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.

247 results for “disallowance”+ Rectification u/s 154clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai923Delhi744Bangalore376Kolkata247Chennai177Indore155Ahmedabad139Pune106Jaipur101Hyderabad98Chandigarh76Lucknow75Agra69Cochin42Surat42Visakhapatnam40Raipur34Nagpur29Rajkot25Jodhpur21Amritsar20Patna20Guwahati18Jabalpur11Panaji10Allahabad8Cuttack7Karnataka6Dehradun4SC2Punjab & Haryana2Telangana2Varanasi2Ranchi1

Key Topics

Section 154195Section 143(1)102Section 143(3)93Rectification u/s 15461Section 25058Section 26354Disallowance50Addition to Income49Section 9042Section 14A

SRI GOPINATH GHORAI,PURBA MEDINIPUR vs. ACIT, CIR-27, HALDIA, HALDIA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1/KOL/2016[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Apr 2016AY 2005-2006

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M.Jagtap, Am & Sri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm ] I.T.A No. 01/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2005-06

For Appellant: G.Banerjee, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, JCIT,Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 194Section 194CSection 40

disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) on account of tanker hire charges was made by AO in the order passed u/s 143(3) on 18.12.2007 and not in the order passed u/s 143(3)/147 on 24.12.2010 and as rightly held by CIT(A), the application filed by the assessee for rectification u/s 154

Showing 1–20 of 247 · Page 1 of 13

...
40
Deduction36
Section 1023

ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1) , KOLKATA vs. M/S. IXIA TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2292/KOL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2009-10 Assistant Commissioner Of Ixia Technologies Pvt. Income-Tax, Circle-2(1), Limited (Now Merged With Kolkata. Keysight Technologies India Vs. Pvt. Limited) Infinity Tower-Ii, Block-Gp, Sector-V, 8Th Floor, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700091. (Pan: Aaccc5468K) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 154

rectification u/s 154 for the purpose of disallowing claim u/s. 10A. Reliance in this regard was placed on the decision

JCIT, (OSD), CIR-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S HI-TECH SYSTEMS & SERVICES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue as well as the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1195/KOL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Mar 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 1194-1196/Kol/2016 Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 Jcit, Osd, Circle-8(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Hi-Tech Systems & Services Ltd. [Pan: Aaach 6621 F] (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. Nos. 43-45/Kol/2016 (Arising Out Of I.T.A Nos. 1194-1196/Kol/2016) Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 M/S Hi-Tech Systems & Services Ltd. -Vs- Jcit, Osd, Circle-8(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaach 6621 F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 28Section 29Section 32Section 32(1)Section 80I

154(8) was to expire, the assessee made a complementary rectification petition on 26.03.2012, for survival of the on-going rectification proceeding. In the said rectification petition dated 26.03.2012, it was inter alia stated in para-3.0 that all facts and/or circumstances stated in the earlier rectification petition dated 01.09.2011 and all contentions raised or made therein should be treated

JCIT, (OSD), CIR-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S HI-TECH SYSTEMS & SERVICES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue as well as the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1194/KOL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Mar 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 1194-1196/Kol/2016 Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 Jcit, Osd, Circle-8(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Hi-Tech Systems & Services Ltd. [Pan: Aaach 6621 F] (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. Nos. 43-45/Kol/2016 (Arising Out Of I.T.A Nos. 1194-1196/Kol/2016) Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 M/S Hi-Tech Systems & Services Ltd. -Vs- Jcit, Osd, Circle-8(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaach 6621 F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 28Section 29Section 32Section 32(1)Section 80I

154(8) was to expire, the assessee made a complementary rectification petition on 26.03.2012, for survival of the on-going rectification proceeding. In the said rectification petition dated 26.03.2012, it was inter alia stated in para-3.0 that all facts and/or circumstances stated in the earlier rectification petition dated 01.09.2011 and all contentions raised or made therein should be treated

JCIT, (OSD), CIR-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S HI-TECH SYSTEMS & SERVICES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue as well as the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1196/KOL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Mar 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 1194-1196/Kol/2016 Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 Jcit, Osd, Circle-8(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Hi-Tech Systems & Services Ltd. [Pan: Aaach 6621 F] (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. Nos. 43-45/Kol/2016 (Arising Out Of I.T.A Nos. 1194-1196/Kol/2016) Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 M/S Hi-Tech Systems & Services Ltd. -Vs- Jcit, Osd, Circle-8(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaach 6621 F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 28Section 29Section 32Section 32(1)Section 80I

