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.

4 results for “disallowance”+ Set Off of Lossesclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai8,960Delhi6,096Chennai2,581Kolkata2,396Bangalore2,308Ahmedabad1,024Pune723Jaipur674Hyderabad668Surat357Raipur326Indore320Karnataka277Chandigarh268Rajkot258Visakhapatnam203Cochin200Lucknow171Nagpur165Amritsar142Cuttack103Agra91Ranchi82Guwahati78Telangana77Jodhpur74SC70Calcutta65Patna56Panaji44Allahabad31Dehradun31Varanasi27Jabalpur23Kerala22Orissa10Punjab & Haryana7Himachal Pradesh4Rajasthan4A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1ANIL R. DAVE AMITAVA ROY L. NAGESWARA RAO1Andhra Pradesh1Tripura1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1

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

set aside? (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in sustaining the disallowance of Rs.49,00,000/- being quality loss

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

ITA/81/2024HC Rajasthan15 Oct 2024

Bench: PANKAJ BHANDARI,PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

Section 10

disallowed the claim of th of Rs.2,04,41,885/-. The CIT (A pital loss of Rs.9,87,485/- and al value in the shares and thus vid er of the AO. The order of CIT (Appeals) was dated 15.05.2006, set

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

loss account. Thus, in the whole body of the order, no satisfaction has been recorded for initiating penalty proceedings. Only at the end of the computation of income, the Assessing Officer has recorded "Keeping in view the facts of the case, I am satisfied that it warrants the initiation of penalty proceedings

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

set out in paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article.” 90. According to Mr. Wadhwa, ld. Senior Counsel the requirement for privacy protection is not merely an option, but in fact a mandate for all DNRs. He then relies upon the Temporary Specifications published by ICANN for gTLD Registration Data, which has in fact, implemented the GDPR and mandates that