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.

5 results for “disallowance”+ Section 690clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai499Delhi408Chennai180Kolkata122Bangalore100Ahmedabad92Hyderabad64Pune52Jaipur50Surat44Lucknow26Indore22Chandigarh22Cochin15Visakhapatnam12Cuttack12Raipur10Guwahati10Rajkot9Karnataka8Ranchi6Agra6Jodhpur5Amritsar4Varanasi3SC3Nagpur2Allahabad1Patna1Jabalpur1Himachal Pradesh1Uttarakhand1

Key Topics

Section 2635Section 114Section 54F4Section 143(1)3Section 12A(1)(ba)3Disallowance3Addition to Income3Section 12A2Section 142(1)2Section 143(3)

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)

690/- The return was processed on 24.12.2021 by CPC at assessed income of Rs.2,87,21,492/, disallowing the exemption claimed by the appellant of Rs. 1,34,89,828/-, Aggrieved to it. the appellant is in present appeal. I have carefully considered the facts of the case in the light of submission made by the appellant as well

2
Exemption2
Deduction2

HITKARI AND SWARAJ ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED,BARMER vs. PR. CIT-1, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 61/JODH/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur24 Jan 2023AY 2016-17

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

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 263

690 Cost of land: 1. 58,00.020 (cost of land) +1,74,20,000 (cost of improvement) 1. 7,24,790 (cost of land) +24,00,000 (cost of improvement) 1. 11,00,000 (cost of land) +30,75,000 3,05,19,810 (cost of improvement) Short term capital loss 1,64,93,128 10. As per the registered

GURPREET SINGH SONI,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 263/JODH/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur25 Nov 2019AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Shri Girish Mehta, JCIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 24

disallowing the claim of the assessee amounting to Rs. 1,50,000/- under section 24(b) of the Act for the reason that no documentary evidence was furnished. The assessee moved an application under section 154 of the Act which was rejected by the Assessing Officer. 4. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BIKANER vs. SMT. ALPANA GUPTA, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 45/JODH/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur01 Feb 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwala.C.I.T. Vs. Smt. Alpana Gupta, 4-A-15, Central Circle, Jawahar Nagar, Bikaner. Sriganganagar. Pan No. Aiepg 8893 R

Section 40

section 194A is not applicable. Similarly, the Coordinate Bench of the Ahmadabad Tribunal in the case of Omkara Impex and Merchandise Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO (2018) 53 CCH 0201 (Ahd.) (Trib.) has held that discounting charges are outside the 11 ITA 45/Jodh/2019 ACIT Vs Smt. Alpana Gupta. purview of interest expenses, therefore, in our considered view, the question of making

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BARMER vs. PUSHP RAJ BOHRA, JALORE

The appeal of the revenue is allowed, in the manner discussed as above

ITA 200/JODH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur01 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, HonʼBle & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Bleito, Ward-1, Barmer. Vs. Pushp Raj Bohra, M-09, Shivaji Nagar, Jalore - 343001. Pan No. Aanpb4456C Assessee By Shri Goutam Chand Baid, C.A. Revenue By Smt. Runi Pal, Cit (D.R.) Date Of Hearing 29.04.2025. Date Of Pronouncement 01.03.2025. Order Per Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.: The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Id. National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac/Cit(A)], Delhi Dated 08.02.2024 In Respect Of Assessment Year: 2017-18 Where The Department Has Raised Following Grounds: 1. Whether The Id. Cit(A) Is Justified In Facts & Law In Directing To Treat The Income From The Sale Of Immovable Properties As Capital Gains Instead Of Business Income, By Ignoring The Fact That Assesse & His Business Concerns Are Engaged In The Business Of Property & Real Estate Development & Huge Expenses Of Rs. 8.72 Cr. Were Incurred By Assessee On Development Of Projects To Earn Profit. 2. Whether The Id. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & Facts By Directing The Ao To Treat The Income From The Sale Of Immovable Properties As Income From Capital Gains Instead Of Business Income By Merely Following The Order Of Hon'Ble

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54ESection 54F

Section) New Delhi." 2. The sole issue challenged by the revenue is that the CIT (A)/NFAC was not justified in treatment of the income from the sale of immovable properties as capital gains instead of business income and directing the AO to examine the eligibility of exemption u/s 54F/54EC before giving the order appeal effect. 3. Briefly the fact