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.

132 results for “disallowance”+ Section 10A(5)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai594Bangalore527Delhi490Chennai234Kolkata132Pune94Ahmedabad90Hyderabad82Karnataka55Jaipur43Visakhapatnam30Cochin22Surat21Rajkot20Telangana13Indore12Lucknow11Guwahati10Chandigarh10Amritsar9Dehradun5Jodhpur5Raipur3Nagpur2Cuttack2SC2Varanasi2Panaji2Ranchi1Kerala1Calcutta1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)85Section 80I74Section 10B72Section 10A60Deduction56Section 115J52Addition to Income41Section 80P40Disallowance37Section 143(1)

DCIT, CIRCLE -7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ECO WHEELS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals being ITA Nos

ITA 625/KOL/2012[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Feb 2016AY 2008-2009

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

Section 10ASection 143(3)

5 of 14 tyres thus were only in the nature of material, which was used by the assessee to produce the wheels in its factory for export. It was claimed that there was thus no case of export of trading goods but it was a case of export of goods manufactured by the assessee-company, which could not be excluded

ITO, WARD - 7(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. WIZARD ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and cross objections of the assessee are allowed as stated above

ITA 628/KOL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata

Showing 1–20 of 132 · Page 1 of 7

34
Section 4032
Exemption19
04 Mar 2016
AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: None appeared on behalf of the revenue
Section 10ASection 10BSection 143(3)

5) is applicable only when the assessee fails to make a claim in his return of income for any deduction whereas in the instant case the assessee did make the claim though, because of a technical error, the claim was made under section 10B instead of 10A. In his opinion, quoting of wrong section should not deprive the assessee from

I.T.O WD - 7(2),KOLKATA., KOLKATA vs. M/S WIZARD ENTERPRISES PVT LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 280/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Apr 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri S.S Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, JCIT, ld.DR
Section 10ASection 10BSection 143(3)

10A as well as section 10B of the Act. Hence we find no infirmity in the impugned orders of the ld.CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance as made by the ld.AO on this issue. We uphold the impugned orders of the ld.CIT(A). Hence, the grounds raised by the department in both the appeals are dismissed. 5

ITO, WARD - 8(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. WIZARD ENTERPRISE PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 292/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 10ASection 10BSection 143(3)

section 10A has been disallowed only on the ground that the approval to the STP has not been granted by the Inter-Ministerial Standing Committee in accordance with the Scheme, the demand so arising should be kept in abeyance until further orders.” 13. It is not in dispute that a call centre operation has been duly notified as IT enabled

DCIT, CIRCLE-3, KOLKATA, DARJEELING vs. NARENDRA TEA COMPANY (P) LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 1517/KOL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 May 2017AY 2009-10

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

Section 10A

disallowance on the ground that blending and export of tea by the assessee qualifies for benefit only after incorporation of the definition clause of ‘manufacture’ from the 2005 Act in Section 10AA of the Act. On appeal, Held “that the provisions of Section 10A and Section 10AA later introduced serve the very same purpose of granting exemption on the profits

LIMTEX INFOTECH LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 7(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and cross objections of the assessee are allowed as stated above

ITA 1368/KOL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Sept 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1368/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Limtex Infotech Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-7(4), Kolkata. [Pan: Aabcl 0088 R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.M Thard, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Robin Chowdhury, Addl. CIT DR
Section 10BSection 14Section 143(3)

5 6 Limtex Infotech Ltd. A.Yr. 2010-11 “SECTIONS 10A AND 10B FREE TRADE ZONES / 100% EXPORT ORIENTED UNDERTAKINGS, EXEMPTION FOR NEW INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKINGS IN [SECS.10A AND 10B] Deduction to STPs - Instances have been brought to the notice of the Board that a large number of units registered/ approved by the Directors of the STPI are claiming deduction under section

M/S ERNST & YOUNG LLP,KOLKATA vs. CIT-3, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 499/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 May 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No. 499/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Ernst & Young Pvt. Ltd. -Vs.- C.I.T., Kol-3, Kolkata Kolkata. [Pan : Aabce 9188 P] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri B.N.Bajoria, Sr.Advocate Shri D.Ghosh, Fca For The Respondent : Shri Niraj Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 15.05.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 19.05.2017. Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 18.03.2015 Of Cit- Kol-3, Kolkata Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act.).

