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.

10 results for “disallowance”+ Section 206clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai826Delhi758Chennai193Bangalore188Kolkata157Ahmedabad151Jaipur150Hyderabad128Pune73Chandigarh68Nagpur62Raipur58Indore57Surat52Calcutta38Rajkot37Visakhapatnam36Cochin30Allahabad29Amritsar20Telangana19Lucknow18Guwahati16Cuttack10SC10Karnataka9Jodhpur6Kerala6Agra6Ranchi6Panaji4Dehradun3Patna3Rajasthan2Punjab & Haryana1Varanasi1

Key Topics

Addition to Income7Section 143(1)5Section 271(1)(c)5Disallowance4Section 36(1)(va)3Section 43B3Section 2503Section 403Section 145A3Deduction

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 36
3
Section 102
TDS2
Section 40
Section 43B

Sections 40(a)(ia) and 40A(3)17 of the Act, that the said provisions are intended to enforce due compliance of the requirement of other provisions of the Act and to ensure proper collection of tax as also transparency in dealings of the parties. The necessity of disallowance comes into operation only when default of the nature specified

BHUMISHREE CONSULTANCY & MARKETING PVT. LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 286/CTK/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 Feb 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Natabar Panda, ARFor Respondent: Shri A.K.Dutta, DR
Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

disallowed under section 43B or under section 36(1)(va)- Whether SLP against said impugned order was to be dismissed-Held yes (para 2) in favour of assessee. 8. Reverting to the facts of the present case, ld D.R. has alleged that the assessee did not deposit the EPF and ESIC contribution within the due date and the same

MARUTI ESTATE (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 321/CTK/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 Apr 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2004-05

For Appellant: Shri P.R.Mohanty, ARFor Respondent: Shri A. Tigga, DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 80Section 80I

disallowed the deduction for the entire project claimed by the assessee. We find that Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of VISWAS PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 255 CTR 149 (Mad) vide order dated 2nd November, 2012 has observed as under: “14. On the facts admitted by the Revenue, in the projects "Agrini

JOHARIMAL HIGH SCHOOL,CUTTACK vs. ITO EXEMPTION, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 135/CTK/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack09 Mar 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: S/ S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2018-19 Joharimal High School, Joharimal High School, Vs. Ito (Exemptions), Ito (Exemptions), Ganesh Ganesh Ghat, Ghat, Po: Po: Cuttack Chandinchowk, Cuttack Chandinchowk, Cuttack Pan/Gir No. No.Aaatj 3292 R (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra & R.K.Jhunjhunwala P.K.Mishra & R.K.Jhunjhunwala, Ars Revenue By : Shri Sovesh Chandra Mohanty, Chandra Mohanty, (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 2/3/ 20 / 2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 09/ /3/2022 O R D E R Per C.M.Garg G, Jm

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, and R.K.JhunjhunwalaFor Respondent: Shri Sovesh Chandra Mohanty
Section 10Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 250

206/-, inter alia, disallowing the revenue expenditure amounting to Rs.73,10,521/-. 4. In first appeal, the CIT(A) upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer, presuming that the AO CPC while processing u/s.143(1) of the Act, must have captured the data from the Audit Report filed by the assessee itself. Ld CIT(A) observed that there

ALFA TRANSFORMERS LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 35/CTK/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack26 Apr 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Kuldip Singhassessment Year :2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Prajna Raj Mohanty, ARFor Respondent: Shri A.Tigga, DR
Section 143(3)Section 145Section 145A

206, the ITAT by following the decision of ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of Mahavir Aluminium 168 TM 27 (Del) has held that for purpose of section 145A, where an assessee follows the procedure laid down by the ICAI and the tax auditor reports in clause 12(b) of Form 3CD of the tax audit report that no adjustment

M/S. ANGUL SUKINDA RAILWAY LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD- 1(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 385/CTK/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack02 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.384&385/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Angul Sukinda Railway Ltd., Vs. Ito Ward-1(3), Bhubaneswar Plot No.7622/4706, Press Chhaka Gajapati Nagar, Bhubaneswar-751005 Pan No. : Aahca 6638 E (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ved Jain, Ar िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 21/10/2020 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03/11/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 16.09.2019, Passed By The Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar For The Assessment Year 2013-2014 & 2014-2015. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee For A.Y.2013-2014 Are As Under :- 1. That The Order Of The Ld. Ao Is Illegal, Arbitrary Contrary To Evidence On Record & Without Application Of Mind & For That Matter The Said Order Is Liable To Be Quashed And/Or Annulled. 2. That On The Facts Of Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Ao Has Erred In Treating Interest On Fdr & Flexi Deposit Amounting To Rs. 1,08,02,969/- As Revenue Receipt & Made Addition Although The Said Interest Is Inextricably Linked To The Project & Is Purely A Capital Receipt & Hence The Aforesaid Addition Is Liable To Be Deleted. 3. That The Ld. Ao Has Erred Both In Law & Facts By Treating Capital Receipt As Revenue 5. That The Appellant Craves Leave To Add Or To Amend The Above Grounds Of Appeal Before Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal. 6. For These & Among Other Grounds To Be Urged At The Time Of Hearing, Adequate Relief As May Be Deemed Fit Be Granted In The Matter.

