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.

11 results for “disallowance”+ Section 1clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai22,622 Delhi16,843 Chennai6,564 Kolkata6,171 Bangalore5,808 Ahmedabad2,810 Pune2,324 Hyderabad2,066 Jaipur1,574 Surat1,213 Indore978 Chandigarh976 Cochin815 Karnataka794 Raipur675 Rajkot626 Visakhapatnam582 Nagpur502 Amritsar501 Lucknow468 Cuttack409 Panaji286 Agra226 Jodhpur224 Telangana215 Patna195 Ranchi191 Guwahati187 Calcutta164 Dehradun155 SC153 Allahabad132 Jabalpur107 Kerala75 Varanasi59 Punjab & Haryana41 Orissa19 Rajasthan11 Himachal Pradesh8 A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN7 Gauhati2 Andhra Pradesh2 Uttarakhand2 ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1 ANIL R. DAVE AMITAVA ROY L. NAGESWARA RAO1 RANJAN GOGOI PRAFULLA C. PANT1 A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1 MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1 J&K1 Tripura1 D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1 Bombay1 H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1

Key Topics

Section 116 Section 11(2)6 Addition to Income6 Depreciation5 Section 1474 Section 271(1)4 Exemption4 Section 13(8)3 Section 2(15)3 Section 11(3)

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 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Section 271(1) (c) is mandatory whenever an addition of disallowance is made. In assessment proceedings, the only concern is with

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

ITA/6/2021HC Rajasthan01 Nov 2022

SANDEEP MEHTA,KULDEEP MATHUR

3

Bench:

For Respondent: THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

1), the argument before the Supreme Court was arising out of the return of income of the assessee. The amount received by the asessee on surrender of tenancy right, whether liable to capital gains under section 45 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was involved in that appeal before the Supreme Court. There was a lease agreement entered into

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)

Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act and interest to tune of Rs.10,24,500/- was disallowed. The appeal against

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTINOS vs. JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/152/2017HC Rajasthan22 Jan 2026

Bench: SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,SANGEETA SHARMA

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(3)Section 13(8)Section 2(15)

1 was answered against the department, the action of treating the income to be a taxable income under Section 11(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) was also held to be consequential and needed no adjudication. 3. We were told that the judgment dated 02.08.2024 passed by this Court has attained finality and the department

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTINOS vs. JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/150/2017HC Rajasthan22 Jan 2026

Bench: SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,SANGEETA SHARMA

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(3)Section 13(8)Section 2(15)

1 was answered against the department, the action of treating the income to be a taxable income under Section 11(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) was also held to be consequential and needed no adjudication. 3. We were told that the judgment dated 02.08.2024 passed by this Court has attained finality and the department

C I T JAIPUR vs. J D A JAIPUR

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/284/2010HC Rajasthan22 Jan 2026

Bench: SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,SANGEETA SHARMA

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(3)Section 13(8)Section 2(15)

1 was answered against the department, the action of treating the income to be a taxable income under Section 11(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) was also held to be consequential and needed no adjudication. 3. We were told that the judgment dated 02.08.2024 passed by this Court has attained finality and the department

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

disallowance of Rs.2,76,167/- under Section 40A (3) of the IT Act. 4. Indeed in the impugned the ITAT has recorded as under: “2. In the appeal, the assessee has taken the following grounds: 1

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

disallowance of Rs.52 lakhs was justified as the expenditure did not pertain to the year under consideration. Regarding the quality loss, it was held that assessee could not claim deduction as an expenditure since it did not carry on any manufacturing activity. In the above background, the assessee preferred this appeal under section 260A of the Income

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

ITA/81/2024HC Rajasthan15 Oct 2024

Bench: PANKAJ BHANDARI,PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

1,94,54,400/-. It is also claimed onvertible portion of debentures ral Mills Ltd. amounting to nder Section 10 (2A) of the Act, nt of Rs.75,936/- from share of r e e n n d d g d s o , f RAJESH KUMAR 2024.07.29 12:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. Punjab & Haryana

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)

1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside the 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

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

1, Article 4(5) and Article 25 of the GDPR and the same are extracted hereunder: “Article 1: Subject-matter and objectives: 1. This Regulation lays down rules relating to the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and rules relating to the free movement of personal data. 2. This Regulation protects fundamental rights