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.

249 results for “disallowance”+ Section 10(26)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai6,822Delhi6,412Bangalore2,213Chennai1,804Kolkata1,603Ahmedabad1,427Pune1,142Hyderabad1,034Jaipur973Indore591Chandigarh553Surat447Raipur377Visakhapatnam305Cochin264Cuttack249Rajkot236Amritsar215Nagpur193Lucknow184Karnataka182Agra139Guwahati114Allahabad87Jodhpur76Ranchi73Panaji67Telangana63SC59Calcutta47Dehradun39Patna34Varanasi27Jabalpur23Kerala21Punjab & Haryana7Rajasthan4Orissa4Himachal Pradesh3A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN3MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1Tripura1Gauhati1ANIL R. DAVE AMITAVA ROY L. NAGESWARA RAO1

Key Topics

Section 4073Section 26368Addition to Income65Disallowance59Deduction52Section 143(3)51Section 801A45Section 12A45TDS33Section 147

ROLAND EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 265/CTK/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Feb 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.K. TulsiyanFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Goutham, CIT-DR
Section 10

26,29,697, denying exemption and without treating the appellant as existing solely for the purpose of education and the Ld. CIT(A) 1, Bhubaneswar confirming the same is bad in law. 5. That, the action of the Dy Commissioner and the ld. CIT(A) 1, Bhubaneswar in having denied exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi) is against the settled

ROLAND EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 262/CTK/2019[2011-12]Status: Disposed

Showing 1–20 of 249 · Page 1 of 13

...
27
Section 43B26
Exemption21
ITAT Cuttack
15 Feb 2021
AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.K. TulsiyanFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Goutham, CIT-DR
Section 10

26,29,697, denying exemption and without treating the appellant as existing solely for the purpose of education and the Ld. CIT(A) 1, Bhubaneswar confirming the same is bad in law. 5. That, the action of the Dy Commissioner and the ld. CIT(A) 1, Bhubaneswar in having denied exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi) is against the settled

ROLAND INSTITUTE OF PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 269/CTK/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.K. TulsiyanFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Goutham, CIT-DR
Section 10

26,29,697, denying exemption and without treating the appellant as existing solely for the purpose of education and the Ld. CIT(A) 1, Bhubaneswar confirming the same is bad in law. 5. That, the action of the Dy Commissioner and the ld. CIT(A) 1, Bhubaneswar in having denied exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi) is against the settled

ROLAND INSTITUTE OF PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 267/CTK/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Feb 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.K. TulsiyanFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Goutham, CIT-DR
Section 10

26,29,697, denying exemption and without treating the appellant as existing solely for the purpose of education and the Ld. CIT(A) 1, Bhubaneswar confirming the same is bad in law. 5. That, the action of the Dy Commissioner and the ld. CIT(A) 1, Bhubaneswar in having denied exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi) is against the settled

ROLAND INSTITUTE OF PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 270/CTK/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Feb 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.K. TulsiyanFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Goutham, CIT-DR
Section 10

26,29,697, denying exemption and without treating the appellant as existing solely for the purpose of education and the Ld. CIT(A) 1, Bhubaneswar confirming the same is bad in law. 5. That, the action of the Dy Commissioner and the ld. CIT(A) 1, Bhubaneswar in having denied exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi) is against the settled

ROLAND INSTITUTE OF PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 266/CTK/2019[2008--09]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Feb 2021

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.K. TulsiyanFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Goutham, CIT-DR
Section 10

26,29,697, denying exemption and without treating the appellant as existing solely for the purpose of education and the Ld. CIT(A) 1, Bhubaneswar confirming the same is bad in law. 5. That, the action of the Dy Commissioner and the ld. CIT(A) 1, Bhubaneswar in having denied exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi) is against the settled

RONALD EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 368/CTK/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.K. TulsiyanFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Goutham, CIT-DR
Section 10

26,29,697, denying exemption and without treating the appellant as existing solely for the purpose of education and the Ld. CIT(A) 1, Bhubaneswar confirming the same is bad in law. 5. That, the action of the Dy Commissioner and the ld. CIT(A) 1, Bhubaneswar in having denied exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi) is against the settled

