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 30clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai9,033Delhi7,351Bangalore2,558Chennai2,410Kolkata2,186Ahmedabad1,685Hyderabad1,058Jaipur980Pune824Indore531Chandigarh463Surat449Raipur349Rajkot338Cochin281Karnataka249Amritsar240Nagpur237Cuttack221Lucknow220Visakhapatnam205Agra154Jodhpur100Allahabad86Panaji85Guwahati81SC77Ranchi75Telangana74Dehradun70Patna64Calcutta59Jabalpur37Varanasi26Kerala24Punjab & Haryana12Orissa4A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN4Rajasthan4Himachal Pradesh3Gauhati1ANIL R. DAVE AMITAVA ROY L. NAGESWARA RAO1Uttarakhand1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1Tripura1

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 154? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in sustaining the order of rectification passed by the Assessing Officer on 16.10.2008 when the CIT(A) had already recorded a fining that the appellant had continued its business during the year and no mistake was apparent from record

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

30 AM/PM on 23.06.2017" ·” 8. From the above, it is evident that the notice was absolutely vague. There is no specific charge for initiation of penalty proceedings which the assessee could explain. The penalty notice mentions the failure of the assessee to comply with the notice under Section 142(1)/143(2). It also mentions about the concealment of particulars

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

30 days. It is argued that the such methods adopted by GoDaddy show that it is exercising its powers in a Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:08.01.2026 18:27:10 Signature Not Verified CS (COMM) 82/2020 Page 59 of 241 completely non-discriminatory and transparent manner. 92. Finally, reliance is placed upon the DPDP Act which also has laid

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

disallowed by the Assessing Officer, holding that it was income from other sources. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner, who came to the conclusion that the assessee was liable to pay tax on capital gains on the amount of Rs.35 lacs after deducting an amount of Rs.7 lacs as cost of acquisition. The Department and assessee challenged the decision before