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.

9 results for “disallowance”+ Business Incomeclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai19,981 Delhi13,625 Chennai5,666 Kolkata5,170 Bangalore4,902 Ahmedabad1,873 Pune1,592 Hyderabad1,413 Jaipur1,077 Surat724 Cochin643 Indore593 Chandigarh583 Karnataka554 Rajkot452 Raipur408 Nagpur402 Visakhapatnam346 Lucknow333 Cuttack277 Amritsar228 Telangana166 Panaji158 Patna143 Jodhpur143 Guwahati137 Ranchi115 Calcutta112 Dehradun111 SC105 Agra105 Allahabad67 Kerala66 Jabalpur56 Varanasi32 Punjab & Haryana27 Orissa12 Rajasthan9 Himachal Pradesh4 A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2 MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1 Andhra Pradesh1 ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1 Bombay1 Gauhati1 H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1 J&K1 A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1 RANJAN GOGOI PRAFULLA C. PANT1 Tripura1

Key Topics

Section 1474 Section 271(1)4 Disallowance4 Addition to Income4 Section 2603 Depreciation3 Section 682 Section 2742

C.I.T. II JODHPUR vs. M/S JEEWAN RAM CHOUDHARY

ITA/185/2013HC Rajasthan17 Sept 2019

Bench: SANGEET LODHA,VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

For Appellant: THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXFor Respondent: M/S.PTL ENTERPRISES LTD

income from other sources” since the assessee had no intention to revive its business activity. The Tribunal also found that the disallowance

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S HARI NARAIN PARWAL

ITA/90/2020HC Rajasthan21 Feb 2024

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,SHUBHA MEHTA

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 271

Section 271(1)

Section 271(1)(c)

Section 274

disallowing the alleged business expenditure noted that the assessee company had failed to file any agreement or supporting evidence in respect of the advance. 9. AO further adjusted the business loss of Rs. 14,046/- with the income

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TDS vs. M/S MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT LTD

ITA/6/2021HC Rajasthan01 Nov 2022

Bench: SANDEEP MEHTA,KULDEEP MATHUR

For Respondent: THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

business, tenancy rights, stage carriage permits or loom hours has to be computed. In this case, the assessee stated that nothing of these things would cover the relinquishment of trusteeship and in the absence of a specific provision, the income shall be taken as Nil. I.T.A.Noa.48, 46, 47, 49, 51, 54, 55, 56 & 68/20 & 6/21

M/S SARAF EXPORT PALACE vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

ITA/268/2018HC Rajasthan19 Mar 2021

Bench: SABINA,MANOJ KUMAR VYAS

Section 260Section 45(2)

disallowance of claim of deduction on account of commission on locker rent received in advance of Rs.112.84 Crore by following the decision of Apex Court in the case of 5 CIT vs. EXCEL INDUSTRIES (reported in 358 ITR page 295) and decision of Calcutta High Court in the case of Bank of Tokyo Ltd.? (2) Whether on the facts

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 vs. M/S ROYAL JEWELLERS

ITA/81/2024HC Rajasthan15 Oct 2024

Bench: PANKAJ BHANDARI,PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

business loss. Briefly the facts of the case are income in the status of Investm ue to fall in value of equity sha Mills Limited, amounting to Rs. oss on account of sale of non-co rdhman Spinning and Gener and also claimed exemption un ort ‘the Act, 1961’) of an amoun NJAB AND HARYANA

HARSHVARDHAN JOHARI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

ITA/48/2020HC Rajasthan27 Mar 2025

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,MANEESH SHARMA

disallowance of Rs.9,81,15,000/- towards depreciation at 25% on goodwill acquired from purchase of network business ignoring the fact that Assessee has made fresh claim and as per the scheme of Income

M/S HERBICIDES INDIA LTD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/816/2008HC Rajasthan27 Mar 2025

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,MANEESH SHARMA

Section 260Section 36(1)(iii)

income of Rs.9,63,915/-. During the assessment proceedings, the assessing officer (A.O.) found that the appellant borrowed interest bearing loans and had made interest free advances of Rs.31,68,294/- to M/s. Dugar Photofilms Limited (for short ‘DPFL’), of [2025:RJ-JP:13935-DB] (3 of 6) [ITA-816/2008] Rs.28,62,084/- to M/s. Tetenal India Limited

MANDA BUILDERS vs. I.T.O.WARD-21,BIKANER

ITA/69/2009HC Rajasthan02 Jan 2020

Bench: INDRAJIT MAHANTY,PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Section 147Section 254Section 40ASection 40A(3)Section 68

business does not show any unexplained cash credit? 4. Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case Section 68 of the Act has any application?” 3. Mr. T.K. Satapathy, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Respondent (Department) points out that as regards the issue concerning Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (IT Act), the Assessee should

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SKYWAYS INDUSTRIAL ESTATE COMPANY (P) LTD.

ITA/82/2020HC Rajasthan14 Feb 2022

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,SUDESH BANSAL

business entity. Thus, in case of corporate or other non-natural business entity, the disclosure of data relating to the Registrant of the infringing domain name would not be covered by the GDPR. 96. She makes reference to Article 4 of GDPR to explain the process of ‘pseudonymisation’. Further, attention of the Court is also drawn to Article