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.

4,517 results for “disallowance”+ Section 143(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai16,455Delhi11,004Kolkata4,517Bangalore3,643Chennai3,286Ahmedabad3,270Pune2,249Hyderabad1,875Jaipur1,738Surat1,124Indore1,102Chandigarh888Cochin810Visakhapatnam688Rajkot581Raipur535Amritsar482Nagpur429Lucknow369Karnataka318Cuttack271Jodhpur245Panaji228Agra217Guwahati198Ranchi143Patna143Dehradun124Allahabad122Jabalpur98Telangana96Calcutta90Varanasi54SC44Kerala27Punjab & Haryana17Orissa8Himachal Pradesh6Rajasthan3Andhra Pradesh2Uttarakhand2Gauhati2H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1Bombay1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Tripura1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)123Section 26380Addition to Income73Disallowance67Section 14A55Deduction41Section 4028Section 14826Section 80I24Section 68

APEEJAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

ITA 116/KOL/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Aug 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Subhrajyoti Bhattacharjee, CIT D/R
Section 14ASection 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. The major issues for consideration by the assessing officer were with regard to disallowance

Showing 1–20 of 4,517 · Page 1 of 226

...
22
Section 14721
TDS12

APEEJAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

ITA 118/KOL/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Aug 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Subhrajyoti Bhattacharjee, CIT D/R
Section 14ASection 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. The major issues for consideration by the assessing officer were with regard to disallowance

APEEJAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

ITA 117/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Subhrajyoti Bhattacharjee, CIT D/R
Section 14ASection 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. The major issues for consideration by the assessing officer were with regard to disallowance

APEEJAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14

ITA 119/KOL/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Aug 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 116/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Subhrajyoti Bhattacharjee, CIT D/R
Section 14ASection 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. The major issues for consideration by the assessing officer were with regard to disallowance

ACIT, CIRCLE-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ICI INDIA LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2568/KOL/2005[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Mar 2017AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri R. N. Bajoria, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Niraj Kumar, CIT, DR
Section 10(33)Section 115JSection 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

disallowances. 4. The ld AR filed additional ground of appeal before us as below:- “That the notice issued under section 143(2

ICI INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2125/KOL/2005[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Mar 2017AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri R. N. Bajoria, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Niraj Kumar, CIT, DR
Section 10(33)Section 115JSection 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

disallowances. 4. The ld AR filed additional ground of appeal before us as below:- “That the notice issued under section 143(2

ITO, WARD - 56(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. NOPANY & SONS, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1621/KOL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 292B

section 142(1) of the Act before the AO of ward 56(4) vide its letter dated 16-11-2009 which is placed on page 81 of the paper book on the ground that no valid notice u/s. 143(2) was issued by ITO Ward-56(4). However the assessment was completed by the ITO Ward-56(4) at total

M/S. NOPANY & SONS,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 56(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1301/KOL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 292B

section 142(1) of the Act before the AO of ward 56(4) vide its letter dated 16-11-2009 which is placed on page 81 of the paper book on the ground that no valid notice u/s. 143(2) was issued by ITO Ward-56(4). However the assessment was completed by the ITO Ward-56(4) at total

BIRESWAR DUTT ESTATES PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 5(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

ITA 1567/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S, Godaraassessment Year:2011-12

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 158Section 292B

disallowance / addition in issue. This assessment order suggests in para-2 that the Assessing Officer had nowhere issued sec. 143(2) notice during this assessment. This clinching fact has gone unrebutted from the Revenue’s side during the course of hearing. I find that hon'ble jurisdictional high court’s decision in GA No.3671 of 2015 ITAT

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR-3(2), GANGTOK, GANGTOK SIKKIM vs. SIKKIM STATE COOPERATIVE SUPPLY AND MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED, GANGTOK SIKKIM

ITA 1582/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 250Section 80P

143(3B) of the Act on 30.03.2021 at the total income of ₹2,66,72,980/- after making additions/disallowances of - (i) ₹3,65,190/- u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act for delayed payment of employees’ contribution to Provident Fund, (ii) ₹3,58,787/- u/s 40(a)(ia) Page 3 of 45 I.T.A. Nos.: 1582 & 1583/KOL/2024 Assessment Years

THE DCIT, CIR-3(2) GANGTOK, GANGTOK SIKKIM vs. SIKKIM STATE COOPERATIVE SUPPLY AND MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED , GANGTOK SIKKIM