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT DR
Section 115J

disallowance of interest on FDR & Flexi deposit treating the same as revenue receipt. 6. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a public limited company filed its return of income electronically on 26.09.2013 disclosing a loss of Rs.11,85,939/-, however a tax was paid u/s.115JB of the Act on an income of Rs.92

M/S. ANGUL SUKINDA RAILWAY LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD- 1(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 384/CTK/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack02 Nov 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.384&385/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Angul Sukinda Railway Ltd., Vs. Ito Ward-1(3), Bhubaneswar Plot No.7622/4706, Press Chhaka Gajapati Nagar, Bhubaneswar-751005 Pan No. : Aahca 6638 E (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ved Jain, Ar िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 21/10/2020 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03/11/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 16.09.2019, Passed By The Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar For The Assessment Year 2013-2014 & 2014-2015. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee For A.Y.2013-2014 Are As Under :- 1. That The Order Of The Ld. Ao Is Illegal, Arbitrary Contrary To Evidence On Record & Without Application Of Mind & For That Matter The Said Order Is Liable To Be Quashed And/Or Annulled. 2. That On The Facts Of Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Ao Has Erred In Treating Interest On Fdr & Flexi Deposit Amounting To Rs. 1,08,02,969/- As Revenue Receipt & Made Addition Although The Said Interest Is Inextricably Linked To The Project & Is Purely A Capital Receipt & Hence The Aforesaid Addition Is Liable To Be Deleted. 3. That The Ld. Ao Has Erred Both In Law & Facts By Treating Capital Receipt As Revenue 5. That The Appellant Craves Leave To Add Or To Amend The Above Grounds Of Appeal Before Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal. 6. For These & Among Other Grounds To Be Urged At The Time Of Hearing, Adequate Relief As May Be Deemed Fit Be Granted In The Matter.

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT DR
Section 115J

disallowance of interest on FDR & Flexi deposit treating the same as revenue receipt. 6. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a public limited company filed its return of income electronically on 26.09.2013 disclosing a loss of Rs.11,85,939/-, however a tax was paid u/s.115JB of the Act on an income of Rs.92

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

section-194-I of the I.T. Act,1961. On perusal of form N0.I6A and statement of TDS (26AS), it is seen that all the contractual payments received from HINDALCO Industries Ltd. are made subjected to tax U/S.194C only. Had the total contract receipt from HINDALCO Industries Ltd. included the component of machinery hire charges then that payment would have been

DHANALAXMI JEWELLERS,ANGUL vs. ITO, ANGUL WARD, ANGUL

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms as indicated above

ITA 153/CTK/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack01 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.153/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) M/S Dhanalaxmi Jewellers, Vs. Ito, Angul Ward, Angul Laxmi Bazar, Angul-759122 स्थायी लेखा सं./Panno. : Aagfd 8791 D (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri D.K.Sheth/M. Sheth, Advs. िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Dutta, Dr

For Appellant: Shri D.K.Sheth/M. Sheth, AdvsFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 68

disallowed Rs.2,29,841/- on account of interest paid on loans in respect of 8. In appeal, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of assessee observing that the assessee has not provided any sufficient proof of identification of subscriber company and the assessee has failed to comply with the directions of AO. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee

LORAMITRA RATH,KAIRAPARI KOTSAHI, TANGI vs. DCIT (CIRCLE-1(1), CUTTACK

The appeal is allowed

ITA 314/CTK/2023[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack05 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2015-16 Loramitra Loramitra Rath, Rath, Kairapari Kairapari Vs. Dcit, Circle Dcit, Circle-1(1), Kotsahi, Tangi, Cuttack Kotsahi, Tangi, Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. No.Aebpr 6065 H (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Purnendhu Bhusan Mohanty, Ca Purnendhu Bhusan Mohanty, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr

For Appellant: Shri Purnendhu Bhusan Mohanty, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr
Section 48

206 (PC); ClT vs. Sitaldas Tirathdas [1961J 41 lTR 367 (SC) and Vibhuti Glass Works vs. ClT [1989J 177 lTR 439 (SC). In the case of CIT vs. Sunil J Kinariwala [2003 J 259 ITR 10, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has, after referring to various precedents on the subject, explained the aforesaid expression in the following manner: "When