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 194clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai953Delhi886Bangalore272Kolkata244Chennai220Jaipur122Ahmedabad92Chandigarh86Hyderabad70Pune65Nagpur59Raipur51Surat42Indore40Calcutta36Telangana28Allahabad23Guwahati21Cochin21Lucknow21Karnataka19Cuttack16Amritsar16Visakhapatnam11Rajkot11Patna9Panaji8Jodhpur8SC8Kerala5Jabalpur4Ranchi3Dehradun2Varanasi1Agra1Punjab & Haryana1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 139(1)13Section 4011Section 143(3)10Section 1949Section 80P9Section 11(2)9Section 80I8Addition to Income7Section 2636Deduction

PUNABHAI G. PARDAVA,,DHARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1)(4),, AMRELI

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

ITA 219/RJT/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot08 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Written SubmissionFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 194Section 40Section 94

disallowance should be restricted to the tune of 30% of the rent paid under the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) read with section 194

PUNABHAI G. PARDAVA,,DHARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1)(4),, AMRELI

6
Disallowance5
Survey u/s 133A3

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

ITA 137/RJT/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Written SubmissionFor Respondent: Shri B. D. Gupta, Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 194Section 194CSection 40

disallowed under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 3. Aggrieved against the same the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals)-3. The Ld. CIT(A) also confirmed the order of the AO holding that the assessee has not proved that Section 194

PRANAM ENTERPRISE,JUNAGADH vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 391/RJT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot06 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.391/Rjt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Pranam Enterprise Vs. The Dcit Office No.3, City Centre, Opp. Circle-1(1), Rajkot New Collector Office, Junagadh – 362001, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaffp7926H (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ar Respondent By Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 18/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 06/03/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am:

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 270A(1)Section 274Section 80I

disallowance; (d) the amount of under-reported income represented by any addition made in conformity with the arm's length price determined by the Transfer Pricing Officer, where the assessee had maintained information and documents as prescribed under section 92D, declared the international transaction under Chapter X, and, disclosed all the material facts relating to the transaction

M/S. KUTCH MANDVI BHATIYA MAHAJAN,MANDV-KUTCH vs. THE ITO-WARD-1, RAJKOT

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

ITA 154/RJT/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 Dec 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. D.R
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 17

194,500/- on 22-03-2017. Thereafter, the assessee received intimation under section 143(1) of the Act wherein the exemption under section 11(2) of the Act has been disallowed

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT vs. SHRI PANKAJ CHIMANLAL LODHIYA, RAJKOT

Appeals are dismissed, Assessee's appeals are partly allowed

ITA 47/RJT/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

disallowance made by assessing\nofficer is explanation given by assessee of dr/cr entries in cash and metals ledger.\n18.2 According to which each Dr. entry in the metal ledger is quantity released by SB\nand each Cr. entry is quantity lifted by the assessee. Since the order entry and\nreversal entry thereof was debited and credited in the metal ledger

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT vs. SHRI PANKAJ CHIMANLAL LODHIYA, RAJKOT

ITA 48/RJT/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

disallowance made by assessing\nofficer is explanation given by assessee of dr/cr entries in cash and metals ledger.\n18.2 According to which each Dr. entry in the metal ledger is quantity released by SB\nand each Cr. entry is quantity lifted by the assessee. Since the order entry and\nreversal entry thereof was debited and credited in the metal ledger

SHRI TRAMBAKPUR SAHAKARI MANDALI LIMITED,AT TRAMBAKPUR TALUKA DHARI DIST. AMRELI vs. THE DCIT/ACIT (CPC),, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 23/RJT/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Oct 2022AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 80ASection 80PSection 8O

194/-” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a co-operative society, who filed return of income on 30-11-2020 declaring total income of " " Nil and claimed deduction of 4,11,630/-under section 80P of the Act. Thereafter, the assessee received intimation under section 143(1)(a) of the Act making adjustment

ABROAD VITRIFIED PVT LTD,MORBI vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 144/RJT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot08 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita Nos.144/Rjt/2023 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

disallowed u/s 68 r.w.s.115BBE of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee while finalizing the assessment proceedings u/s. 143(3) of the Act, which has not been done, by the assessing officer. 4. Therefore, Ld. PCIT noticed that assessing officer had passed the assessment order without making proper enquiry and verification on the above issue

THE ACIT, CEN. CIR.-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. EXPERT PARTICLE BOARD, MORBI

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee, ( in CO No

ITA 139/RJT/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.139/Rjt/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Asstt.Commissioner Of Income-Tax Expert Particle Board बनाम Cent.Cir.2, Rajkot. Survey No.111, 8-A National Vs. Highway B/H. Bharatinagar Iti, Ravapar Nadi Morbi 363 642. Pan : Aahfe 0299 G आयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.142/Rjt/2021 With Cross Objection No.05/Rjt/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Asstt.Commissioner Of Income-Tax Bhagvaji Prabhubhai बनाम Cent.Cir.2, Rajkot. Amrutiya, Meera Park-2 Vs. House No.1, Vavdi Road Morbi. Pan : Aiwpa 0121 A (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld.Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 05/06/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29/08/2025 Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini: The Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue Pertaining To Assessment Year 2019-20 & The Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, ld.CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 37Section 69ASection 69B

section 292C of the Act, is not acceptable, and the addition should be sustained at least in the hands of one party.About the disallowance of Rs. 1,48,89,125/-, the assessee stated that since there was need for higher financial assistance, therefore, assessee had no alternative but to show higher valuation for the land, is afterthought and cooked story

THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. SHRI BHAGVANJI PRABHUBHAI AMRUTIYA, MORBI

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee, ( in CO No

ITA 142/RJT/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.139/Rjt/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Asstt.Commissioner Of Income-Tax Expert Particle Board बनाम Cent.Cir.2, Rajkot. Survey No.111, 8-A National Vs. Highway B/H. Bharatinagar Iti, Ravapar Nadi Morbi 363 642. Pan : Aahfe 0299 G आयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.142/Rjt/2021 With Cross Objection No.05/Rjt/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Asstt.Commissioner Of Income-Tax Bhagvaji Prabhubhai बनाम Cent.Cir.2, Rajkot. Amrutiya, Meera Park-2 Vs. House No.1, Vavdi Road Morbi. Pan : Aiwpa 0121 A (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld.Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 05/06/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29/08/2025 Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini: The Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue Pertaining To Assessment Year 2019-20 & The Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, ld.CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 37Section 69ASection 69B

section 292C of the Act, is not acceptable, and the addition should be sustained at least in the hands of one party.About the disallowance of Rs. 1,48,89,125/-, the assessee stated that since there was need for higher financial assistance, therefore, assessee had no alternative but to show higher valuation for the land, is afterthought and cooked story

M\S. LEXICO CERAMICS,RAJKOT vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1/RJT/2023[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot12 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2015-15 M/S Lexico Ceramics, C/O Kalpesh S. Doshi & Co., Vs Principal Commissioner Of Chartered Accountants, Income-Tax-1, 1006-09, The Spire-2, Near Sheetal Rajkot Park Brts Stop, 150 Ft. Ring Road, Rajkot-360005 Pan : Aaefl 8870 D अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ar Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19/04/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/05/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed, Am :

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

disallow sundry creditors on ad-hoc and certain percentage basis. As such, the AO was required to verify the entire sundry creditor and accordingly reached to the logical conclusion. 6. The ld. PCIT also found that the AO vide paragraph number 9.2 of his order worked the amount of suppressed production