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.

11 results for “disallowance”+ Section 5(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai22,172Delhi16,720Chennai6,511Kolkata6,123Bangalore5,758Ahmedabad2,793Pune2,325Hyderabad2,075Jaipur1,543Surat1,203Indore1,007Chandigarh956Cochin846Karnataka747Raipur684Rajkot610Visakhapatnam581Nagpur509Amritsar502Lucknow450Cuttack441Panaji302Jodhpur265Agra221Telangana200Patna188Guwahati186Ranchi174Dehradun156Calcutta149SC138Allahabad132Jabalpur115Kerala69Varanasi59Punjab & Haryana40Orissa15Rajasthan11Himachal Pradesh8A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN7Gauhati2Andhra Pradesh2Uttarakhand2ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1ANIL R. DAVE AMITAVA ROY L. NAGESWARA RAO1RANJAN GOGOI PRAFULLA C. PANT1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1J&K1Tripura1D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1Bombay1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1

Key Topics

Section 116Section 11(2)6Addition to Income6Depreciation5Section 1474Section 271(1)4Exemption4Section 13(8)3Section 2(15)3Section 11(3)

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

2. The statement of debts and liabilities as prepared pursuant to clause 5 of the agreement does not disclose any debts or liability as on the date of agreement and the 2nd party is not eligible for any further amount for the said purpose as envisaged in the agreement dated 10/03/2009. 3. The 2nd Parties i.e. parties

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
3
Section 2603
Disallowance3
Section 271(1)
Section 271(1)(c)
Section 274

Section 142(1)/143(2). It also mentions about the concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of Digitally Signed By:SUNITA KUMARI Signing Date:22.11.2024 17:18:43 Signature Not Verified ITA 90/2020, ITA 109/2023 & ITA 392/2023 Page 5 of 12 income in terms of Explanation 1,2,3,4 and 5. The subsequent notice dated

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 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

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

2 of 5 3. Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Tribunal is justified in confirming the addition made u/S.68 of the Act particularly when the books of accounts maintained in day to day course of business does not show any unexplained cash credit? 4. Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case Section

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)

2 of 6) [ITA-816/2008] 31.07.2008 and 20.06.2008 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur (for brevity ‘the tribunal’). 3. On 01.12.2008 and 18.11.2009, the appeals were admitted on following substantial questions of law for assessment year 2001-02 and 2002-03 respectively:- “Whether the ITAT was justified in having reveresed the finding of the CIT (Appeals

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

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

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

ITA/81/2024HC Rajasthan15 Oct 2024

Bench: PANKAJ BHANDARI,PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

Section 10

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

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

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 of natural