For Appellant: Shri B.N.Bajoria, Sr.AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Niraj Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 10Section 10ASection 11Section 14Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263Section 4Section 5Section 60

5 of his order that the AO failed to make necessary inquiry with regard to the existence of separate units and as to how the assessee has maintained its accounts viz., whether one account was maintained for all the units or separate accounts were maintained for separate units. The CIT in para-4 of his order concluded that failure

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. J. J. EXPORTERS LTD., KOLKATA

ITA 1372/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

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

Section 92C

sections 10A & 10B in computation of arm’s length price. Note: All the above grounds relating to transfer pricing for A.Y. 2008-09 and for A.Y. 2009-10 are similar and identical therefore, we take Revenue`s appeal in ITA 3 4 M/s J.J. Exports Limited ITA No.1371 & 1372/Kol/2017 Co. No. 71 & 72/Kol/2018 No.1372/Kol/2017 for A.Y.2009-10, as the lead case

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. J. J. EXPORTERS LTD., KOLKATA

ITA 1371/KOL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Sept 2018AY 2008-09

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

Section 92C

sections 10A & 10B in computation of arm’s length price. Note: All the above grounds relating to transfer pricing for A.Y. 2008-09 and for A.Y. 2009-10 are similar and identical therefore, we take Revenue`s appeal in ITA 3 4 M/s J.J. Exports Limited ITA No.1371 & 1372/Kol/2017 Co. No. 71 & 72/Kol/2018 No.1372/Kol/2017 for A.Y.2009-10, as the lead case

ALLAHABAD BANK,KOLKATA vs. ADD.CIT,RANGE-6, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1199/KOL/2012[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jun 2016AY 2008-2009

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Barun Kumar Ghosh & Shri Piyush Dey, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Subhra Biswas, CIT(DR)
Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)

disallowance of Rs.4,20,90,323 instead of Rs.46,20,484 as offered by the Appellant itself under section 14A in computation of the ‘Book Profit’ under section 115JB.” 32. Sec.115JB(1) of the Act provides that notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of the Act, where in the case of an assessee, being a company, the income

ACIT, LTU - 2, KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. UCO BANK, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 585/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jun 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Vs. M/S Uco Bank Acit, Ltu-2, Kolkata 10, Btm, Sarani, Kolkata – 700001. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacu3561B .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Shankar, CITFor Respondent: Shri D. S. Damle, FCA
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 211Section 40

disallowance of Rs.31,35,91,170/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 14A r.w.r 8D of the Rules. Therefore, grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed. 13. Ground Nos.6 & 7 relates to book profit adjustment u/s 115JB of the Act. The Ld. CIT (A)-11, erred in law and on facts by holding that the provision of section 115JB

ACIT, CIR-3(2), GANGTOK, SIKKIM, SIKKIM vs. M/S UNICORN INDUSTRIES,, SIKKIM

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 48/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jan 2019AY 2010-2011

Bench: Sri S.S. Godara & Sri M. Balaganesh) Assessment Year: 2010-11

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80I

disallowed the claim u/s 80IC of the Act. The assessee went in appeal before the CIT(A) who examined the manufacturing process and the relevant evidence and came to conclusion that the assessee is engaged in manufacturing process whereas finished product is distinct from raw material and allowed the deduction to the assessee u/s 80IC by holding as under

ACIT, LTU - 2, KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. UCO BANK, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 584/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri A.T. Varkey

