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.

197 results for “disallowance”+ Section 12Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai581Delhi526Bangalore273Kolkata197Chennai146Ahmedabad130Jaipur111Pune99Lucknow77Hyderabad61Indore50Visakhapatnam39Chandigarh36Cochin26Amritsar25Surat25Raipur24Jodhpur17Nagpur17Calcutta13Cuttack12Agra10Patna9Rajkot9Panaji5SC5Guwahati4Allahabad4Jabalpur4Dehradun3Karnataka3Ranchi3Punjab & Haryana1ANIL R. DAVE AMITAVA ROY L. NAGESWARA RAO1Telangana1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 12A116Section 143(3)99Section 1187Section 143(1)80Exemption67Section 25051Section 80G41Addition to Income37Deduction34Disallowance

DCIT, MIDDLETONTON ROW vs. BISHNUPUR PUBLIC EDUCATION INSTITUTE, BISHNUPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1021/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Bishnupur Public Education Institute Dcit 10B, Middleton Row, 5 Th Floor, Gopeswarpalli, Bishnupur, Vs. Kolkata-700071, West Bengal Bankura-722122, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabtb4176D Assessee By : S/Shri S.M. Surana & Sunil Surana & Dipak Kumar, Ars Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Datta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2025

For Appellant: S/Shri S.M. Surana &For Respondent: Shri Subhendu Datta, DR
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 13(9)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)

Section 12A(1)(ba) of the Act. 13. In view of the above provisions of law, the clarificatory Circular of the CBDT as well as the judicial pronouncement, we are of the considered opinion that the department was not correct in disallowing

Showing 1–20 of 197 · Page 1 of 10

...
34
Section 35(1)(ii)31
Section 1024

JERMEL'S ACCADEMY,SILIGURI vs. I.T.O., WARD - 1(4), , SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per the directions mentioned above

ITA 1652/KOL/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Mar 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(A)Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250

12A(2) of the Act. The final show cause notice, along with the draft assessment order, was sent to the assessee on 25.03.2022 for 27.03.2022 which was not complied with. Therefore, the assessment was completed on the basis of earlier replies/documents furnished by the assessee. The assessee had furnished a copy of the order for provisional registration dated 30.08.2021 which

WEST BENGAL TRADE PROMOTION ORGANISATION LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), WARD - 1(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

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

ITA 36/KOL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jul 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.36/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri B. R. Dutta, CA, Shri Saurabh Bagaria, Advocate & Shri RiteshFor Respondent: Shri I. Jamir, CIT, Sr. DR & Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 144Section 25

section 12A of the said Act. 5. That, Without prejudice to Ground Nos. 1, 2 and 3, the CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in not allowing Rs.2,35,00,000/- being the compensation paid to the encroachers to the Land of WBTPO during the year ended 31st March, 2009. 6. That

DCIT(E),CIRCLE-2, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S WEST BENGAL TRADE PROMOTION ORG., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 156/KOL/2017[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jul 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 147Section 148Section 25

12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) which was inserted by Finance Act, 2014 w.e.f. 01.10.2014 is retrospective or not, when the fact remains that the assessment order was passed on 28.03.2014. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company is a consortium of the Central Government [Ministry of Commerce & Industry

DCIT, CIR-2, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. KARMAPA CHARITABLE TRUST,

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

ITA 953/KOL/2015[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jan 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: The Tribunal Is Condoned & We Proceed To Hear The Appeal On Merits.

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT –DR
Section 10Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 144

disallowed a sum of Rs. 64,49,997/- vide his order dt:240202914 u/section 144 of the Act. 5. The assessee challenged the same before the CIT-A. The CIT-A after considering the effect of first proviso to section 12A

ITO(EXEMPT),WARD-1(2). , KOLKATA vs. DEBENDRA AND ROHINI MEMORIAL TRUST, PURBA MEDINIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 241/KOL/2023[2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Jun 2023

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No.241/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Ito (Exemption), Ward-1(2), Kolkata...…......................……...…..….. Appellant Vs. Debendra & Rohini Memorial Trust............….……….…………….. Respondent Kalyanpur Barida, Egra Medinipur, Purba-721429, W.B-721429. [Pan: Aactd0883C] Appearances By: Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 18, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 27, 2023 Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 02.01.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 12A(1)(ba)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

section 12A(1)(ba) of the Income Tax Act 1961 clearly mandates that in order to be eligible for exemption return of income has to be filed within the time allowed u/s 139(4A) of the Act.” 1 I.T.A. No.241/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Debendra and Rohini Memorial Trust 3. The sole issue taken by the revenue in this appeal

THE GASPER EDUCATION SOCIETY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 7(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 871/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jun 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.871/Kol/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-2019) The Gasper Education Society Vs Ito Ward-7 (1), Kolkata 40A, Ajc Bose Road, Nonapukur Tram Depot, Kolkata-700017 Pan No. :Aaabt 0159 K (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Giridhar Dhelia, Advocate रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.N.Barnwal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 25/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25/06/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan, Jm : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 06.03.2025 Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024- 25/1074097940(1) For The Assessment Year 2018-2019. 2. Shri Giridhar Dhelia, Ld. Advocate Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri P.N.Barnwal, Ld. Cit-Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Return Filed By The Assessee Was Processed & The Assessment Came To Be Completed U/S.143(3) Of The Act, Wherein The Assessing Officer Has Denied The Assessee The Benefit Of Sections 11 & 12 Of The Act On The Ground That The Return Filed By The Assessee Was U/S.139(4) Of The Act. It Was The Submission That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Also Confirmed The Order Of The Assessing Officer. Ld.Ar Drew Our Attention To The Circular Issued By The Cbdt In F.No.173/193/2019-Ita-

For Appellant: Shri Giridhar Dhelia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.N.Barnwal, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ba)Section 139Section 139(4)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)

Section 12A(1)(ba) of the Act. 13. In view of the above provisions of law, the clarificatory Circular of the CBDT as well as the judicial pronouncement, we are of the considered opinion that the department was not correct in disallowing

TIRUPATI MEAL PRODUCERS (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-2(4), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 904/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble] I.T.A. No. 904/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Tirupati Meal Producers (P) Ltd……….................……....………………..……...……………...…Appellant C/O. Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates Siddha Gibson 1, Gibson Lane Suite 213 2Nd Floor Kolkata – 700 069 [Pan: Aaect 0620 N] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(4), Kolkata..………………………………..........….....……......Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Supriyo Pal, Jcit, Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 31St, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 29Th, 2019 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 10, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The “Ld.Cit(A)”), Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’), Dt. 31/01/2019, For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. At The Outset We Find That There Is A Delay Of 23 (Twenty Three) Days In Filing Of This Appeal. After Perusing The Petition For Condonation, We Are Convinced That The Assessee Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause From Filing The Appeal On Time. Hence The Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted.

For Appellant: - a) Copy of the Registration Certificate issued u/s 12AA of the Act
Section 12ASection 250Section 35Section 35(1)(ii)

disallowance u/s 35(1)(ii) of the Act could be made in the instant c instant case. 8.3. We find that there is no provision in 8.3. We find that there is no provision in section 35(1)(ii) of the Act to of the Act to withdraw the recognition granted to the assessee therein. When there withdraw the recognition

SSL EXPORTS LTD., ,HOWRAH vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), KOLKATA

In the result this ground of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2670/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Oct 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey)

Section 133ASection 250Section 271Section 35

disallowance u/s 35(1)(ii) of the Act could be made in the instant case. ITA No.16/Kol/2017 M/s Maco Corporation (India) Pvt. Ltd. A.Yr. 2013-14 8.3. 8.3 We find that there is no provision in section 35(1)(ii) of the Act to withdraw the recognition granted to the assessee therein. When there is no provision for withdrawal

ONKAR SOCIETY FOR ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGICAL ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 2, DURGAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 815/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargshri Rakesh Mishra

Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ba)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 263

12A(1)(ba) of the Act. As the assessee had not filed the return of income within the time limit specified under section 139(4A) read with section 139(1) of the Act, according to the Ld. CIT(E) the exemption under section 11 of the Act was not available to the assessee. The AO failed to consider this issue

INDIA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. PCIT, -I, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 632/KOL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 115JSection 263Section 80I

disallowed in terms of section 80IA(12A), which the ld. Assessing Officer failed to do so. He further submitted that

INDIAN COAL AGENCY,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-35, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as per the discussion supra

ITA 464/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

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

Section 12ASection 133(6)Section 35(1)(ii)

disallowed by the AO on the ground that it has come to his knowledge based on the admission of the founder of M/s. HHBHRF and other whistle- blower; and the CIT(E)’s action to cancel the section 12A

INDIAN COAL AGENCY,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-35, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as per the discussion supra

ITA 465/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

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

Section 12ASection 133(6)Section 35(1)(ii)

disallowed by the AO on the ground that it has come to his knowledge based on the admission of the founder of M/s. HHBHRF and other whistle- blower; and the CIT(E)’s action to cancel the section 12A