ITA 1583/KOL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 250Section 80P

143(3B) of the Act on 30.03.2021 at the total income of ₹2,66,72,980/- after making additions/disallowances of - (i) ₹3,65,190/- u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act for delayed payment of employees’ contribution to Provident Fund, (ii) ₹3,58,787/- u/s 40(a)(ia) Page 3 of 45 I.T.A. Nos.: 1582 & 1583/KOL/2024 Assessment Years

DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. THE PEERLESS GENERAL FINANCE & INVESTMENT CO. LTD.,, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1005/KOL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Dec 2020AY 2008-09

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 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

section 143(2) of the Act, will not make the reassessment null & void in law, which is validly initiated u/s. 148 of the Act. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the reopening assessment u/s. 147 of the I. T. Act as notice u/s. 148 was issued after taking necessary approval from

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

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

143(3) of the Act. 4. The said order of the AO was assailed before the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. CIT(A) after taking into account the contentions and submissions of the assessee enhanced the income after issuing notice u/s 251(2) of the Act on the ground that the AO has wrongly bifurcated the income into business

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

143(3) of the Act. 4. The said order of the AO was assailed before the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. CIT(A) after taking into account the contentions and submissions of the assessee enhanced the income after issuing notice u/s 251(2) of the Act on the ground that the AO has wrongly bifurcated the income into business

MAA PAHARI MERCANTILES(P)LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 359/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.359/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Maa Pahari Mercantiles Pvt. Ltd.………………………….…....Appellant 9, Weston Street, 214, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700012. [Pan: Aabcm7545A] Vs. Dcit, Circle-4(2), Kolkata……..................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sunil Surana, Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 03, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 26,2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 02.01.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. For That The Order Of The Ld. Cit (A) Is Arbitrary, Illegal & Bad In Law. 2. For That Assessment Order Itself Bad In Law In View Of The Fact That The Notice U/S 143(2) Taking Up The Case Under Scrutiny Was Without Jurisdiction.

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

disallowing Rs. 139,250/- u/s 14A of the income tax act, 1961 in spite of the fact that the assessee had no exempt income. 11. For that the order of the AO be modified and the assessee be given relief prayed for. 12. For that the appellant craves leave to add, alter or withdraw any ground/s of appeal

ALPHA NATIONAL TRADING CO.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-29, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 686/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.686/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Alpha National Trading Co….………………………………….…....Appellant C/O Sri Jitendra Kaushik, Advocate, 19D, Muktaram Babu Street, Kolkata- 700007. [Pan: Aatfa1401A] Vs. Acit, Circle-29, Kolkata………..................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sunil Surana, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 03, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 27, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 17.06.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. For That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre, Has Erred In Confirming Disallowance Of A Sum Of Rs. 29,30,046/- Out Of

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

Disallowance of a sum of Rs. 5,86,988/- out of Rs.17,60,993/- being one third of Public Relation Expenses made by Ld. ACIT, Circle 29, Kolkata on the alleged ground of personal use. 3. For that the appellant craves leave to add, to alter, to amend the above grounds of appeal on or before the hearing of appeal

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

143(3) can be made under clause (f) to the Explanation to section 115JB. The appellant therefore submits that the addition of Rs.80,27,500/- made in the computation of book profit for the purposes of section 115JB be deleted. 43. The CIT-A after considering the above submissions of the assessee has disposed of the appeal by observing

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

143(3) vide an order dated 23.03.2013, the Assessing Officer worked out such expenses by applying Rule 8D at Rs.36,60,39,331/- and disallowance to that extent was made by him under section 14A of the Act. On appeal, the ld. CIT(Appeals) deleted the said disallowance made by the Assessing Officer by relying on the decision of this

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

143(3) vide an order dated 23.03.2013, the Assessing Officer worked out such expenses by applying Rule 8D at Rs.36,60,39,331/- and disallowance to that extent was made by him under section 14A of the Act. On appeal, the ld. CIT(Appeals) deleted the said disallowance made by the Assessing Officer by relying on the decision of this

DCIT, CIR-5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. PROFICIENT COMMODITIES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee in CO No

ITA 1346/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1346/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Ram Bilash Meena, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

disallowance was based on the information received from the Forward Markets Commissions(FMC) through I&CI wing that the assessee company had taken accommodation entries in form of bogus losses through NMCE and the same was independently adjudicated. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition