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.

7 results for “disallowance”+ Section 36(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai7,823 Delhi7,015 Bangalore2,375 Chennai2,289 Kolkata2,045 Ahmedabad1,033 Jaipur818 Hyderabad761 Pune756 Indore514 Chandigarh465 Surat338 Raipur240 Karnataka228 Cochin227 Rajkot227 Nagpur202 Visakhapatnam184 Amritsar182 Lucknow173 Cuttack119 Guwahati94 Telangana87 Jodhpur73 SC73 Ranchi72 Allahabad62 Calcutta58 Panaji55 Patna47 Agra38 Kerala33 Dehradun30 Jabalpur28 Varanasi17 Punjab & Haryana14 Rajasthan7 Himachal Pradesh5 Orissa3 A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2 MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1 H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1 Tripura1 ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1 A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1 ANIL R. DAVE AMITAVA ROY L. NAGESWARA RAO1 Andhra Pradesh1 RANJAN GOGOI PRAFULLA C. PANT1

Key Topics

Section 116 Section 11(2)6 Addition to Income4 Section 13(8)3 Section 2(15)3 Section 11(3)3 Exemption3 Depreciation3

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)

disallowing 5% of administrative expenditure related to change in accounting policy. (iv) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Hon’ble ITAT was justified in allowing Rs. 1,36,09,228/- on account of depreciation on fixed assets without appreciating the facts that the application of 100% expenditure of the capital asset is already

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)

disallowing 5% of administrative expenditure related to change in accounting policy. (iv) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Hon’ble ITAT was justified in allowing Rs. 1,36,09,228/- on account of depreciation on fixed assets without appreciating the facts that the application of 100% expenditure of the capital asset is already

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)

disallowing 5% of administrative expenditure related to change in accounting policy. (iv) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Hon’ble ITAT was justified in allowing Rs. 1,36,09,228/- on account of depreciation on fixed assets without appreciating the facts that the application of 100% expenditure of the capital asset is already

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

disallowing its claim for expenditure in the same amount. In relation to the Trust, the finding of the Tribunal, which is impugned in I.T.A.No.6/2021 filed by the Department in relation to assessment year 2010-11 is found in paragraphs 19 to 19.5, which read as follows: “19. The CIT(A) observed that the assessee had created a fresh asset

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

1) of the Act. I.T.A. No.193/12 & Conn. Cases -:20:- 21. There is nothing on record to indicate that there is any element of compensation involved. Even after granting opportunities to the assessee to show the existence of any compensatory element in the penalty, the assessee could not show the existence of such an element in the penalty. In fact

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