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 801A(4)(iv)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai149Delhi94Hyderabad84Ahmedabad76Kolkata32Bangalore28Chennai28Pune19Indore18Jaipur15Visakhapatnam12Surat10Patna10Cuttack7Nagpur6Chandigarh6Dehradun5Jodhpur5Raipur5Rajkot5Cochin4Lucknow3Amritsar2Guwahati1Calcutta1

Key Topics

Section 35A24Section 26315Section 1489Section 801A(7)6Section 143(3)5Section 80I5Deduction5Disallowance4Section 80J3Section 139

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

801A was 44.25% whereas the NP rate of non-eligible business was only 9.75%. The intention was basically to ascertain and examine as to whether the claim u/s 80IA was legally correct and as to whether the common expenses related to both segment of business had been correctly allocated or there was any diversion of expenses of eligible business

3
Addition to Income3
Limitation/Time-bar3

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

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

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

iv) Section 801A(7) of the IT Act provides The audit under Companies Act, 2013, Tax as under: Audit u/s 44AB and audit under section 801A was duly carried out and copies of the audit report was duly submitted to the AO during the assessment. Claim u/s 35AD duly made in return, quantification also made in Audit Report u/s 44AB

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

4. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in deleting the disallowance made u/s 35AD by holding that with regard to the filing of 10CCB, the fact that the appellant had filed the same during the course of the assessment proceedings and before the final order of assessment was made. With the above reasoning, whether

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

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

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

4. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in deleting the disallowance made u/s 35AD by holding that with regard to the filing of 10CCB, the fact that the appellant had filed the same during the course of the assessment proceedings and before the final order of assessment was made. With the above reasoning, whether

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

4. It is not the case of CIT that there was a complete/total lack of inquiry. Law is well settled that the Assessment order cannot be held to be erroneous simply on the allegation of inadequate enquiry. Unless there is an established case of total lack of enquiry. 4.1 Kindly refer CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto