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.

3,023 results for “disallowance”+ Section 13(8)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai12,527Delhi10,942Bangalore3,802Chennai3,579Kolkata3,023Ahmedabad2,508Pune2,236Hyderabad1,743Jaipur1,500Chandigarh994Surat981Indore918Raipur594Cochin593Visakhapatnam552Cuttack485Karnataka430Rajkot420Amritsar407Nagpur370Lucknow278Agra187Panaji170Jodhpur163Guwahati148Ranchi133Telangana122Allahabad116SC111Patna90Dehradun76Calcutta68Jabalpur43Kerala38Varanasi33Punjab & Haryana12Rajasthan10Orissa7Himachal Pradesh6A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN5Gauhati2D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1RANJAN GOGOI PRAFULLA C. PANT1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1ANIL R. DAVE AMITAVA ROY L. NAGESWARA RAO1Tripura1Uttarakhand1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1

Key Topics

Section 250175Section 143(3)67Addition to Income50Section 14A49Disallowance41Section 80I40Section 143(1)26Deduction26Section 14725Section 40

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

INDIAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR-1(1), (EXEMPTION), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

Showing 1–20 of 3,023 · Page 1 of 152

...
25
Section 153A23
Condonation of Delay10

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 934/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpalyadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 25

Section 11(4), 11(4A), 13(8) and Circular No. 11 of 2008, alleged that the meetings, conferences and seminars held by the assessee were in the nature of business and the assessee has rendered services in relation to trade, commerce and business for a cess, fee or any other consideration and thus has earned profit from these activities

INDIAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-1(1), (EXEMPTION), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 933/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpalyadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 25

Section 11(4), 11(4A), 13(8) and Circular No. 11 of 2008, alleged that the meetings, conferences and seminars held by the assessee were in the nature of business and the assessee has rendered services in relation to trade, commerce and business for a cess, fee or any other consideration and thus has earned profit from these activities

ST JOSEPH'S CONVENT CHANDANNAGAR EDUCATINAL SOCITY.,KOLKATA vs. J.C.I.T. (OSD), CIR- 2,HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1695/KOL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 May 2016AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D.Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Pinaki Mukherjee, JCIT(DR)
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)Section 13(3)(b)Section 143(3)

disallowing the donation paid of Rs. 18,30,000/- to another trust. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us on the following grounds :- “1. For that in the facts and circumstances of the case the appellate order passed was in violation of principals of natural justice hence is bad in law and be quashed. 02. For that

M/S. KESORAM INDUSTRIES LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1) , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2012-13, 2014-

ITA 1650/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P. M. Jagtap, Vp (Kz) & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey]

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43

13,86,883/- given by the assessee to its customers post the completion of sales. Aggrieved by this action of the AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who deleted the impugned disallowance. M/s. Kesoram Industries Ltd., AYs 2012-13, 2014-15 &2015-16 8. Being aggrieved by the Ld. CIT(A)’s order, the Revenue

KESORAM INDUSTRIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-5(1), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2012-13, 2014-

ITA 1197/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P. M. Jagtap, Vp (Kz) & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey]

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43

13,86,883/- given by the assessee to its customers post the completion of sales. Aggrieved by this action of the AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who deleted the impugned disallowance. M/s. Kesoram Industries Ltd., AYs 2012-13, 2014-15 &2015-16 8. Being aggrieved by the Ld. CIT(A)’s order, the Revenue

DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1) , KOLKATA vs. M/S. KESORAM INDUSTRIES LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2012-13, 2014-

ITA 1777/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P. M. Jagtap, Vp (Kz) & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey]

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43

13,86,883/- given by the assessee to its customers post the completion of sales. Aggrieved by this action of the AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who deleted the impugned disallowance. M/s. Kesoram Industries Ltd., AYs 2012-13, 2014-15 &2015-16 8. Being aggrieved by the Ld. CIT(A)’s order, the Revenue

DCIT, CIRCLE-5(1), , KOLKATA vs. KESORAM INDUSTRIES LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2012-13, 2014-

ITA 1864/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P. M. Jagtap, Vp (Kz) & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey]

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43

13,86,883/- given by the assessee to its customers post the completion of sales. Aggrieved by this action of the AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who deleted the impugned disallowance. M/s. Kesoram Industries Ltd., AYs 2012-13, 2014-15 &2015-16 8. Being aggrieved by the Ld. CIT(A)’s order, the Revenue

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. INTEGRATED COAL MINING LIMITED, KOLKATA

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 170/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2010-11 Dcit, Circle-6(1), V/S. M/S Integrated Coal P-7, Chowringhee Mining Ltd., 6, Church Square, Kolkata-69 Lane, 1Ste Floor, Kolakta-700001 [Pan No.Aaaci 5584 L] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Dr. P.K. Srihari, Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Diparun Mukherjee, Aca & ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent Shri Alolk Goenka, Aca 15-01-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 15-03-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 43B

13,49,463 as per the calculation made above. Disallowance under section 14,A read with rule BD cannot exceed the amount of exempt income: ITA No.170/Kol/2018 A.Y. 2010-11 DCIT, Cir-6(1), Kol. Vs. M/s Integrated Coal Mining Ltd. Page 11 1. Without prejudice to the above, it is submitted tha the disallowance under section 14A read with

