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.

1,829 results for “disallowance”+ Section 10(25)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai8,341Delhi7,267Bangalore2,562Chennai2,168Kolkata1,829Ahmedabad1,726Pune1,439Jaipur1,175Hyderabad1,140Indore631Surat600Chandigarh576Raipur426Visakhapatnam333Cochin332Rajkot285Amritsar277Cuttack261Lucknow232Nagpur222Karnataka213Agra146Guwahati105Allahabad97Jodhpur85Panaji84Ranchi82SC78Telangana64Patna51Calcutta50Dehradun45Jabalpur33Varanasi28Kerala20Rajasthan8Himachal Pradesh4Punjab & Haryana4Orissa3A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1Gauhati1Andhra Pradesh1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1Bombay1ANIL R. DAVE AMITAVA ROY L. NAGESWARA RAO1Tripura1

Key Topics

Section 250127Section 143(3)84Section 14A74Addition to Income59Disallowance55Section 26333Deduction33Section 4029Section 6824Section 147

DCIT, CIR-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S BENGAL AMBUJA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the both appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1514/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Oct 2019AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri A.L.Saini, Am]

Section 80ISection 80i

disallowance confirmed in appeal. In the circumstances to adjudicate the present appeal, we need to only examine whether the ld. CIT(A) was justified in holding that the conditions prescribed in Section 80IB(10) of the Act were fulfilled by the assessee and 17 I.T.A No.1514/Kol/2015 & ITA No. 1515/Kol/2015 A.Ys 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/s. Bengal Ambuja Housing Development

DCIT, CIR-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S BENGAL AMBUJA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 1298/KOL/2016[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata

Showing 1–20 of 1,829 · Page 1 of 92

...
24
Section 1022
Depreciation19
20 Nov 2019
AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 22Section 27

disallowance confirmed in appeal. In the circumstances to adjudicate the present appeal, we need to only examine whether the ld. CIT(A) was justified in holding that the conditions prescribed in Section 80IB(10) of the Act were fulfilled by the assessee and whether the deduction u/s 80IB(10) could be allowed only in respect of profits of Phase

SRI GOVINDDEO EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTE ,KOLKATA vs. ITO(EXEMPTION) WARD-1(3) , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 718/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma (Judicial Member), Shri Sanjay Awasthi (Accountant Member)

Section 10Section 10(22)Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 250

25,00,000/- 2 I.T.A. No. 718/Kol/2024 Sri Govinddeo Educational Institute b. Expenses for running Rs. 8,50,874/- school c. Service Charges Rs. 67,416/- d. Misc. Expenses Rs. 2,411/- e. Auditor Rs. 6,742/- Remuneration Total Rs. 34,27,443/- 5. The Ld. AO during the assessment proceedings observed that out of two schools situated in Village

M/S. FUTURE DISTRIBUTORS,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT, KOLKATA - 9, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 277/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jul 2016AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 263Section 40

disallow the said sum of Rs.551,30,41,569/-, while passing the assessment order in our case on March, 2013 under section 143(3)/144 of the said Act in respect of the assessment year 2010-11, the said Assessment Order, according to you, was allegedly erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue within the meaning

DCIT,CIRCLE-8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. R.D. ESTATES & RESOURCES LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and cross objections of the assessee are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 1343/KOL/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 May 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: : Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri K.K Chaparia, FCA, ld.ARFor Respondent: none appeared
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80I

disallowance made by the A.O u/s. 80IB(10) of the Act. “ 5. When the case was called up for hearing, it was found that the Learned CIT/ DR had sought adjournment for 15 cases out of 27 cases listed for hearing. The Learned AR stated that the issue under dispute is settled by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme

D.C.I.T CIR - 10,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S PHILLIPS CARBON BLACK LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA 2123/Kol/13 and ITA

ITA 2123/KOL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Aug 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: : Shri P.M.Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri D.S.Damle, FCA, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Kalyan Nath, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 10Section 14Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

10. Heard and perused the record. The Hon’ble Third Member in assessee’s own case for AY 2004-05 supra held that the disallowance of 1% as directed by the CIT-A of the exempt income is fair and reasonable. The order of the Hon’ble Third Member was also followed by the CIT-A-XXIV in assessee

D.C.I.T CIR - 10(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S EUREKA FORBS LTD, KOLKATA

