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.

75 results for “disallowance”+ Section 10(4)(ii)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai10,268Delhi8,635Bangalore3,101Chennai2,785Kolkata2,656Ahmedabad1,150Pune914Jaipur903Hyderabad853Indore629Surat514Raipur502Chandigarh453Karnataka400Rajkot294Visakhapatnam294Cochin273Amritsar259Nagpur243Lucknow227Cuttack152Panaji116Telangana114Agra112SC100Guwahati95Calcutta75Jodhpur73Patna70Ranchi66Allahabad60Dehradun49Kerala40Varanasi37Punjab & Haryana26Jabalpur20Rajasthan7Orissa6A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN4Himachal Pradesh4Gauhati2RANJAN GOGOI PRAFULLA C. PANT1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1ANIL R. DAVE AMITAVA ROY L. NAGESWARA RAO1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1

Key Topics

Section 80I47Section 260A30Section 26317Disallowance17Deduction16Addition to Income15Section 80H14Section 194C13Section 143(3)12Section 14A

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 KOLKATA vs. BOTHRA SHIPPING SERVICES PVT LTD

In the result, the appeals are dismissed and the substantial

ITAT/86/2024HC Calcutta25 Sept 2024

Bench: THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

Section 80I

disallowed the deduction claimed under Section 80IA(4) of the Act. The assessee moved the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) contending that the assessing officer erred in not considering that the assessee had produced the Port certificate granted by the specified authority which certified that the infrastructural facility developed by the assessee is an integral part of the port

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 KOLKATA vs. BOTHRA SHIPPING SERVICES PVT LTD

In the result, the appeals are dismissed and the substantial

ITAT/85/2024HC Calcutta25 Sept 2024

Bench: THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

Showing 1–20 of 75 · Page 1 of 4

12
Section 688
Depreciation6
Section 80I

disallowed the deduction claimed under Section 80IA(4) of the Act. The assessee moved the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) contending that the assessing officer erred in not considering that the assessee had produced the Port certificate granted by the specified authority which certified that the infrastructural facility developed by the assessee is an integral part of the port

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5,KOKATA vs. M/S. L.G.W. LTD

ITA/35/2020HC Calcutta12 Aug 2022

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : August 12, 2022 Appearance : Ms. Smita Das De, Adv. ….For Appellant Mr. J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ananda Sen, Adv. …For Respondent The Court : This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act, For Brevity) Is Directed Against The Order Of The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “C” Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) Dated 5Th October, 2018 In I.T.A. No.1786/Kol/2016 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Substantial Questions Of Law For Consideration: - A) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Tribunal Has Misinterpreted Section 194C, More Particularly 194C (7) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Read With Rule 31A Of The Income

Section 194CSection 194C(6)Section 194C(7)Section 200Section 234Section 260ASection 31Section 31ASection 48Section 6

disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) read with Section 194C of the Act.” 14. Even assuming that the assessee had not furnished the particulars as required under Sub-Section (7) of Section 194C of the Act in the prescribed form, the maximum that could be done is to impose a fine of Rs.200/- for every day of such non compliance

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (IT & TP) vs. M/S. DONGFANG ELECTRIC CORPORATION

ITAT/66/2018HC Calcutta09 Jul 2021

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 139Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

4) stated to have made with the sole intention to get the immunity from imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T Act is in contravention to explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c). That is why undisclosed income of Rs. 10.63 Crore was included in the return of income filed u/s 153A only in pursuant to search

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 KOLKATA vs. M/S ITC LTD

ITAT/89/2025HC Calcutta21 Jul 2025

Bench: The Learned Tribunal – One By The Assessee & The Other By The Revenue Which Have Been Disposed Of By A Common Order, Impugned In This Appeal. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Substantial Questions Of Law For Consideration :

For Appellant: Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. J.P. Khaitan, Senior Advocate
Section 14ASection 260ASection 37(1)Section 40a

4. The assessee filed their return of income for the assessment year under consideration A.Y. 2010-2011 on 30.09.2010 showing the total income of Rs. 61,09,14,46,480/- and book profit under Section 115JB at Rs. 5883,58,39,895/-. Subsequently, the assessee filed revised return on 30.03.2012 showing the total income