154(8) was to expire, the assessee made a complementary rectification petition on 26.03.2012, for survival of the on-going rectification proceeding. In the said rectification petition dated 26.03.2012, it was inter alia stated in para-3.0 that all facts and/or circumstances stated in the earlier rectification petition dated 01.09.2011 and all contentions raised or made therein should be treated

DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. MSL INDUSTRIES LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 2446/KOL/2019[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Oct 2021AY 1997-98

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manish Borad, Am]

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 251Section 80Section 80I

disallowed the section 80IA deduction allowed in the original assessment proceedings from Rs.1,15,46,638/- to Rs.10,42,405/-. Due to mis-appreciation of facts the AO passed the rectification order u/s. 154

MSTC LTD,KOLKATA vs. JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER, CIR-1(1), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 623/KOL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Oct 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Prasun Bhattacharya, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manjeet Singh, CIT, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 154Section 250

rectification u/s 154 before AO were filed and were/are pending disposal before the order u/s 143(3) was passed. 7 For that without prejudice to any other ground taken hereinbefore and hereinafter, the AO erred both in law and in the facts and circumstances of the case to have acted in the manner he has, by simply referring to intimation

EUREKA FORBES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, RG-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 239/KOL/2015[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Apr 2018AY 2009-2010

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 239/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Eureka Forbes Ltd. -Vs- Acit, Range-10, Kolkata [Pan: Aaace 5767 F ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Samir Chakraborty, ARFor Respondent: Shri A. Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154

disallowed while disposing the rectification notice issued u/s 154 by the Department & the petition· The appellant made u/s 154 of the Act. However

M/S. PATREX VYAPAAR PVT. LTD. (SINCE MERGED WITH BNK SECURITIES PVT. LTD.),KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD-5(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 526/KOL/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Feb 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri S. Jhaharia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 250

disallowance u/s 14A of the Act considering the figure as Rs.24,90,613/- as against Rs.5,07,199/- made in the assessment order. 3.1. This rectification order u/s 154

INTELLIGENT INFRASTRUCTURE LTD,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-1 , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 154/KOL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17 Intelligent Infrastructure Ltd. Pr. Commissioner Of Income 3/1, Dr. U. N. Brahmachari Vs. Tax – 1, Kolkata. Street, Kolkata-700017. (Pan: Aabcp8597P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri N. S. Saini, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Bisawanath Das, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 20.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.11.2022

For Appellant: Shri N. S. Saini, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Bisawanath Das, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263

rectification order passed by the Ld. Pr. PCIT and submitted that it is very much within the scope of the provisions of section 154 of the At as it is a mistake apparent from record that the issues raised by way of other two show cause notices were inadvertently missed by the Ld. Pr. CIT while relegating the order

ITO, WD-41(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S IMAGE SIGN, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 650/KOL/2014[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2017AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: Md. Ghayas Uddin, JCITFor Respondent: Shri D. K. Bandyopadhyay, FCA
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 194CSection 40

disallowance made u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act in the proceedings u/s. 154 of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. Brief facts of this issue is that the assessee is a partnership firm filed its return of income for AY 2006-07 and assessment was completed u/s

RAIGANJ CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,UTTAR DINAJPUR vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 2(2), JALPAIGURI

In the result, the appeal for A

ITA 1886/KOL/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 May 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 156Section 250Section 40

rectification u/s 154 of the Act and deleting the disallowance made u/s 154 of the Act. Therefore, as regards the change

RAIGANJ CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,UTTAR DINAJPUR vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 2(1), JALPAIGURI

In the result, the appeal for A

ITA 1923/KOL/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 May 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 156Section 250Section 40

rectification u/s 154 of the Act and deleting the disallowance made u/s 154 of the Act. Therefore, as regards the change

RAIGANJ CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,UTTAR DINAJPUR vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 2(2), JALPAIGURI

In the result, the appeal for A

ITA 1887/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 May 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 156Section 250Section 40

rectification u/s 154 of the Act and deleting the disallowance made u/s 154 of the Act. Therefore, as regards the change

