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.

4 results for “disallowance”+ Section 23clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai8,723Delhi7,489Bangalore2,780Chennai2,218Kolkata2,116Ahmedabad1,083Jaipur895Hyderabad779Pune650Indore460Chandigarh453Surat377Raipur366Rajkot246Amritsar220Nagpur207Karnataka204Cochin190Lucknow184Visakhapatnam184Agra108Cuttack103Guwahati81Jodhpur77Telangana75SC74Ranchi72Allahabad72Patna59Panaji59Calcutta54Varanasi33Dehradun30Kerala26Jabalpur25A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN6Punjab & Haryana5Rajasthan4Himachal Pradesh3Orissa3Andhra Pradesh2Gauhati1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1Tripura1Uttarakhand1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1ANIL R. DAVE AMITAVA ROY L. NAGESWARA RAO1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)4Section 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

section 45A, we are of the view that the disallowance of the amount of Rs.52 lakhs cannot be termed as an expenditure for the year 2004-05. The second question is answered in favour of the revenue. 22. The third question raised for consideration in these appeals relates to the claim of Rs.1.25 Crores under the head ‘quality loss

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

23'd May, 2017 and the relevant portion of which reads as under :- "Where in the course of proceeding before me for the assessment year 2015-16 it appears to me that you:- *have without reasonable cause failed to comply with a notice under section 142(1)/143(2) of the Income Tax Act,1961 dated *have concealed the particulars

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

23 :: cannot be treated as a casual or non-recurring receipt under section 10(3) and be subjected to tax under section 56. The argument of the appellant that even if the income cannot be chargeable under section 45, because of the inapplicability of the computation provided under section 48, it could still impose tax under the residuary head

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

Sections 2(h), 2(j), 2(n), 2(t), 2(u) & 2(x). It is argued that in terms of the said provisions information of Registrants would be clearly covered and thus would have to be protected from disclosure. The said sections are extracted hereinunder for ease of reference: “2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,— (h) “data