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.

12 results for “disallowance”+ Section 17(1)(va)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi744Mumbai402Kolkata337Jaipur270Bangalore243Chennai214Ahmedabad154Chandigarh111Raipur101Pune87Hyderabad73Agra65Nagpur65Amritsar60Surat50Lucknow49Indore44Guwahati23Jodhpur23Cochin18Cuttack18Visakhapatnam15Rajkot12Varanasi11Ranchi7Allahabad6Karnataka6Dehradun4SC4Rajasthan3Patna2Telangana2Punjab & Haryana1Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Addition to Income12Section 143(3)9Survey u/s 133A9Section 133A8Section 40A(3)7Section 1446Section 2505Section 1485Section 1475Section 139

THE ASSISTANT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3,, JAMNAGAR vs. SHRI MILANKUMAR M. POBARU,, JAMNAGAR

Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 290/RJT/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot06 May 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ajai Pratap Singh, CIT/DR
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

section 36(1)(va) of the Act. Since it is a fact on record that the employees contribution of Rs.9028/- was deposited delayed as per the applicable provisions of law, the issue stands covered against the assessee. The disallowance of Rs.9028/- on account of delayed deposit of employee’s contribution to ESI is accordingly upheld. 15. Ground of appeal No.2

SPECTRUM JOHNSON TILES PRIVATE LIMITED,RAJKOT vs. THE DCIT/ACIT CIR 1(1),RAJKOT., RAJKOT

Appeal is Allowed for Statistical Purpose

5
Disallowance5
ITA 900/RJT/2024[2014-15]Status: Disposed
ITAT Rajkot
22 Apr 2025
AY 2014-15
Section 143(3)Section 14A

17,66,181/-. During the appellate\nproceedings same argument were reiterated i. 1) there is direct nexus of loan taken\nwith other specific business purpose and as such no interest bearing loan was utilized\nfor share investment as there was sufficient Reserve & Surplus [Reliance was placed\non judgement of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court 354 ITR 0630 CIT vs. Suzlon

ACCURATE BUILDCON,RAJKOT vs. DCIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

ITA 769/RJT/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

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

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. (DR)
Section 133ASection 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

disallowed in view of provisions of section 36(1) (va) of the Act as pointed out in the reasons for reopening. Ad-hoc business income of Rs. 2,00,000/- has been offered additionally. A copy of reason recorded for reopening has been provided to the assessee-firm Vides letter dated 17/12/2021. Further, the objection raised against initiation of proceedings

ACCURATE BUILDCON,RAJKOT vs. DCIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

ITA 770/RJT/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

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

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. (DR)
Section 133ASection 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

disallowed in view of provisions of section 36(1) (va) of the Act as pointed out in the reasons for reopening. Ad-hoc business income of Rs. 2,00,000/- has been offered additionally. A copy of reason recorded for reopening has been provided to the assessee-firm Vides letter dated 17/12/2021. Further, the objection raised against initiation of proceedings

ACCURATE BUILDCON,RAJKOT vs. DCIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

ITA 766/RJT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. (DR)
Section 133ASection 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

disallowed in view of provisions of section 36(1) (va) of the Act as pointed out in the reasons for reopening. Ad-hoc business income of Rs. 2,00,000/- has been offered additionally. A copy of reason recorded for reopening has been provided to the assessee-firm Vides letter dated 17/12/2021. Further, the objection raised against initiation of proceedings

ACCURATE BUILDCON ,RAJKOT vs. DCIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

ITA 768/RJT/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. (DR)
Section 133ASection 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

disallowed in view of provisions of section 36(1) (va) of the Act as pointed out in the reasons for reopening. Ad-hoc business income of Rs. 2,00,000/- has been offered additionally. A copy of reason recorded for reopening has been provided to the assessee-firm Vides letter dated 17/12/2021. Further, the objection raised against initiation of proceedings

ACCURATE BUILDCON ,RAJKOT vs. DCIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

ITA 767/RJT/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. (DR)
Section 133ASection 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

disallowed in view of provisions of section 36(1) (va) of the Act as pointed out in the reasons for reopening. Ad-hoc business income of Rs. 2,00,000/- has been offered additionally. A copy of reason recorded for reopening has been provided to the assessee-firm Vides letter dated 17/12/2021. Further, the objection raised against initiation of proceedings

M/S. CHAMPION AGRO LTD.,,SAPAR (VERAVAL), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Assessee are hereby dismissed

ITA 44/RJT/2018[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot07 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

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

Section 133ASection 144Section 271(1)(c)

17-12-2013, in order to verify the correctness and authenticity of the details, the assessee was asked to furnish books of account along with the purchase and sales bills. The assessee was given further six opportunities to produce the details, however the assessee failed to comply with the above notices

M/S. CHAMPION AGRO LTD.,,SAPAR (VERAVAL), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Assessee are hereby dismissed

ITA 46/RJT/2018[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot07 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

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

Section 133ASection 144Section 271(1)(c)

17-12-2013, in order to verify the correctness and authenticity of the details, the assessee was asked to furnish books of account along with the purchase and sales bills. The assessee was given further six opportunities to produce the details, however the assessee failed to comply with the above notices

M/S. CHAMPION AGRO LTD.,,SAPAR (VERAVAL), RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Assessee are hereby dismissed

ITA 45/RJT/2018[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot07 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

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

Section 133ASection 144Section 271(1)(c)

17-12-2013, in order to verify the correctness and authenticity of the details, the assessee was asked to furnish books of account along with the purchase and sales bills. The assessee was given further six opportunities to produce the details, however the assessee failed to comply with the above notices

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), JAMNAGAR vs. M/S. PARAS BUILDCON P. LTD., JAMNAGAR

ITA 315/RJT/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot13 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. D.R
Section 40A(3)Section 68

disallowed the same. But the same was deleted by the learned CIT(A) for the reasons discussed above. 10.1 Admittedly, it is hard to believe that the assessee will make the payment for the purchase over a period in piecemeal amounting to Rs. 18,000 to 20,000 in the given facts and circumstances. However, the onus lies upon

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, JAMNAGAR vs. M/S. SENOR METALS PVT. LTD., JAMNAGAR

In the results the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 260/RJT/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot01 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kambleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 260/Rjt/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Dushyant Maharshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Pratap Singh, C.I.T.D.R
Section 36Section 40Section 43(5)

va). 7. On the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. 8. That the revenue craves leaves to add, amend, alter or withdraw any ground of appeal. 9. It is therefore prayed that the order of the CIT(A), Jamnagar may kindly