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.

141 results for “disallowance”+ Section 201(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,558 Delhi1,248 Bangalore709 Chennai474 Kolkata443 Ahmedabad342 Hyderabad249 Jaipur219 Pune184 Cuttack141 Raipur133 Cochin117 Surat110 Chandigarh92 Indore63 Karnataka56 Visakhapatnam46 Rajkot44 Lucknow41 Amritsar34 Nagpur30 Panaji26 Jodhpur24 Guwahati18 Telangana16 Agra13 Ranchi11 Dehradun10 SC10 Patna8 Jabalpur8 Punjab & Haryana6 Kerala5 Allahabad5 Varanasi3 Rajasthan2 Calcutta2 Tripura1

Key Topics

Section 4083 Disallowance68 Addition to Income64 Section 801A63 Deduction51 Section 143(3)47 Section 26337 Section 14730 Section 201(1)26 Section 194A

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

201 1 section (1) of section 9" (10)Contentions of the Ld. AO while disallowing payments on account of imports

Showing 1–20 of 141 · Page 1 of 8

...

26

Section 40A(3)26

RUKMANI INFRA PROJECTS PVT. LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

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

ITA 358/CTK/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack30 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.358/Ctk/2017 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Rukmani Infra Projects Ltd., Vs Acit, Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar Plot No.251, District Centre, C.S.Pur, Bhubaneswar-16 Pan No. : Aaecr 1585 L (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : None : Shri Manoj Kumar Goutam, Cit-Dr राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Has Been Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar, Dated 16.06.2017, For The Assessment Year 2013-2014. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Extracted From The Available Records Are That, The Assessee, A Company Incorporated Under The Companies Act, 1956, Engaged In The Business Of Erection, Commissioning, Technical & Maintenance Service To Different Power Plants. The Return Of Income For The Ay 2013-14 Was Filed By The Assessee On 01.10.2013 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.1,65,91,030/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected Under Cass. Notice U/S 143(2) & 143(1) Were Issued & Served On The Assessee. Assessment Proceedings Were Completed By The Ao & Concluded With An Addition Of Rs.3,58,95,574/- Under Four Different

For Appellant: None

Section 143(2)Section 68

1), (2007) 12 SOT 406(Hyd.).This was an appeal of assessee against revision order passed by CIT who disallowed the depreciation allowance allowed by the A.O. on temporary erections. The ITAT was held that, "It was no where mentioned that a temporary erection should not be made of cement or brick. Therefore the commissioner was wrong in talking

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

201. Putting it differently, when the obligation of Section 194C of the Act is the foundation of the consequence provided by Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, reference to the former is inevitable in interpretation of the latter. 16.11 In view of the above, reference to the definition of the term "paid" in Section

ARSS INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CORPORATION CIRCLE- 1(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 109/CTK/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack21 Jan 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2012-2013

For Appellant: Shri P.S.Panda/Kamal Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT DR

Section 40Section 43B

disallowed Rs.5,17,74,383/- u/s.40(a)(ia) r.w section 201(1) of the Act for non-deduction of TDS as per the provisions

ITO, WARD-2(2), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR vs. BISWAJIT DAS, BHUBANESWAR

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

ITA 473/CTK/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.S Saini & Shri Aby T. Varkeyassessment Year :2010-2011

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR

Section 10Section 10BSection 2

201 1 22. Further, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd [(2010) 233-CTR(Bom)-24 has held that exemption under section 10A - profits and gains derived from exports - addition on account of disallowance

BISWAJIT DAS,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

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

ITA 493/CTK/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.S Saini & Shri Aby T. Varkeyassessment Year :2010-2011

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR

Section 10Section 10BSection 2

201 1 22. Further, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd [(2010) 233-CTR(Bom)-24 has held that exemption under section 10A - profits and gains derived from exports - addition on account of disallowance

SHRI DILIP KUMAR NAYAK,BHUBANESWAR vs. JCIT, RANGE-2, BHUBANESWAR

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

ITA 86/CTK/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack05 Sept 2018AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Sri P.K.Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri A.K.Mohapatra, CIT DR

201 1 the said expenditure, Rs.3,05,26,985/- was disallowed by the Assessing Officer by invoking the provisions of section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), CUTTACK vs. SRI DIPENDRA BAHADUR SINGH, KEONJHAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 265/CTK/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack06 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: S/ S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2013-14 Dcit, Circle-1(1), 1(1), Vs. Sri Dipendra Bahadur Singh, Sri Dipendra Bahadur Singh, Cuttack Hudisahi, Joda, Keonjhar Hudisahi, Joda, Keonjhar Pan/Gir No. No.Adjps 5869 D (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K.Agarwal S.K.Agarwalla, Ar Revenue By : Shri M.K.Goutam, M.K.Goutam, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 30/3/ 20 / 2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 6 /4 4/2022 O R D E R Per C.M.Garg G, Jm

For Appellant: Shri S.K.AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Goutam

Section 1Section 194ASection 194A(3)(iii)Section 201Section 263Section 40

disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) and second proviso being retrospective, ld CIT DR submitted that the second proviso to P a g e 5 | 9 Assessment Year : 2013-14 section 40(a)(ia) was linked with first proviso to section 201(1

GRAM VIKAS TRUST,BERHAMPUR vs. ITO,EXEMPTION WARD, BERAMPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2014-

ITA 437/CTK/2024[AY 2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack12 Jun 2025

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 11(2)Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 234BSection 250

1)(a). Ground No. 2: When Rs. 10,45,000/- has been actually set apart under section 11(2) and reported in Form 10B, delay in uploading Form 10 cannot lead to disallowances. Ground No. 3: Rejection of the claim under section 11(2), without notice to appellant, is incorrect and the same is against judicial decisions. Nagpur Hotel Owners

GRAM VIKAS TRUST,BERHAMPUR vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, BERAMPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2014-

ITA 436/CTK/2024[AY 2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack12 Jun 2025

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 11(2)Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 234BSection 250

1)(a). Ground No. 2: When Rs. 10,45,000/- has been actually set apart under section 11(2) and reported in Form 10B, delay in uploading Form 10 cannot lead to disallowances. Ground No. 3: Rejection of the claim under section 11(2), without notice to appellant, is incorrect and the same is against judicial decisions. Nagpur Hotel Owners

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. SRB CONSULTANCY PVT. LTD., BHUBANESWAR

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

ITA 504/CTK/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 Jun 2017AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri D.K.Mohanty, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kunal Singh, CIT DR

section 194A of the Act, he disallowed deduction of Rs.7,87,040/. ITA No. 566/CT K/ 2013 Asse ssment Year : 20 10- 201 1

ORISSA AIR PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.,DHENKANAL vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

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

ITA 6/CTK/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack18 May 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.S Sainiassessment Year : 2012-2013

For Appellant: Shri T.K.Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR

Section 139(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 28Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

disallowed Asse ssment Year : 201 2-2 013 deduction of Rs.2,22,365/- under section 2(24)(x) read with section 36(1

UTKAL GRAMYA/ GRAMEEN BANK,SAMBALPUR vs. ITO (TDS), SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee i

ITA 191/CTK/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack26 Nov 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.190 To 192/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011 To 2012-2013) Utkal Gramya/Grameen Bank, Vs. Ito(Tds), Sambalpur Dhanupalli, Dist-Sambalpur-768005 Tan No. : Bbnb 00759 D (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Advocate िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri J.K.Lenka, Dr

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J.K.Lenka, DR

Section 194Section 194ASection 201Section 201(1)

201(1), the onus is on the Assessing Officer to demonstrate that the condition is satisfied. No doubt the assessee has to submit all such information about the recipient as he is obliged to maintain under the law, once this information is submit ted, it is for the Assessing Officer to ascertain whether or not the taxes have been paid

UTKAL GRAMYA/ GRAMEEN BANK,SAMBALPUR vs. ITO (TDS), SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee i

ITA 190/CTK/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack26 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.190 To 192/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011 To 2012-2013) Utkal Gramya/Grameen Bank, Vs. Ito(Tds), Sambalpur Dhanupalli, Dist-Sambalpur-768005 Tan No. : Bbnb 00759 D (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Advocate िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri J.K.Lenka, Dr

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J.K.Lenka, DR

Section 194Section 194ASection 201Section 201(1)

201(1), the onus is on the Assessing Officer to demonstrate that the condition is satisfied. No doubt the assessee has to submit all such information about the recipient as he is obliged to maintain under the law, once this information is submit ted, it is for the Assessing Officer to ascertain whether or not the taxes have been paid

UTKAL GRAMYA/ GRAMEEN BANK,SAMBALPUR vs. ITO (TDS), SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee i

ITA 192/CTK/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack26 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.190 To 192/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011 To 2012-2013) Utkal Gramya/Grameen Bank, Vs. Ito(Tds), Sambalpur Dhanupalli, Dist-Sambalpur-768005 Tan No. : Bbnb 00759 D (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Advocate िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri J.K.Lenka, Dr

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J.K.Lenka, DR

Section 194Section 194ASection 201Section 201(1)

201(1), the onus is on the Assessing Officer to demonstrate that the condition is satisfied. No doubt the assessee has to submit all such information about the recipient as he is obliged to maintain under the law, once this information is submit ted, it is for the Assessing Officer to ascertain whether or not the taxes have been paid

DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF ORISSA LTD, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 124/CTK/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri S.C.Bhadra, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 28Section 41Section 41(1)

disallowance of cessation of loan. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a wholly owned Government company engaged in industrial development in orissa and filed the return of income for the assessment year 2010-2011 on 28.9.2010 with NIL total income and subsequently filed the revised Asse ssment Year : 20 10- 201 1 return

ORISSA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

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

ITA 346/CTK/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri B.K.Mohapatra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kunal Singh, CIT DR

Section 10(29)Section 80Section 80I

201 1 S.80IB(11 A), since relief under that section is available only for five years from 'initial year', viz. either from 1958 or from the year in which such new activity was taken up by the assessee. We do not find merit in these reasons of the lower authorities for making the disallowance

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR vs. M/S. DIVAKAR ENGINEERING PVT. LTD., SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed for

ITA 507/CTK/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri B.R. Panda, ARFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe, CIT DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 194Section 194C

201 1 depreciation on Hydro, we found from the assessment order that the Assessing Officer has disallowed the depreciation treating it as excess claim whereas the CIT(A) in the appellate proceeding has dealt on this disputed issue on the findings of the Assessing Officer an the submission of the assessee and provisions of section

EASTERN ENGINEERING VENTURE,ANGUL vs. ITO, ANGUL WARD, ANGUL

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 325/CTK/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack02 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargassessment Year: 2009-2010

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 184(5)

1) or accounting standards as notified under sub-section (2), have not been regularly followed by the assessee, the Assessing Officer may make an assessment in the manner provided in section 144. 10. A plain reading of these two legislative provisions shows that the disallowance under section 184(5) comes into play not as a result of the assessment under

DCIT, ROURKELA vs. M/S. TARINI MINERALS PVT. LTD., ROURKELA

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 236/CTK/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack31 Aug 2017AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri D.Pati, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kunal Singh, CIT DR

201 1 assessee claims it or not. Accordingly, he computed the disallowance u/s.14 r.w. Rule 8D at Rs.29,45,960/-(Rs.23,27,028/- being 0.5% of average investment + Rs.6,18,932/-) as interest on account of alleged utilization of interest bearing funds). 11. Before the CIT(A) the assessee submitted that the audited balance sheet that the assessee had Rs.110.11