CHEVIOT COMPANY LIMITED EMPLOYEES GRATUITY TRUST FUND ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 32(1) , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2699/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. No. 2699/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Cheviot Company Limited Employees Gratuity Trust Fund .............................Appellant Magna House, 9Th Floor, 24, Park Street, Kolkata – 700 016. [Pan: Aaatc 5070 G] Ito, Ward 32(1), Kolkata...................………………………………………….................Respondent 10B, Middleton Row, Kolkata – 700 071. Appearances By: Shri Manish Tiwari, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Shankar Halder, Sr. Dr, Jcit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 08, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 08, 2019 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Vp This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) – 9, Kolkata Dated 29.11.2018 Whereby He Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee In Limine By Treating The Same As Barred By Limitation

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 154

disallowing the claim of the assessee for exemption u/s 10. 3. Against the intimation issued u/s 143(1), an appeal was preferred by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A). There was however a delay of 213 days on the part of the assessee in filing the said appeal which was sought to be condoned by the assessee by filing

CHEVIOT COMPANY LIMITED EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 32(1) , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2698/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. No. 2698/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Cheviot Company Limited Employees Provident Fund ..............................…….Appellant Magna House, 9Th Floor, 24, Park Street, Kolkata – 700 016. [Pan: Aaatc 1539 N] Ito, Ward 32(1), Kolkata...................………………………………………….................Respondent 10B, Middleton Row, Kolkata – 700 071. Appearances By: Shri Manish Tiwari, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Shankar Halder, Sr. Dr, Jcit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 08, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 08, 2019 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Vp This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) – 9, Kolkata Dated 29.11.2018 Whereby He Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee In Limine By Treating The Same As Barred By Limitation

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 154

disallowing the claim of the assessee for exemption u/s 10. 3. Against the intimation issued u/s 143(1), an appeal was preferred by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A). There was however a delay of 228 days on the part of the assessee in filing the said appeal which was sought to be condoned by the assessee by filing

SUNIL AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 50, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1397/KOL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Nov 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shris.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble & Dr.A.L. Saini, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: ShriA.K.Tibrewal–FCAFor Respondent: ShriSnehanshu Biswas-JCIT-SR DR
Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 68

154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) dated 28.10.2014 &05.05.2016, which in turn arise out of the orders passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Act, both dated 26.03.2013 respectively. Sunil Agarwal A.Y. 10-11 2. This caption appeals filed by the assessee pertains to same Assessment Year, same assessee, common issue

HINDUSTAN INDUSTRIES AND MINING CORPORATION ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 3(2), SURI, BIRBHUM , BIRBHUM

In the result, ITA No. 1174/Kol/2018 for the Assessment Year 2009-10, is allowed in part

ITA 1176/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy] I.T.A. No.1174/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10

Section 154Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

u/s 154 of the Act. I find no infirmity in this rectification as it is a mistake apparent on record. 4.2. The second ground of rectification was that the expenditure incurred by the assessee on land filling, is capital in nature. There is no discussion, on this issue in the body of the assessment order. Hence the disallowance

HINDUSTAN INDUSTRIES AND MINING CORPORATION ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 3(2), SURI, BIRBHUM , BIRBHUM

In the result, ITA No. 1174/Kol/2018 for the Assessment Year 2009-10, is allowed in part

ITA 1175/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Sept 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy] I.T.A. No.1174/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10

Section 154Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

u/s 154 of the Act. I find no infirmity in this rectification as it is a mistake apparent on record. 4.2. The second ground of rectification was that the expenditure incurred by the assessee on land filling, is capital in nature. There is no discussion, on this issue in the body of the assessment order. Hence the disallowance

HINDUSTAN INDUSTRIES AND MINING CORPORATION ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 3(2), SURI, BIRBHUM , BIRBHUM

In the result, ITA No. 1174/Kol/2018 for the Assessment Year 2009-10, is allowed in part

ITA 1174/KOL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy] I.T.A. No.1174/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10

Section 154Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

u/s 154 of the Act. I find no infirmity in this rectification as it is a mistake apparent on record. 4.2. The second ground of rectification was that the expenditure incurred by the assessee on land filling, is capital in nature. There is no discussion, on this issue in the body of the assessment order. Hence the disallowance