M/S. ELECTROSTEEL CASTING LIMITED.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTAL CIRCLE - 4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

ITA 138/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.138 & 139/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Kolkata. 19, G. K. Tower, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 4975 B (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.191 & 192/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Vs. M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Kolkata. 19, G. K. Tower, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 4975 B (Revenue) .. (Assessee)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P. K. Srihari, CIT-DR & Robin Choudhury, Addl.CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

8. The Revenue’s next contention is that the CIT(A) have erred in law and on facts in directing the Assessing Officer to restrict u/s 14A r.w.r 8D disallowance of Rs.16.85 lakhs (supra) for the purpose of MAT computation nly u/s 115JB of the Act. We have already decided the very issue in the taxpayers’ favour in the foregoing

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ELECTROSTEEL CASTINGS LIMITED., KOLKATA

ITA 191/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.138 & 139/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Kolkata. 19, G. K. Tower, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 4975 B (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.191 & 192/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Vs. M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Kolkata. 19, G. K. Tower, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 4975 B (Revenue) .. (Assessee)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P. K. Srihari, CIT-DR & Robin Choudhury, Addl.CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

8. The Revenue’s next contention is that the CIT(A) have erred in law and on facts in directing the Assessing Officer to restrict u/s 14A r.w.r 8D disallowance of Rs.16.85 lakhs (supra) for the purpose of MAT computation nly u/s 115JB of the Act. We have already decided the very issue in the taxpayers’ favour in the foregoing

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ELECTROSTEEL CASTINGS LIMITED., KOLKATA

ITA 192/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.138 & 139/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Kolkata. 19, G. K. Tower, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 4975 B (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.191 & 192/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Vs. M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Kolkata. 19, G. K. Tower, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 4975 B (Revenue) .. (Assessee)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P. K. Srihari, CIT-DR & Robin Choudhury, Addl.CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

8. The Revenue’s next contention is that the CIT(A) have erred in law and on facts in directing the Assessing Officer to restrict u/s 14A r.w.r 8D disallowance of Rs.16.85 lakhs (supra) for the purpose of MAT computation nly u/s 115JB of the Act. We have already decided the very issue in the taxpayers’ favour in the foregoing

M/S. ELECTROSTEEL CASTING LIMITED.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTAL CIRCLE - 4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

ITA 139/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.138 & 139/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Kolkata. 19, G. K. Tower, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 4975 B (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.191 & 192/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Dcit, Central Circle-4(4), Vs. M/S. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Kolkata. 19, G. K. Tower, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 4975 B (Revenue) .. (Assessee)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P. K. Srihari, CIT-DR & Robin Choudhury, Addl.CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

8. The Revenue’s next contention is that the CIT(A) have erred in law and on facts in directing the Assessing Officer to restrict u/s 14A r.w.r 8D disallowance of Rs.16.85 lakhs (supra) for the purpose of MAT computation nly u/s 115JB of the Act. We have already decided the very issue in the taxpayers’ favour in the foregoing

PANCHI BIBI WAKF ESTATE,KOLKATA vs. DDIT (E)-II, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

ITA 1198/KOL/2012[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Feb 2016AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 11Section 13(1)(C)Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(2)Section 13(3)Section 143(3)

13(3) of the Act without considering that the mutwallis were authorized under the mandatory rule framed by the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta in respect of the assessee Wakf which was created much prior to the commencement of this Act, to enjoy rent free accommodation and as such no addition on account of deemed income should have been

HINDUSTAN MOTORS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 6, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 171/KOL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Nov 2015AY 2008-09

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

Section 14A

8 of 10 interest bearing borrowed funds were not utilized for making such investment. 11. It is also observed that in the computation of total income, disallowance of Rs.2,47,79,104/- was offered by the assessee under section 14A in relation to the expenditure incurred in relation to earning of exempt income and there was no reason given

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)

8. Ground Nos. 3 and 4 raised by the assessee reads as follows :- “3. That, on facts as well as on law, the Learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) - VI, Kol has erred in confirming the application of provision of Rule 8D read with Section 14A(1 )&(2) of the Income tax Act, 1961 without bringing on record any cogent

KESORAM INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the revenue’s appeals for A

ITA 505/KOL/2017[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

8. We also rely on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs HDFC held as under: “Keeping the aforesaid position of law in mind, we shall now examine the impugned order of the Tribunal. The issue before the Tribunal as raised by the petitioner was that Section 14A of the act would

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

8. We also rely on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs HDFC held as under: “Keeping the aforesaid position of law in mind, we shall now examine the impugned order of the Tribunal. The issue before the Tribunal as raised by the petitioner was that Section 14A of the act would

KESORAM INDUSTRIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ADD.CIT,RANGE-5,, KOLKATA

In the result the revenue’s appeals for A

ITA 1037/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

8. We also rely on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs HDFC held as under: “Keeping the aforesaid position of law in mind, we shall now examine the impugned order of the Tribunal. The issue before the Tribunal as raised by the petitioner was that Section 14A of the act would

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

8. We also rely on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs HDFC held as under: “Keeping the aforesaid position of law in mind, we shall now examine the impugned order of the Tribunal. The issue before the Tribunal as raised by the petitioner was that Section 14A of the act would