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.

6 results for “disallowance”+ Section 46clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai4,882Delhi4,378Bangalore1,418Chennai1,343Kolkata1,107Ahmedabad646Jaipur478Hyderabad460Indore336Pune320Raipur267Chandigarh238Surat220Rajkot162Amritsar159Nagpur148Cochin116Karnataka115Visakhapatnam102Lucknow99Cuttack67Panaji63Allahabad48Calcutta48Guwahati46Agra40Ranchi37Jodhpur36SC36Telangana30Dehradun22Varanasi19Jabalpur13Patna13Kerala8Rajasthan6Punjab & Haryana2H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1Orissa1RANJAN GOGOI PRAFULLA C. PANT1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 116Section 11(2)6Depreciation4Section 13(8)3Section 2(15)3Section 11(3)3Exemption3Addition to Income3Section 2602

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

46, 47, 49, 51, 54, 55, 56 & 68/20 & 6/21 :: 21 :: 11.7 In the case of Cadell Weaving Mill Co. (P.) Ltd. (273 ITR 1), the argument before the Supreme Court was arising out of the return of income of the assessee. The amount received by the asessee on surrender of tenancy right, whether liable to capital gains under section

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)

46,872/- on account of 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.1,81,89,705/- on account of depreciation on fixed assets without appreciating the facts that the application of 100% expenditure

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)

46,872/- on account of 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.1,81,89,705/- on account of depreciation on fixed assets without appreciating the facts that the application of 100% expenditure

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)

46,872/- on account of 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.1,81,89,705/- on account of depreciation on fixed assets without appreciating the facts that the application of 100% expenditure

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

46 of 241 iii. On new gTLD registries utilizing TCMH, for a 90-day period after launch, registrants attempting to register a second-level domain name will receive a warning if the name matches an entry in the TCMH. If the registrant registers the name anyway, the rights owner will receive a notification from the Trademark Claims system. iv. Rights

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)

disallowance of claim of deduction on account of commission on locker rent received in advance of Rs.112.84 Crore by following the decision of Apex Court in the case of 5 CIT vs. EXCEL INDUSTRIES (reported in 358 ITR page 295) and decision of Calcutta High Court in the case of Bank of Tokyo Ltd.? (2) Whether on the facts