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.

3 results for “disallowance”+ Section 43clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai5,239Delhi5,112Bangalore1,679Chennai1,638Kolkata1,411Ahmedabad793Jaipur639Hyderabad495Pune368Indore338Chandigarh322Surat263Raipur238Amritsar161Rajkot155Karnataka147Nagpur146Cochin141Visakhapatnam109Lucknow97Agra93Guwahati84Cuttack76SC60Telangana55Allahabad53Jodhpur52Calcutta46Ranchi43Patna32Dehradun19Varanasi19Panaji19Kerala14Jabalpur10Punjab & Haryana6Himachal Pradesh4Rajasthan3Orissa3A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1Gauhati1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)4Section 2742

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

43 Signature Not Verified ITA 90/2020, ITA 109/2023 & ITA 392/2023 Page 3 of 12 5. On 19.03.2016, a notice under Section 143 (2) of the Act was issued and served upon the assessee company. 6. On 28.03.2017, the original return was revised and the assessee declared a loss of Rs. 354,34,84,148/-, which included loss from Business

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

ITA/6/2021
HC Rajasthan
01 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

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