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 2037/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 92C

25,21,596/- 5,53,878/-) as the assessee has suo-moto disallowed Rs.5,53,878/-. Thus, the disallowance under Rule-8D of the IT, Rule, 1962 relevant section 14A of the I.T. Act, 1961 is finally computed at Rs.1,19,67,718/- and added back with the returned income as well as to determine the book profit u/s 115JB

D.C.I.T CIR - 10(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S EUREKA FORBS LTD, KOLKATA

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 1247/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 92C

25,21,596/- 5,53,878/-) as the assessee has suo-moto disallowed Rs.5,53,878/-. Thus, the disallowance under Rule-8D of the IT, Rule, 1962 relevant section 14A of the I.T. Act, 1961 is finally computed at Rs.1,19,67,718/- and added back with the returned income as well as to determine the book profit u/s 115JB

MAYURAKSHI GRAMIN BANK EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND, PBGB REGIONAL, ,SURI, BIRBHUM vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 3, SURI, SURI, BIRBHUM

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

ITA 1159/KOL/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 1159/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Mayurakshi Gramin Bank Employees Provident Fund,………………………………………Appellant Pbgb Regional, Suri Birbhum-731101, West Bengal [Pan:Aabtm2580Q] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,……...Respondent Circle-3, Suri, Aayakar Bhawan, Lalkuthipara, Suri, Birbhum-731101, W.B. Appearances By: Shri S.K. Tulsian, Advocate & Ms. Lata Goyal, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Subhro Das, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: January 23, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: January 31, 2025 O R D E R

Section 10Section 10(25)Section 10(25)(ii)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 254

disallowed in assessment year 2013-14. The said issue came up before the ITAT for assessment year 2013-14, wherein the assesese raised alternative plea of its correct taxable income for the first time and, therefore, the matter was restored back to the file of ld. Assessing Officer. The ld. Assessing Officer did not accept the plea of the assessee

DCIT, LTU-2, KOLKATA vs. M/S CENTURY PLYBOARDS (I), LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objections of assessee are allowed

ITA 2149/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) &Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] Assessment Year: 2014-15

Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 14A

disallowance was made on the last ray of assessment purely on suspicion. 12 ITA No. 2149/Kol/2019 & C.O. No. 22/Kol/2020 M/s Century Plyboards (I) Ltd. A.Y. 2014-15 20. According to us, the fact that high profits were earned by the eligible unit in comparison to other businesses by itself cannot lead to conclusion that the deduction claimed u/s 80IE

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ROSSELL INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 2774/KOL/2013[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Mar 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year:2009-10 Dcit, Circle-4, Kolkata V/S. M/S Rossell India Ltd. P-7, Chowringhee 21/1A/3, Darga Road, Square, Kolkata-69 Jindal Towers, Block B, 4Th Floor, Park Circus, Kolkta-700 017 [Pan Noaabcr 3736 J] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

10% of the total expenses incurred for the chairman office have been disallowed under section 14A of the Act. There was no other expenditure incurred directly or indirectly for earning such dividend income. The AO without finding any defect in the working of disallowances made by the assessee has invoked the provisions of rule 8D read with section

SHYAM SUNDAR AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT, CENTRAL - 2, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITA 1896/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jan 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No. 1895/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Vinod Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Acrpa 8096 M] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1896/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Shyam Sundar Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Acypa 7814 N] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1897/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Ram Naresh Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Acypa 1903 G] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1898/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Pawan Kumar Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Actpa 2421 L] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate For The Respondent : Md. Usman, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 03.01.2018. Shri Vinod Agarwal & Ors. A.Yr.2013-14 Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Md. Usman, CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 263Section 263o

disallowed in the hands of the firm or the amount is varied in subsequent proceedings, the partner's assessment can be rectified [section 155(1A)]." He submitted that the above Circular, reiterates the settled judicial principle (being that for the purposes of a taxing statute, the Firm is to be considered as having a separate juristic entity distinct from

