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.

4 results for “disallowance”+ Section 50C(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai152 Delhi116 Jaipur43 Chennai40 Ahmedabad36 Hyderabad28 Bangalore21 Raipur19 Kolkata16 Nagpur15 Surat13 Pune12 Lucknow10 Indore9 Guwahati9 Visakhapatnam8 Jodhpur5 Rajkot4 Jabalpur3 Chandigarh3 Amritsar1 Panaji1 Allahabad1

Key Topics

Section 26312 Section 54B9 Section 1476 Section 50C5 Section 143(3)4 Section 1484 Deduction4 Addition to Income3 Section 139(1)2 Revision u/s 263

SHRI MANSHUKH K. KUMBHANI,AMRELI vs. THE PR.CIT-3, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 99/RJT/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT-D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 50CSection 54B

1,14,69,025/- under section 50C of the Act and " 20 lakhs was disallowed from the deduction claimed under

2

SHRI SHARAD M. KUMBHANI,AMRELI vs. THE PR. CIT-3, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 100/RJT/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot11 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: The Sro, Rajula Vide Document No. 578/2014 On 07.04.2014 For A Sale Consideration Of Rs. 1,37,24,875/-. However, The Sro, Rajula Has Assessed/Valued The Said Land For Rs. 2,51,93,900/- As Per Jantry/Guideline Value & Stamp Duty. Therefore The Difference Between The Jantry Value & The Sale Consideration Is Of Rs. 1,14,69,025/- Should Be Added As Income As Per Section 50C Of The Act.

Section 263Section 50CSection 54B

1,14,69,025/- should be added as income as per Section 50C of the Act. 2.1. Further verification of the computation of income and claim of deduction u/s 54B of the Act, the assessee has made payment of Rs. 40 lakhs in the financial year 2014-15 for the purchase of the new property valued at Rs. 60 lakhs

YASMEEN WASEEM PARMAR ,JAMNAGAR vs. THE PR. CIT , JAMNAGAR

ITA 194/RJT/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot21 Feb 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Dr. A. L. Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.194/Rjt/2024 Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Hearing) Yasmeen Waseem Parmar, Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Bawa No Delo, Opp. Old Post Income Tax, Office, Nagarpara Main Road, Jamnagar O/S. Khambhaliya Gate, Jamnagar, Gujarat-361001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aijph3607F (Assessee) (Respondent)

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 50CSection 54B

50C of the Act. ITA.194/Rjt/2024/AY.2013-14 Yasmeen Waseem Parmar (ii).Sale consideration should be taken at Rs. 67,53,857/- (being share @9.27%), as against Rs. 50,63,325/- (share @6.95%), taken by the assessee. (iii) As per the DVO, Rajkot's report dated 27.10.2023, the purchase cost should be taken at Rs. 84,357/-, as on 01/04/1981, as against

KISHOR K KASTA,PORBANDAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(4),, PORBANDAR

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

ITA 892/RJT/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot16 Jan 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 892/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2015-16) Kishor K. Kasta Vs. Ito Ward-2(4), R. K. Jetty, Plot Vistar, Okha Porbandar - 361350 Porbandar (Guj) – 361350 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Awbpk9704A (Assessee) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Dushyant Maharshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Gopi Nath Chaubey Ld. Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 50C

1. Ld. AO as well as CIT(Appeals) has erred in not considering the bills and ledgers for deduction of cost of improvement produced by the assessee during the appellate stage and taking view that the assessee has failed to produce bank account statement that corroborate these bills and ledger accounts particularly when the payment was made in cash. Kishor