PRADIP TONDON,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR.-62, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2315/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] Assessment Year: 2013-14

Section 35(1)(ii)Section 80G

disallow the claim of the assessee. We note that this issue is no longer res integra. It is not in dispute that M/s. HHBHRF was enjoying the approval under Sec. 35(1)(ii) of the Act as on the date of receipt of donation and by retrospective cancellation of approval of the concerned institution, the deduction claimed in respect

EVER SHINE JEWEL HOUSE ,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.CIRCLE-37, KOLKATA

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 2546/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 35(1)(ii)

disallow the claim of the assessee. We note that this issue is no longer res integra. It is not in dispute that M/s. HHBHRF was enjoying the approval under Sec. 35(1)(ii) of the Act as on the date of receipt of donation and by retrospective cancellation of approval of the concerned institution, the deduction claimed in respect

EVER SHINE JEWEL HOUSE ,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.CIRCLE-37, KOLKATA

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 2545/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 35(1)(ii)

disallow the claim of the assessee. We note that this issue is no longer res integra. It is not in dispute that M/s. HHBHRF was enjoying the approval under Sec. 35(1)(ii) of the Act as on the date of receipt of donation and by retrospective cancellation of approval of the concerned institution, the deduction claimed in respect

INDRADHANUSH AGENCIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-8(4), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1668/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] Assessment Year: 2014-15

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 148Section 35(1)(ii)

disallow the claim of the assessee. We note that this issue is no longer res integra. It is not in dispute that M/s. HHBHRF was enjoying the approval under Sec. 35(1)(ii) of the Act as on the date of receipt of donation and by retrospective cancellation of approval of the concerned institution, the deduction claimed in respect

LORD REAL ESTATE PVT LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 10(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 102/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Ble] I.T.A. No. 102/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Lord Real Estate Pvt. Ltd..........................................................................................................Appellant 12C, Chakraberia Road (North), Kolkata – 700 020. [Pan: Aaacl4476A] Vs Dcit, Circle-10(1), Kolkata ..................………………………………………..........................Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate & Shri Aryan Kochar, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri B.S. Anand, Jcit, Sr. Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue: Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 27, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 10, 2022 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm:

For Respondent: Date of concluding the hearing : April 27, 2022
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 35(1)(ii)

disallowance of claim of Rs. 4,87,500/- was issued and liable to be quashed. iv. For that the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that the appellant having made donation of Rs. 4,50,000/- eligible for deduction u/s 35(1)(ii) of the Act the same was an allowable one. v. For that the appellant had adduced

NARBHERAM VISHRAM,JHARKHAND vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 42/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.42 & 43/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 &2014-15) Narbheramvishram Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-4(2), Kolkata Gua, Singhbhum West, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva 110, Jharkhan-833213. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabfn 7217 R (Assessee) .. (Respondent) Assessee By :Shri A. K. Tibrewal, Fca& Shri Amit Agarwal, Advocate. Respondent By : Md. Usman, Cit, Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 17/05/2018 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27/07/2018 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tibrewal, FCA& Shri Amit Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Md. Usman, CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 35(1)(ii)

disallowance of weighted deduction of Rs.10,50,00,000/-, for A.Y. 2014-15, claimed by him under section 35(1)(ii) of the Act in respect ofthe amounts of donations made to two Institutions viz. ‘Matrivani Institute ExperimentalResearch & Education’ (hereinafter referred to as ‘Matrivani’) and ‘The School of HumanGenetics and Population Health’ (hereinafter referred to as ‘SHG’). The Assessee Firm

NARBHERAM VISHRAM,JHARKHAND vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 43/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Jul 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.42 & 43/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 &2014-15) Narbheramvishram Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-4(2), Kolkata Gua, Singhbhum West, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva 110, Jharkhan-833213. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabfn 7217 R (Assessee) .. (Respondent) Assessee By :Shri A. K. Tibrewal, Fca& Shri Amit Agarwal, Advocate. Respondent By : Md. Usman, Cit, Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 17/05/2018 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27/07/2018 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tibrewal, FCA& Shri Amit Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Md. Usman, CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 35(1)(ii)

disallowance of weighted deduction of Rs.10,50,00,000/-, for A.Y. 2014-15, claimed by him under section 35(1)(ii) of the Act in respect ofthe amounts of donations made to two Institutions viz. ‘Matrivani Institute ExperimentalResearch & Education’ (hereinafter referred to as ‘Matrivani’) and ‘The School of HumanGenetics and Population Health’ (hereinafter referred to as ‘SHG’). The Assessee Firm