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 96clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai3,656Delhi2,874Chennai1,084Bangalore1,074Kolkata791Ahmedabad518Hyderabad385Jaipur359Indore246Chandigarh215Pune212Surat140Cochin113Raipur111Visakhapatnam78Cuttack77Rajkot76Amritsar67Panaji65Allahabad64Lucknow60Karnataka48Calcutta38Nagpur36Guwahati32Agra29Patna27Jodhpur26Ranchi23Telangana23SC14Dehradun14Varanasi9Kerala8Jabalpur5Punjab & Haryana4Rajasthan3Gauhati1Orissa1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)4Section 2742

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

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
Section 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

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