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 4clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai22,331 Delhi16,917 Chennai6,538 Kolkata6,149 Bangalore5,784 Ahmedabad2,540 Pune2,155 Hyderabad1,679 Jaipur1,458 Surat1,033 Indore949 Chandigarh824 Cochin815 Karnataka780 Rajkot613 Nagpur493 Raipur492 Visakhapatnam485 Lucknow439 Cuttack358 Amritsar344 Telangana213 Jodhpur206 Panaji190 Patna188 Guwahati180 Ranchi176 Calcutta170 Agra154 SC147 Dehradun139 Allahabad90 Jabalpur84 Kerala74 Punjab & Haryana40 Varanasi35 Orissa17 Rajasthan11 Himachal Pradesh8 A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN7 Uttarakhand2 Gauhati2 Andhra Pradesh2 ANIL R. DAVE AMITAVA ROY L. NAGESWARA RAO1 RANJAN GOGOI PRAFULLA C. PANT1 A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1 H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1 Tripura1 MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1 D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1 J&K1 Bombay1 ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1

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)

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

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

ITA/6/2021HC Rajasthan01 Nov 2022

Bench: SANDEEP MEHTA,KULDEEP MATHUR

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

3

For Respondent:

4. Assessments were completed under Section 143(3) read with Section 153A for the assessment years 2003-04 to 2008-09 and I.T.A.Noa.48, 46, 47, 49, 51, 54, 55, 56 & 68/20 & 6/21 :: 16 :: under Section 143(3) for the assessment year 2009-10 in relation to the persons who were searched, namely, Gracy Babu, Jose Thomas and P.J. Paulose

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)

4 of 6) [ITA-816/2008] sale of pesticides. During assessment proceedings the records revealed that the appellant had borrowed interest bearing loans and given interest free advances to the tune of Rs.37,06,431/-, out of which Rs.32,75,000/- was given to DPFL. The AO framed assessment on 10.03.2004 and under section 36(1)(iii) disallowed

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 143(3) of the Act was passed on 23.05.2017, vide which, an addition of Rs. 5,00,00,000/- was made on account of alleged advance given to M/s. TAIDIA Construction and written off in the year under consideration. The AO while disallowing the alleged business expenditure noted that the assessee company had failed to file any agreement

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

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 and freedoms

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

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)

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 has not challenged the same before the Supreme Court. 4. This Court, while admitting D.B. Income Tax Appeal

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)

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 has not challenged the same before the Supreme Court. 4. This Court, while admitting D.B. Income Tax Appeal

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)

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 has not challenged the same before the Supreme Court. 4. This Court, while admitting D.B. Income Tax Appeal

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

ITA/81/2024HC Rajasthan15 Oct 2024

Bench: PANKAJ BHANDARI,PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

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 High Court, Chandigarh. ITA-81-2024 income from Rs.2,04,41,88 head ‘capital g 4. T referred

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)

SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 15.09.2017 PASSED IN ITA No.931/BANG/2016, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011- 2012 PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED ABOVE AND ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN ITA No.931/BANG/2016 DATED 15/09/2017 AND CONFIRM THE ORDER