Search: disallowance | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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 161(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai956 Delhi853 Kolkata252 Chennai242 Bangalore241 Ahmedabad213 Jaipur198 Pune138 Hyderabad114 Cochin91 Indore76 Chandigarh61 Raipur55 Surat52 Panaji45 Nagpur31 Lucknow28 Visakhapatnam24 Allahabad21 Amritsar13 Rajkot11 Karnataka11 Agra10 SC9 Patna8 Dehradun6 Guwahati6 Calcutta6 Cuttack5 Telangana4 Jodhpur3 Kerala3 Ranchi3 A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1 Rajasthan1 Punjab & Haryana1 Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 14816 Section 143(3)13 Section 14712 Addition to Income10 Section 271(1)(c)7 Section 142(1)6 Section 686 Section 145(3)5 Penalty5 Section 69C

SHRI GANDHI MAULANA AZAD SHRAMJIVI ASHRA,KUTCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeals of the assessee, are allowed

ITA 611/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 10Section 10(23)(iiia)Section 11Section 139Section 142(1)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)

4

disallowed 15% of Rs.93,22,874/- which comes to Rs.13,98,431/- and added this amount to the total income of the appellant as AOP by order dated 24.03.2025. 5. That the assessee filed the appeals against the assessment order before the Ld.CIT(A). That the Ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals of the assessee with following observation

SHRI GANDHI MAULANA AZAD SHRAMJIVI ASHRA,KUTCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeals of the assessee, are allowed

ITA 612/RJT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 10Section 10(23)(iiia)Section 11Section 139Section 142(1)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)

disallowed 15% of Rs.93,22,874/- which comes to Rs.13,98,431/- and added this amount to the total income of the appellant as AOP by order dated 24.03.2025. 5. That the assessee filed the appeals against the assessment order before the Ld.CIT(A). That the Ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals of the assessee with following observation

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S SAURASHTRA GRAMIN BANK,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 376/RJT/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot25 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royअपील सं./Ita No.376/Rjt/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 D.C.I.T., M/S. Saurashtra Gramin Bank, Circle-3(1), Vs. Gopalnaga, Opp. Andh Mahila Rajkot. Vikas Gruh, Rajkot.

For Appellant: Ms A.D. Vyas, A.RFor Respondent: Shri

1) (vii) of the Act. The Assessing Officer did not allow the deduction claimed as aforesaid on the ground that the provision of NPA was not in the nature of expenditure or loss but more in the nature of a reserve, and thus not deductible under section 36(i) (vii) of the Act. The Assessing Officer, however, did not bring

M/S SHREE RAJMOTI INDS.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE A. C.I.T., CIRCLE-2(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 172/RJT/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot27 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 10(34)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

161 Taxmann 340 (SC) not constitute a deliberate act suppression very [Concealment of truth]. Bombay High Court in case has held that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be 6 of CIT vs. Bennett Coleman imposed when there was no desire on part of & Co. Ltd [2013 ITRV- assessee to hide or conceal the income but it was an inadvertent

M/S. FAVOURITE EXPORTS,VERAVAL vs. THE ITO, WARD-4, VERAVAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 162/RJT/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot14 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed, आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 162/Rjt/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2015-2016 M/S. Favourite Exports, I.T.O., Gidc Estate, Vs. Ward-4, Somnath Road, Veraval. Veraval.

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36(1)(va)Section 80P(2)(a)

disallowed by virtue of the provisions of section 36(1)(va) of the Act on the reasoning that the payment was not made within the time specified under the relevant Act in the assessment framed under section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 20-09-2017. As per the AO, the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income

KHEDUT COLD STORAGE CO.,RAJKOT vs. THE PCIT, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 91/RJT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot21 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 91/Rjt/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2017-2018 M/S. Khedut Cold Storage Co., The Principal Commissioner Of Head Off At Officer No11, Vs. Income Tax, Jitendra Complex, Rajkot-1, Kalwa Chock, Rajkot. Junagadh-362001. Pan: Aanfk8513F

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Jain, CIT.D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

section 143(3) of the Act as erroneous insofar prejudicial interest of Revenue for the reason of inadequate inquiry and incorrect application of mind on the facts available on record. 6. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned PCIT, the assessee is in appeal before us. 7. The learned AR before us filed a paper book running from pages

KUMAR RAMESH SAHU,RAJKOT, GUJARAT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), RAJKOT, RAJKOT, GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 336/RJT/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Apr 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.336/Rjt/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Kumar Ramesh Sahu बनाम/ The Acit, Sundaram, 72/3, New Cirtcle-2(3) Vs. College Wadi Rajkot – 60 001 150Ft5. Ring Road Opp. Meera Apartment Rajkot – 360 005 (Gujarat) "ायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aesps 5531 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) .. Assessee By : Shri M.N. Manvar, Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing 13/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 04/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha:

For Appellant: Shri M.N. Manvar, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 54Section 68

disallowed u/s 68 by Ld. AO in the assessment order.” 4.1. Ld. CIT (A) has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee order dated 30.08.2023, according to Ld. CIT (A), the appellant failed to explain the discrepancies pointed out by the Assessing Officer during the course of remand proceedings. Hence, the additions made in respect of unsecured loan/gifts

THE ITO, WARD-1 (1) (1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. AMIT COTTON INDUSTRIES,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal preferred by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 431/RJT/2015[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot01 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Rindani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vidyasagar S. Ubale, Sr. D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 69C

disallowed under Section 69C of the Act treating the same as unexplained expenditure and added to the total income of the assessee which was, in turn, deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). Hence, the instant appeal before us. 4. We have heard the relevant submissions made by the respective parties, we have also carefully considered the materials available on record

SHRI VASANT VASHRAMBHAI SAPOVADIA,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMR. INCOME TAX,CIR-3,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 32/RJT/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot22 Oct 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Written SubmissionFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Das, DR

161 ITD 63/73taxmann.com 171 (Mum. - Trib.) upholding such a disallowance in case of pharmaceutical companies offering free samples to doctor post introduction of the relevant product in market after establishing end use; is hit by Section 37(1

SHRI SWASTIK COLOR LAB,,JAMNAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-3(1), , JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 29/RJT/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot16 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 29/Rjt/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 Shri Swastik Color Lab, I.T.O., Nr. Scooter House, Vs. Ward-3(1), Jamnagar. Jamnagar.

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.D Gupta, CIT. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

1 to 136 and contended that the proceedings initiated under section 147 of the Act are liable to be quashed as the same was based on same set of document which amounts to the change of opinion. 11. On the other hand, the learned DR vehemently supported the order of the authorities below. 12. We have heard the rival contentions

MANOJBHAI ARVINDBHAI PAREKH,RAJKOT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 385/RJT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot27 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 385 /Rjt/2023 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) Manojbhai Arvindbhai Parekh The Acit Of I. T. Circle – 2(1), Shreeji Giriraj Trading, 19-Giriraj Vs. Rajkot – 360001 Chamber, Old Gadhiwas Soni Bazar, Rajkot – 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acypp1471C (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr.DR

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

161 (SC), wherein it was observed that all the transactions of Manojbhai Arvindbhai Parekh v. ACIT ITA No.385/Rjt/2023 AY. 2017-18 conversion of unaccounted money should be subjected to careful scrutiny. Hence the assessee was required to prove the source of cash deposited during demonetization period with proper evidence but the assessee has failed to prove it as incomplete sale