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 201Section 40

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under section 14A read with Rule 8D. Grounds No. 3 to 5 of the Revenue’s appeal are accordingly dismissed. 5 Assessment Year: 2010-2011 M/s. UCO Bank 9. In Grounds No. 6 to 9, the Revenue has challenged the decision of the ld. CIT(Appeals) holding that the provisions of section 115JB

I.T.O WD - 2(3),KOLKATA., KOLKATA vs. M/S LAST PEAK DATA PVT LTD., KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 154/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Oct 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ]

For Appellant: Shri Vasant SubramanyanFor Respondent: Shri Niraj Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 10ASection 10BSection 115JSection 14

disallowed as the provisions of section 115JB, amended w.e.f. 1.4.2008, do not permit the deduction u/s. 10A. In this respect the assessee submitted that the provisions of section 115JB(6) exempted the assessee from taxability u/s. 115JB. The assessee further took the plea that the provisions of section 115JB(6) exempted all units situated in Special Economic Zones from

D.C.I.T./A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-3(2), GANGTOK, SIKKIM, GANGTOK vs. M/S UNICORN INDUSTRIES, SIKKIM

Appeals are allowed

ITA 1965/KOL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80I

disallowed the claim u/s 80IC of the Act. The assessee went in appeal before the CIT(A) who examined the manufacturing process and the relevant evidence and came to conclusion that the assessee is engaged in manufacturing process whereas finished product is distinct from raw material and allowed the deduction to the assessee u/s 80IC by holding as under

D.C.I.T./A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-3(2), GANGTOK, SIKKIM, GANGTOK vs. M/S UNICORN INDUSTRIES, SIKKIM

Appeals are allowed

ITA 1964/KOL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80I

disallowed the claim u/s 80IC of the Act. The assessee went in appeal before the CIT(A) who examined the manufacturing process and the relevant evidence and came to conclusion that the assessee is engaged in manufacturing process whereas finished product is distinct from raw material and allowed the deduction to the assessee u/s 80IC by holding as under

D.C.I.T./A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-3(2), GANGTOK, SIKKIM, GANGTOK vs. M/S UNICORN INDUSTRIES, SIKKIM

Appeals are allowed

ITA 1963/KOL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Aug 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80I

disallowed the claim u/s 80IC of the Act. The assessee went in appeal before the CIT(A) who examined the manufacturing process and the relevant evidence and came to conclusion that the assessee is engaged in manufacturing process whereas finished product is distinct from raw material and allowed the deduction to the assessee u/s 80IC by holding as under

D.C.I.T./A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-3(2), GANGTOK, GANGTOK vs. M/S UNICORN INDUSTRIES, SIKKIM

Appeals are allowed

ITA 1962/KOL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Aug 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80I

disallowed the claim u/s 80IC of the Act. The assessee went in appeal before the CIT(A) who examined the manufacturing process and the relevant evidence and came to conclusion that the assessee is engaged in manufacturing process whereas finished product is distinct from raw material and allowed the deduction to the assessee u/s 80IC by holding as under

ITO, WD-43(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. VIPUL GUPTA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 868/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Mar 2019AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 10ASection 10B

5) is applicable only when the assessee fails to make a claim in his return of income for any deduction whereas in the instant case the assessee did make the claim though, because of a technical error, the claim was made under section 10B instead of 10A. In his opinion, quoting of wrong section should not deprive the assessee from

ACIT, CIT-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S BNK E SOLUTION PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed and the C

ITA 1613/KOL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 May 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am]

For Appellant: Shri D.S.Damle, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Banibrata Dutta, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 70(1)Section 72

section 10A of the Act was deduction provision and he accordingly computed the deduction u/s 10A of the Act as follows :- “ Since no divisible income is assessed after set off of brought forward business loss, brought forward unabsorbed depreciation and brought forward depreciation, deduction for an amount of Rs.3,22,18,140/- which was erroneously allowed u/s 10A