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.

71 results for “disallowance”+ Section 13(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai13,366Delhi11,302Bangalore3,913Chennai3,813Kolkata3,286Ahmedabad2,369Hyderabad1,465Jaipur1,405Pune1,296Surat900Indore811Chandigarh756Cochin572Raipur550Karnataka451Rajkot417Visakhapatnam369Amritsar361Nagpur357Cuttack339Lucknow275Agra176Panaji175Jodhpur172Telangana129Allahabad114SC113Ranchi113Guwahati109Patna104Dehradun84Calcutta71Jabalpur44Kerala39Varanasi34Punjab & Haryana14Rajasthan10Orissa9Himachal Pradesh6A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN5Gauhati2MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1RANJAN GOGOI PRAFULLA C. PANT1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1ANIL R. DAVE AMITAVA ROY L. NAGESWARA RAO1Tripura1Uttarakhand1D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1

Key Topics

Section 80I38Section 260A30Section 26316Section 143(3)16Disallowance16Section 4014Addition to Income12Section 194C10Deduction9Section 14A

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

13], Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) and Section 274 of the Act, 1961 in the context of surrender of income after search and seizure and after observing that surrender of income is concealment as the surrender was not voluntary, and held as under:- “9. The AO, in our view, shall not be carried

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-12,KOLKATA vs. M/S.SOORAJMULL NAGARMULL

Showing 1–20 of 71 · Page 1 of 4

8
Section 1477
Exemption6

In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the substantial questions of

ITAT/46/2020HC Calcutta23 Nov 2022

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

Section 148Section 260ASection 41Section 41(1)

Section 142 (1) of the Act was placed on record. Therefore, revenue cannot take a stand that the assessee has not furnished details of the outstanding creditors. That apart, the assessee also furnished details of payments made to creditors subsequent to 31.03.2001 which was produced to show that the liabilities continue to exist

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

SRI JAHAR MATILAL vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-XVIII & ANR.

The appeal is allowed

ITA/32/2015HC Calcutta13 Aug 2025

Bench: : The Hon'Ble The Chief Justice T.S Sivagnanam -A N D- Hon'Ble Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) Date : 13Th August, 2025

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 44A

1) was issued to the assessee and the case was discussed by the Assessing Officer with the authorized representative of the assessee. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) on 31.12.2007 determining the total income at Rs.76,46,460/- after making disallowance of bad debts amounting to Rs.8,97,676/- and Rs.34,20,618/- in aggregate under different heads

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

disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D, deduction under Section 801A, deduction under Section 80IC. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act by order dated 29.03.2014. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee preferred appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 2, Kolkata. The appeal was partly allowed by order dated 27.03.2017. Challenging the said

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

disallowance on depreciation and thus the net profit came to 5 Rs.77,41,629/-. The loss carried forward by the assessee from previous year was Rs.2,88,71,747/- and after adjusting the aforesaid net profit, the loss carried forward for the next year was Rs.2,11,30,118/-. In the admitted facts of the case, the respondent assessee

PRINCIPAL COMM OF INCOME TAX -4, KOLKATA vs. M/S LINDE INDIA LIMITED

ITAT/338/2016HC Calcutta05 Sept 2022

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

For Respondent: Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 195Section 260ASection 40Section 5Section 50CSection 9

1)(vii) of the Act for which the assessee ought to have deducted TDS under Section 195 of the Act. 12. Mr. Rai further contended that the first appellate authority as well as the learned Tribunal proceeded to decide the issue regarding disallowance of amount under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act by approaching the said issue from

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

13. This very issue was considered by us in the decision in the case of CIT v. Sri Parameswari Spinning Mills (P.) Ltd. [2019] 108 taxmann.com 386 (Mad.) and we rejected such a contention raised by the Revenue in the following terms : “6. We find Sub-section (6) of Section 194C is the provision which grants benefit to the assessee

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)

1) read with section 195 of the act? (v) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Tribunal erred in law deleting the disallowance of Rs.84,57,149/- under section 40(a)(i) on account of advertisement publicity and sales which was reasonable considering the fact that the documents in support of such expenses were

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

13. The language of Section 4A of the Companies Act, 1956 and Section 43B of the Act, 1961 being plain and unambiguous, no interpretation can be given, other than what is clearly expressed by the plain language of the aforesaid provisions. The list of public financial institutions given in Sub- section (1) of Section 4A of the Companies

DEYS MEDICAL (U.P.) PRIVATE LIMITED vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 2 KOLKATA

ITAT/160/2024HC Calcutta18 Feb 2026

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ,HON'BLE JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR

Section 40

13. Moreover, it is submitted that the recipients have included these reimbursements in their taxable incomes and have paid the applicable taxes, which negates any justification for disallowing these amounts under Section 40(a)(ia) of the said Act. ITAT 160 of 2024 -5- 14. The appellant contends that the disallowance upheld by the Tribunal is therefore arbitrary, erroneous

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

13, KOLKATA VERSUS SMT GANAPATI DEVI AGARWAL ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 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

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

13, KOLKATA VERSUS SMT GANAPATI DEVI AGARWAL ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 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

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

13, KOLKATA VERSUS SMT GANAPATI DEVI AGARWAL ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 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

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

13, KOLKATA VERSUS SMT GANAPATI DEVI AGARWAL ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 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

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

13, KOLKATA VERSUS SMT GANAPATI DEVI AGARWAL ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 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

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

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITAT/87/2021HC Calcutta14 Jun 2022

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

13, KOLKATA VERSUS SMT GANAPATI DEVI AGARWAL ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 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

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-18, KOLKATA vs. SRI VIKASH GOEL

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITAT/85/2021HC Calcutta14 Jun 2022

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

13, KOLKATA VERSUS SMT GANAPATI DEVI AGARWAL ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 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

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-12, KOLKATA vs. MUKTA AGARWAL

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITAT/44/2020HC Calcutta14 Jun 2022

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

13, KOLKATA VERSUS SMT GANAPATI DEVI AGARWAL ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 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

PR CIT 9, KOLKATA vs. MANISHA TIKMANI

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITAT/155/2021HC Calcutta14 Jun 2022

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

13, KOLKATA VERSUS SMT GANAPATI DEVI AGARWAL ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 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