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION & TRA vs. JOY PARTNERSHIP MINING CENTRE

ITAT/71/2018HC Calcutta15 Nov 2021

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

Section 142Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 260A

4 the respondent assessee to tax. Aggrieved with the reassessment order, the respondent assessee preferred an appeal No.348/CIT(A)-I/C-2/10- 11 before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – I, Kolkata, which was partly allowed by the CIT(A) on merits by its order dated 27.11.2012 and the point taken by the respondent assessee challenging the jurisdiction for reassessment

M/S. V2 RETAIL LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-10, KOLKATA

The appeal is Allowed to

ITA/30/2021HC Calcutta02 Jul 2024

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

Section 43BSection 4A

10. Clause (d) of Section 43B of the Act, 1961 refers to “any sum payable by the assessee as interest on any loan or borrowing from any public financial institutions or ...” Explanation 4(a) to Section 43B provides that “public financial institutions” shall have the meaning assigned to it under 11 Section 4A of the Companies Act, 1956. Section

AI CHAMPDANY INDUSTRIES LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER, INCOME TAX, CENTRAL - II KOLKATA , WEST BENGAL

In the result, we find that the order of the

ITA/32/2005HC Calcutta16 Sept 2022

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam

Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 80H

ii) Whether the purported assessment proceedings initiated by the Tribunal for the said assessment year 1994-95 is without jurisdiction and illegal since none of the conditions precedent for assumption of the jurisdiction existed and/or were satisfied? We have heard Mr. J.P. Khaitan, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Saumya Kejriwal, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant/assessee and Mr. Tilak

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3, KOLKATA vs. M/S. EIH LTD

ITAT/39/2020HC Calcutta17 Jan 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

Section 14ASection 194HSection 195Section 2Section 2(47)Section 260ASection 40Section 50BSection 9(1)

4 Industries Ltd. Vs. Union Bank of India which has not yet been finally decided by the apex court? (vii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Tribunal erred in law in deleting the disallowance of expenditure in respect of earning dividend income & tax free interest on US 64 tax free bonds without appreciating

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 KOLKATA vs. M/S BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LTD

Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed

ITAT/211/2022HC Calcutta23 Dec 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 263Section 35

Section 35 of the Act is only Rs. 20,61,11,598/- and in the computation of total income excess debited amount of Rs. 1,34,45,166/- (i.e. Rs. 21,95,56,764 - Rs. 20,61,11,598) has not been added back to the total income. ITAT NO. 211 OF 2022 REPORTABLE Page 4 of 10 (ii) That

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5,KOLKATA vs. AMIT KUMAR JAIN

ITAT/113/2022HC Calcutta26 Sept 2022

Bench: :

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 68Section 69C

ii) Whether the Learned Tribunal has committed substantial error in law by deleting the addition of undisclosed income ignoring the larger scam or organized tax evasion by way of bogus capital gain generated in penny stock? iii) Whether the Learned Tribunal has committed substantial error in law by directing the Assessing Officer to allow the claim of Long Term Capital

M/S. SHEO SHAKTI COKE INDUSTRIES vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 37, KOLKATA

In the result, the writ petition is dismissed

ITAT/1/2022HC Calcutta08 Apr 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

Section 33A

disallowed the claim for exemption on the sole ground that the purchasing dealer namely the writ petitioner did not manufacture the jewellery in the State of West Bengal but had manufactured the same at Coimbatore in Tamil Nadu state. The bank preferred appeal before the First Appellate Authority which was dismissed by the order dated 16.11.2017. Aggrieved by such order

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 9, KOLKATA vs. PUSPA DEVI TIKMANI

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITAT/150/2021HC Calcutta14 Jun 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

4 of 150 IA NO. GA/2/2021 IN ITAT/36/2021 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SILIGURI VERSUS NITIN KUMAR AGARWAL ITAT/57/2021 IA NO: GA/2/2021 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KOLKATA VERSUS JEMISH SHAH IA NO. GA/2/2021 IN ITAT/58/2021 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KOLKATA VERSUS SONAL SARAF IA NO. GA/2/2021 IN ITAT/60/2021 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KOLKATA VERSUS