ROLAND EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BERHAMPUR vs. DCIT, BERHAMPUR CIRCLE, BERHAMPUR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 469/CTK/2019[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Feb 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.K. TulsiyanFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Goutham, CIT-DR
Section 10

26,29,697, denying exemption and without treating the appellant as existing solely for the purpose of education and the Ld. CIT(A) 1, Bhubaneswar confirming the same is bad in law. 5. That, the action of the Dy Commissioner and the ld. CIT(A) 1, Bhubaneswar in having denied exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi) is against the settled

ROLAND INSTITUTE OF PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 268/CTK/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Feb 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.K. TulsiyanFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Goutham, CIT-DR
Section 10

26,29,697, denying exemption and without treating the appellant as existing solely for the purpose of education and the Ld. CIT(A) 1, Bhubaneswar confirming the same is bad in law. 5. That, the action of the Dy Commissioner and the ld. CIT(A) 1, Bhubaneswar in having denied exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi) is against the settled

ROLAND EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 264/CTK/2019[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Feb 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.K. TulsiyanFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Goutham, CIT-DR
Section 10

26,29,697, denying exemption and without treating the appellant as existing solely for the purpose of education and the Ld. CIT(A) 1, Bhubaneswar confirming the same is bad in law. 5. That, the action of the Dy Commissioner and the ld. CIT(A) 1, Bhubaneswar in having denied exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi) is against the settled

ROLAND EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 263/CTK/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Feb 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.K. TulsiyanFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Goutham, CIT-DR
Section 10

26,29,697, denying exemption and without treating the appellant as existing solely for the purpose of education and the Ld. CIT(A) 1, Bhubaneswar confirming the same is bad in law. 5. That, the action of the Dy Commissioner and the ld. CIT(A) 1, Bhubaneswar in having denied exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi) is against the settled

ROLAND EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 261/CTK/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Feb 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.K. TulsiyanFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Goutham, CIT-DR
Section 10

26,29,697, denying exemption and without treating the appellant as existing solely for the purpose of education and the Ld. CIT(A) 1, Bhubaneswar confirming the same is bad in law. 5. That, the action of the Dy Commissioner and the ld. CIT(A) 1, Bhubaneswar in having denied exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi) is against the settled

ROLAND EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BERHAMPUR vs. DCIT, BERHAMPUR CIRCLE, BERHAMPUR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 470/CTK/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Feb 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.K. TulsiyanFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Goutham, CIT-DR
Section 10

26,29,697, denying exemption and without treating the appellant as existing solely for the purpose of education and the Ld. CIT(A) 1, Bhubaneswar confirming the same is bad in law. 5. That, the action of the Dy Commissioner and the ld. CIT(A) 1, Bhubaneswar in having denied exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi) is against the settled

ROLAND EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BERHAMPUR vs. DCIT, BERHAMPUR CIRCLE, BERHAMPUR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 471/CTK/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Feb 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.K. TulsiyanFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Goutham, CIT-DR
Section 10

26,29,697, denying exemption and without treating the appellant as existing solely for the purpose of education and the Ld. CIT(A) 1, Bhubaneswar confirming the same is bad in law. 5. That, the action of the Dy Commissioner and the ld. CIT(A) 1, Bhubaneswar in having denied exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi) is against the settled

STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD ODISHA,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARAD 5(2), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed and stay petition stands dismissed

ITA 301/CTK/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack24 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwals.P.No.11/Ctk/2024 Assessment Year :2017-18 State Pollution Control Board State Pollution Control Board, Vs. Ito, Ward 5(2), Plot No.A-118, Paribesh Bhawan, 118, Paribesh Bhawan, Bhubaneswar Nilakantha Nagar, Agar, Nayapali, Nayapali, Unit-Vii, Bhubaneswar Neswar Pan/Gir No.Aaals 2490 J Aaals 2490 J (Appellant) (Appellant .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K.Agrawalla, Ca Walla, Ca Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit Sanjay Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 24/10/20 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 24/10/20 024 O R D E R Per Bench

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agrawalla, CA walla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT
Section 4

disallowance of exemption claimed u/s 10(46) of the Income tax Act has been made by the AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A), of Rs. 53,48,75,077/-. 3.2 This issue was not raised by the appellant before the Assessing Officer. However, before the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) the appellant has submitted that: “That, the appellant

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. PARADEEP PHOSPHATES LIMITED, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and that of

ITA 289/CTK/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack04 Aug 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2010-2011

For Appellant: Shri B.K.MohapatraFor Respondent: Shri Kunal Singh, CIT DR
Section 195Section 195(1)Section 195(2)Section 197Section 263Section 40Section 92

10)Contentions of the Ld. AO while disallowing payments on account of imports for non deduction of taxes and it's non applicability in the present case The AO has held that the provisions of section 195(1) of the Act were applicable to the Assessee and in the event that certificates under section

M/S. BALASORE CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD.,BALASORE vs. ACIT, BALASORE CIRCLE, BALASORE

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

ITA 467/CTK/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack07 Oct 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.467/Ctk/2017 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) M/S Balasore Cooperative Bank Vs. Acit, Balasore Circle, Limited, Balasore Bibekananda Marg, Balasore-756001 Pan No. : Aaccb 7823 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.N.Sahu/Somnath Sahoo,Advs राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 13/08/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12/10/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A), Cuttack, Dated 04.08.2017, For The Assessment Year 2012-2013, On The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- 1) That The Order Of The Id. Cit(Appeals) Confirming The Additions & Disallowances Made By The A.O. Is Illegal, Arbitrary, Unjustified & Not In Accordance With Law. 2) That The Addition Of Rs. 36,79,148/- U/S. 40(A)(Ia) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Confirmed By Cit(Appeals) To The Extent Of Rs. 36,30,998/- Is Illegal, Arbitrary, Uncalled For & Not In Accordance With Law & The Same Should Have Been Deleted By The Learned Cit(Appeals). 3) That The Disallowance U/S 40(A)(Ia) Of Rs. 36,79,148/- As Detailed Below Is Illegal, Arbitrary & Unjustified & Hence Should Have Been Deleted By The Learned Cit(A) As The Genuineness Is Not In Doubt. Non-Deduction Of Tds Is A Separate Issue. A) Commission Payment To Dlds Collection Agents Rs. 33,45,248/- B) Legal Expenses Rs. 2,52,000/- C) Audit Fees Rs. 81,900/-

For Appellant: Shri S.N.Sahu/Somnath Sahoo,AdvsFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 36Section 40Section 43B

10. On top of that, section 4 relied upon by Mr. Agarwal merely provides for an enactment as regards rate of tax to be charged in any particular assessment year which has no application to the case before us. Section 11 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2004 by which sub-clause (ia) was added to section

TARINI MINERALS PVT. LTD.,ROURKELA vs. ACIT, ROURKELA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 197/CTK/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Jan 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri S.C.Bhadra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR
Section 14A

26,335/- . Hence, the assessee vide show cause notice dtd.9.3.2015 was asked to explain as to why the provision of section 14A shall not be resorted to. In response to the same, the AR of the assessee stated that: “The assessee has not incurred any expenditure to earn the exempted income, hence it is submitted that no disallowance is warranted

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. HIMANSU MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

ITA 44/CTK/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack21 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

For Appellant: Shri S.C Mohanty, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)

disallowance. Now, unlike section 132(4) which treats the statements recorded during a search operation as 'evidence' in any proceeding under the ~ Act, 1961, section 133A, while authorizing recording statements by the survey officer, does not give the same status of 'evidence' to such recorded statements. It is therefore open to the assessee to explain this 'statement

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. DEEPANSU MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

ITA 43/CTK/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack21 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

For Appellant: Shri S.C Mohanty, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)

disallowance. Now, unlike section 132(4) which treats the statements recorded during a search operation as 'evidence' in any proceeding under the ~ Act, 1961, section 133A, while authorizing recording statements by the survey officer, does not give the same status of 'evidence' to such recorded statements. It is therefore open to the assessee to explain this 'statement