pan No: Aaspm0358H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2018-19 Opel Sulz Private Limited, Vs. The Dcit, Bhilwara Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Aaaco2585R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Opel Sulz Private Limited, Vs. The Adit, Bhilwara Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Aaaco2585R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Kishori Lal Singhvi Vs. The Dcit, Balotra Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Abnps1994F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Smt.Raksha Birla, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha, JCIT DR

Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 43B

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

ARPIT GULECHA,JODHPUR vs. DCIT, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 57/JODH/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur29 Sept 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosainassessment Year : 2018-19 Arpit Gulecha, Vs. The Dcit, Jodhpur Cpc, Bengaluru Pan No: Ahdpg9415D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Shashi Maheshwari, Vs. The Adit, Jodhpur Cpc, Bengaluru Pan No: Aaspm0358H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2018-19 Opel Sulz Private Limited, Vs. The Dcit, Bhilwara Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Aaaco2585R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Opel Sulz Private Limited, Vs. The Adit, Bhilwara Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Aaaco2585R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Kishori Lal Singhvi Vs. The Dcit, Balotra Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Abnps1994F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Smt.Raksha Birla, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha, JCIT DR

Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 43B

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

OPEL SULZ PRIVATE LIMITED,BHILWRA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, BHILWARA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 73/JODH/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur29 Sept 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosainassessment Year : 2018-19 Arpit Gulecha, Vs. The Dcit, Jodhpur Cpc, Bengaluru Pan No: Ahdpg9415D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Shashi Maheshwari, Vs. The Adit, Jodhpur Cpc, Bengaluru Pan No: Aaspm0358H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2018-19 Opel Sulz Private Limited, Vs. The Dcit, Bhilwara Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Aaaco2585R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Opel Sulz Private Limited, Vs. The Adit, Bhilwara Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Aaaco2585R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Kishori Lal Singhvi Vs. The Dcit, Balotra Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Abnps1994F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Smt.Raksha Birla, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha, JCIT DR

Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 43B

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

SANTOK SNGH GEHLOT,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(3), JODHPUR, JODHPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 64/JODH/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur29 Sept 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosainassessment Year : 2018-19 Arpit Gulecha, Vs. The Dcit, Jodhpur Cpc, Bengaluru Pan No: Ahdpg9415D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Shashi Maheshwari, Vs. The Adit, Jodhpur Cpc, Bengaluru Pan No: Aaspm0358H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2018-19 Opel Sulz Private Limited, Vs. The Dcit, Bhilwara Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Aaaco2585R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Opel Sulz Private Limited, Vs. The Adit, Bhilwara Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Aaaco2585R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Kishori Lal Singhvi Vs. The Dcit, Balotra Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Abnps1994F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Smt.Raksha Birla, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha, JCIT DR

Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 43B

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

WHEEL O CITY,SRI GANGANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, SRI GANGANAGAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 63/JODH/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur29 Sept 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosainassessment Year : 2018-19 Arpit Gulecha, Vs. The Dcit, Jodhpur Cpc, Bengaluru Pan No: Ahdpg9415D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Shashi Maheshwari, Vs. The Adit, Jodhpur Cpc, Bengaluru Pan No: Aaspm0358H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2018-19 Opel Sulz Private Limited, Vs. The Dcit, Bhilwara Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Aaaco2585R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Opel Sulz Private Limited, Vs. The Adit, Bhilwara Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Aaaco2585R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Kishori Lal Singhvi Vs. The Dcit, Balotra Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Abnps1994F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Smt.Raksha Birla, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha, JCIT DR

Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 43B

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

C.G. TECHNOSOFT PVT. LTD. ,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), , JODHPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 49/JODH/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur27 Sept 2021AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Arun Chordia, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha, JCIT DR

Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 43B

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

LUBI GEL LLP,JODHPUR vs. ADIT CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 69/JODH/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur27 Sept 2021AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Arun Chordia, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha, JCIT DR

Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 43B

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

LUBI GEL LLP,JODHPUR vs. DCIT,CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 68/JODH/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur27 Sept 2021AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Arun Chordia, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha, JCIT DR

Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 43B

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

C G TECHNOSOFT PVT. LTD.,JODHPUR vs. ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 52/JODH/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur27 Sept 2021AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Arun Chordia, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha, JCIT DR

Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 43B

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

RIDHI SIDHI MILLS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. ,PALI vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE

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

ITA 72/JODH/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur24 Sept 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha, JCIT DR

Section 139Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 43B

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

INDER BAHADUR GURUNG,JODHPUR vs. JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER, ITO, W-3(2), JU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 55/JODH/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur24 Sept 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosainassessment Year : 2018-19 Mohan Ram Chaudhary, Vs. The Ito, Jodhpur Ward 3(2), Jodhpur Pan No: Acgpc8070L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kapil Taparia & Miss Divya, Cas. Revenue By : Smt. Monisha, Jcit Dr Assessment Year : 2018-19 Muthia Muruganantham, Vs. The Ito, Jodhpur Ward 3(2), Jodhpur Pan No: Abipm1535F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kapil Taparia & Miss Divya, Cas. Revenue By : Smt. Monisha, Jcit Dr Assessment Year : 2018-19 Inder Bahadur Gurung, Vs. The Ito, Jodhpur Ward 3(1), Jodhpur Pan No: Aempg9230N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kapil Taparia & Miss Divya, Cas. Revenue By : Smt. Monisha, Jcit Dr

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Taparia and Miss Divya, CAsFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha, JCIT DR

Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 43B

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

RIDHI SIDHI MILLS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,PALI vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE

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

ITA 71/JODH/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur24 Sept 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha, JCIT DR

Section 139Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 43B

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

MOHAN RAM CHAUDHARY,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(2), JODHPUR, JODHPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 51/JODH/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur24 Sept 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosainassessment Year : 2018-19 Mohan Ram Chaudhary, Vs. The Ito, Jodhpur Ward 3(2), Jodhpur Pan No: Acgpc8070L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kapil Taparia & Miss Divya, Cas. Revenue By : Smt. Monisha, Jcit Dr Assessment Year : 2018-19 Muthia Muruganantham, Vs. The Ito, Jodhpur Ward 3(2), Jodhpur Pan No: Abipm1535F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kapil Taparia & Miss Divya, Cas. Revenue By : Smt. Monisha, Jcit Dr Assessment Year : 2018-19 Inder Bahadur Gurung, Vs. The Ito, Jodhpur Ward 3(1), Jodhpur Pan No: Aempg9230N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kapil Taparia & Miss Divya, Cas. Revenue By : Smt. Monisha, Jcit Dr

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Taparia and Miss Divya, CAsFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha, JCIT DR

Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 43B

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

SWARUP RAM ,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), JODHPUR

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

ITA 65/JODH/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur24 Sept 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: Shri Akash Phophalia, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha, JCIT DR

Section 139Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 43B

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

MUTHIA MURUGANANTHAM,JODHPUR vs. JURISDICATIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER, ITO WARD-3(1), JODHPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 54/JODH/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur24 Sept 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosainassessment Year : 2018-19 Mohan Ram Chaudhary, Vs. The Ito, Jodhpur Ward 3(2), Jodhpur Pan No: Acgpc8070L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kapil Taparia & Miss Divya, Cas. Revenue By : Smt. Monisha, Jcit Dr Assessment Year : 2018-19 Muthia Muruganantham, Vs. The Ito, Jodhpur Ward 3(2), Jodhpur Pan No: Abipm1535F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kapil Taparia & Miss Divya, Cas. Revenue By : Smt. Monisha, Jcit Dr Assessment Year : 2018-19 Inder Bahadur Gurung, Vs. The Ito, Jodhpur Ward 3(1), Jodhpur Pan No: Aempg9230N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kapil Taparia & Miss Divya, Cas. Revenue By : Smt. Monisha, Jcit Dr

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Taparia and Miss Divya, CAsFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha, JCIT DR

Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 43B

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

SWARUP RAM ,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), JODHPUR

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

ITA 66/JODH/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur24 Sept 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: Shri Akash Phophalia, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha, JCIT DR

Section 139Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 43B

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