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ASANSOL KOLKATA vs. RAKESH JHUNJHUNWALA

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITAT/27/2021HC Calcutta14 Jun 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

4 of 150 IA NO. GA/2/2021 IN ITAT/36/2021 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SILIGURI VERSUS NITIN KUMAR AGARWAL ITAT/57/2021 IA NO: GA/2/2021 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KOLKATA VERSUS JEMISH SHAH IA NO. GA/2/2021 IN ITAT/58/2021 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KOLKATA VERSUS SONAL SARAF IA NO. GA/2/2021 IN ITAT/60/2021 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KOLKATA VERSUS

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KOLKATA vs. JEMISH SHAH

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITAT/57/2021HC Calcutta14 Jun 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

4 of 150 IA NO. GA/2/2021 IN ITAT/36/2021 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SILIGURI VERSUS NITIN KUMAR AGARWAL ITAT/57/2021 IA NO: GA/2/2021 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KOLKATA VERSUS JEMISH SHAH IA NO. GA/2/2021 IN ITAT/58/2021 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KOLKATA VERSUS SONAL SARAF IA NO. GA/2/2021 IN ITAT/60/2021 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KOLKATA VERSUS

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KOLKATA vs. AAYUSH JHUNJHUNWALA

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITAT/88/2021HC Calcutta14 Jun 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

4 of 150 IA NO. GA/2/2021 IN ITAT/36/2021 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SILIGURI VERSUS NITIN KUMAR AGARWAL ITAT/57/2021 IA NO: GA/2/2021 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KOLKATA VERSUS JEMISH SHAH IA NO. GA/2/2021 IN ITAT/58/2021 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KOLKATA VERSUS SONAL SARAF IA NO. GA/2/2021 IN ITAT/60/2021 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KOLKATA VERSUS

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL -1, KOLKATA vs. SURAJ SAHANA

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITAT/41/2020HC Calcutta14 Jun 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

4 of 150 IA NO. GA/2/2021 IN ITAT/36/2021 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SILIGURI VERSUS NITIN KUMAR AGARWAL ITAT/57/2021 IA NO: GA/2/2021 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KOLKATA VERSUS JEMISH SHAH IA NO. GA/2/2021 IN ITAT/58/2021 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KOLKATA VERSUS SONAL SARAF IA NO. GA/2/2021 IN ITAT/60/2021 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KOLKATA VERSUS

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-9, KOLKATA vs. GITESH TIKMANI

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITAT/154/2021HC Calcutta14 Jun 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

4 of 150 IA NO. GA/2/2021 IN ITAT/36/2021 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SILIGURI VERSUS NITIN KUMAR AGARWAL ITAT/57/2021 IA NO: GA/2/2021 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KOLKATA VERSUS JEMISH SHAH IA NO. GA/2/2021 IN ITAT/58/2021 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KOLKATA VERSUS SONAL SARAF IA NO. GA/2/2021 IN ITAT/60/2021 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KOLKATA VERSUS

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KOLKATA vs. SHRI MAHENDRA KUMAR PERIWAL

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITAT/136/2021HC Calcutta14 Jun 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

4 of 150 IA NO. GA/2/2021 IN ITAT/36/2021 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SILIGURI VERSUS NITIN KUMAR AGARWAL ITAT/57/2021 IA NO: GA/2/2021 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KOLKATA VERSUS JEMISH SHAH IA NO. GA/2/2021 IN ITAT/58/2021 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KOLKATA VERSUS SONAL SARAF IA NO. GA/2/2021 IN ITAT/60/2021 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KOLKATA VERSUS

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-15, KOLKATA vs. SMT. BABITA AGARWAL

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITAT/64/2020HC Calcutta14 Jun 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

4 of 150 IA NO. GA/2/2021 IN ITAT/36/2021 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SILIGURI VERSUS NITIN KUMAR AGARWAL ITAT/57/2021 IA NO: GA/2/2021 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KOLKATA VERSUS JEMISH SHAH IA NO. GA/2/2021 IN ITAT/58/2021 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KOLKATA VERSUS SONAL SARAF IA NO. GA/2/2021 IN ITAT/60/2021 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KOLKATA VERSUS