RAM NARESH AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. PCIT, CENTRAL-2, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITA 1897/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jan 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No. 1895/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Vinod Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Acrpa 8096 M] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1896/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Shyam Sundar Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Acypa 7814 N] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1897/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Ram Naresh Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Acypa 1903 G] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1898/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Pawan Kumar Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Actpa 2421 L] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate For The Respondent : Md. Usman, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 03.01.2018. Shri Vinod Agarwal & Ors. A.Yr.2013-14 Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Md. Usman, CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 263Section 263o

disallowed in the hands of the firm or the amount is varied in subsequent proceedings, the partner's assessment can be rectified [section 155(1A)]." He submitted that the above Circular, reiterates the settled judicial principle (being that for the purposes of a taxing statute, the Firm is to be considered as having a separate juristic entity distinct from

PAWAN KUMAR AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT, CENTRAL - 2, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITA 1898/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jan 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No. 1895/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Vinod Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Acrpa 8096 M] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1896/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Shyam Sundar Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Acypa 7814 N] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1897/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Ram Naresh Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Acypa 1903 G] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1898/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Pawan Kumar Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Actpa 2421 L] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate For The Respondent : Md. Usman, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 03.01.2018. Shri Vinod Agarwal & Ors. A.Yr.2013-14 Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Md. Usman, CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 263Section 263o

disallowed in the hands of the firm or the amount is varied in subsequent proceedings, the partner's assessment can be rectified [section 155(1A)]." He submitted that the above Circular, reiterates the settled judicial principle (being that for the purposes of a taxing statute, the Firm is to be considered as having a separate juristic entity distinct from

VINOD AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. PCIT, CENTRAL-2, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITA 1895/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jan 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No. 1895/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Vinod Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Acrpa 8096 M] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1896/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Shyam Sundar Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Acypa 7814 N] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1897/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Ram Naresh Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Acypa 1903 G] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1898/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Pawan Kumar Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Actpa 2421 L] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate For The Respondent : Md. Usman, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 03.01.2018. Shri Vinod Agarwal & Ors. A.Yr.2013-14 Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Md. Usman, CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 263Section 263o

disallowed in the hands of the firm or the amount is varied in subsequent proceedings, the partner's assessment can be rectified [section 155(1A)]." He submitted that the above Circular, reiterates the settled judicial principle (being that for the purposes of a taxing statute, the Firm is to be considered as having a separate juristic entity distinct from

ACIT, CIRCLE-3, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S TATA METALICS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, while all the four appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 956/KOL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Mar 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

10 of 22 15. During the year under consideration, one of the two captive power plants namely Diesel Generating Power Unit had suffered a loss, whereas the other Captive Power Plant, namely Turbine Generating Power Unit had earned profit. In the return of income, the assessee-company had claimed deduction under section 80IA in respect of profit of Turbine Generating

SRI GOVINDDEO EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTE,KOLKATA vs. DY.DIT(E)-1, KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1156/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12 Sri Govinddeo Educational Ddit, Exemption Circle-1, Institute Kolkata Vs. 78, Syed Amir Ali Avenue, Ballygunge, Kolkata-700019. (Pan: Aabts6053J) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Subhro Das, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)

25 Parganas, West Bengal – expenditure incurred is Rs.6,76,822/-. 3.2. Ld. AO in the course of assessment proceeding observed that out of two schools situated in village Bagi and Another in village-Sapkhali, though the schools are claimed to be run in the name of Shri Govindeo Educational Institute, local people know them by Birla’s Primary School. There

ACIT, CIRCLE-5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S KESORAM INDUSTRIES. LTD, KOLKATA

In the result the revenue’s appeals for A

ITA 1722/KOL/2012[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Apr 2018AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

disallowance of depreciation. Ground No. 2 of the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 18. Ground No. 3 of the revenue’s appeal is against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in accepting the assessee’s claim for considering the market value of electricity for the purpose of section 80IA to be the average landed cost of electricity at which

KESORAM INDUSTRIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the revenue’s appeals for A

ITA 1188/KOL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

disallowance of depreciation. Ground No. 2 of the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 18. Ground No. 3 of the revenue’s appeal is against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in accepting the assessee’s claim for considering the market value of electricity for the purpose of section 80IA to be the average landed cost of electricity at which

KESORAM INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ADDL C.I.T RG - 5,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the revenue’s appeals for A

ITA 773/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

disallowance of depreciation. Ground No. 2 of the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 18. Ground No. 3 of the revenue’s appeal is against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in accepting the assessee’s claim for considering the market value of electricity for the purpose of section 80IA to be the average landed cost of electricity at which