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.

3 results for “disallowance”+ Penaltyclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai5,363 Delhi4,440 Bangalore1,025 Chennai1,016 Kolkata1,007 Ahmedabad839 Jaipur535 Pune489 Hyderabad390 Indore331 Surat217 Chandigarh216 Raipur147 Rajkot140 Lucknow109 Cochin100 Nagpur100 Cuttack76 Karnataka67 Visakhapatnam67 Amritsar57 Guwahati53 SC47 Allahabad47 Calcutta43 Agra42 Ranchi38 Telangana35 Dehradun32 Jodhpur31 Patna27 Varanasi20 Jabalpur16 Panaji14 Kerala6 Punjab & Haryana5 Rajasthan3 A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2 Himachal Pradesh1 Gauhati1 ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1 Orissa1 RANJAN GOGOI PRAFULLA C. PANT1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)4 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

penalty so imposed. The assessing officer disallowed the claim for deduction of the amount paid towards penalty, while the first

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

penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income but he has not specified which particular furnished by the assessee was incorrect, erroneous or false. In fact, in the assessment order, when the Assessing Officer has discussed the addition, there is no mention about furnishing of inaccurate particulars. He simply disallowed

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

penalty equal to five times the monthly billing amount. 4.3.5. The Registrar undertakes that it shall abide by .IN Registry directives/orders of the NIXI, if a prohibited status on any domain name is in place and the Registrar Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:08.01.2026 18:27:10 Signature Not Verified CS (COMM) 82/2020 Page 115 of 241 […]” (d) DNRs