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.

116 results for “disallowance”+ Section 184clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi722Mumbai485Bangalore176Ahmedabad151Jaipur142Kolkata116Hyderabad94Chennai92Chandigarh75Raipur64Indore48Surat35Lucknow28Amritsar27Pune27Visakhapatnam23Nagpur17Cochin15Rajkot15Cuttack12Agra9Patna8Karnataka8Allahabad7Guwahati6SC5Jodhpur3Telangana3Dehradun3Jabalpur3Rajasthan2Panaji2Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)103Section 26386Addition to Income68Disallowance60Section 35(1)(ii)54Section 80I51Section 14A50Deduction35Section 14826Section 250

M/S TATA GLOBAL BEVERAGES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2012-

ITA 1854/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 92B

disallowable under section 4O(a)(ii) or section 115-O of the Act.” 3. As the issues raised in these appeals are common and the facts are identical, therefore, as agreed by both the parties, they Page 7 of 41 I.T.A. No.: 1854/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13 I.T.A. No.: 1899/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s. Tata Global Beverages Limited

M/S TATA GLOBAL BEVERAGES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2012-

Showing 1–20 of 116 · Page 1 of 6

25
Section 143(2)23
Depreciation16
ITA 1899/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: Disposed
ITAT Kolkata
13 Feb 2023
AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 92B

disallowable under section 4O(a)(ii) or section 115-O of the Act.” 3. As the issues raised in these appeals are common and the facts are identical, therefore, as agreed by both the parties, they Page 7 of 41 I.T.A. No.: 1854/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13 I.T.A. No.: 1899/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s. Tata Global Beverages Limited

SHRI NAROTTAM GOYAL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-51(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1210/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2016AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 194CSection 40

184/- paid to the transporters as disallowed under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Brief facts of the case

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

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

ITA 1711/KOL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 270ASection 274Section 40Section 80GSection 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

section 270A for under reporting in consequence of misreporting of income, in respect of this disallowance, cannot be sustained. 6.4 Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of Chambal Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd. Vs Pr. CIT (2024) (158 taxmann.com 184

DCIT,CIRCLE-6, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. WEST BENGAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals being ITA Nos

ITA 1376/KOL/2009[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Dec 2015AY 2002-03

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

Section 143(3)Section 254

section 36(2)(v) of the Act, he disallowed the claim of the assessee for deduction on account of bad debts written off to the extent of Rs.8,72,88,520/-. I.T.A. Nos. 1376, 1377, 1582 & 1531/KOL./2009 Assessment years: 2002-03, 2003-04, 2005-06 & 2005-06 & Assessment Year: 2006-2007 Page 7 of 20 12. The disallowance made

M/S. PEERLESS HOSPITEX HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTRE LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee( in ITA No

ITA 738/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.737 & 738/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years:2009-10 & 2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate, Shri S. Dey, CA & Ms. Puja Somani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT
Section 115JSection 154Section 72

184/- was paid to the Doctors engaged in medical profession who had recommended their own patients to the hospital for better treatment, such payments are not covered by Explanation below section 37(1) of the I T Act and consequently the same should not be disallowed

M/S. PEERLESS HOSPITEX HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTRE LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee( in ITA No

ITA 737/KOL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.737 & 738/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years:2009-10 & 2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate, Shri S. Dey, CA & Ms. Puja Somani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT
Section 115JSection 154Section 72

184/- was paid to the Doctors engaged in medical profession who had recommended their own patients to the hospital for better treatment, such payments are not covered by Explanation below section 37(1) of the I T Act and consequently the same should not be disallowed

ACIT,CIR-27(1), KOLKATA, PURBA MEDINIPUR vs. CONTAI MUNICIPALITY HATABARI, PURBA MEDINIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2356/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.) Asstt. Year : 2012-13 A.C.I.T, Cir-27 (1), Haldia Vs Contai Municipality Pan: Aaalc0376M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. Shri P.K. Srihari, CIT, ld.DRFor Respondent: None appeared
Section 10(20)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 43BSection 44ASection 69

section 43B of the Act. After making the aforesaid addition/ disallowances the AO determined the tax payable by the Assessee Municipality in the sum of Rs.2,42,86, 184

BELLFLOWER FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY : SUMIT CREDIT CO PRIVATE LIMITED ),KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 5(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1377/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

Section 143(3)Section 14A

184/- (iii) Expenses disallowed Rs. 66,114/- (iv) Filing fees disallowed Rs. 1,882/- (v) 10% of Tour and Travel Rs. 43,388/- expenses disallowed 3. Against the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section

DCIT, CIR-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. TEGA INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the Cross Objections filed by the assessee (in C

ITA 1049/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2019AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: DR. P. K. Srihari, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Chidambaram, Advocate
Section 14ASection 92C

Disallowance under section 14A r.w.r. 8D of Rs.4,51,190/-. This ground is raised by the Revenue in Assessment Year 2009-10 only. (ii).Addition made by AO regarding loss from option contracts in foreign currency with banks held as “Speculative loss”. This covers Ground No.2 raised by the Revenue for C.O Nos.31, 32 & 33/Kol/2019 Assessment Year

DCIT, CIR-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. TEGA INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the Cross Objections filed by the assessee (in C

ITA 1048/KOL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2019AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: DR. P. K. Srihari, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Chidambaram, Advocate
Section 14ASection 92C

Disallowance under section 14A r.w.r. 8D of Rs.4,51,190/-. This ground is raised by the Revenue in Assessment Year 2009-10 only. (ii).Addition made by AO regarding loss from option contracts in foreign currency with banks held as “Speculative loss”. This covers Ground No.2 raised by the Revenue for C.O Nos.31, 32 & 33/Kol/2019 Assessment Year

DCIT, CIR-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. TEGA INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the Cross Objections filed by the assessee (in C

ITA 1047/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: DR. P. K. Srihari, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Chidambaram, Advocate
Section 14ASection 92C

Disallowance under section 14A r.w.r. 8D of Rs.4,51,190/-. This ground is raised by the Revenue in Assessment Year 2009-10 only. (ii).Addition made by AO regarding loss from option contracts in foreign currency with banks held as “Speculative loss”. This covers Ground No.2 raised by the Revenue for C.O Nos.31, 32 & 33/Kol/2019 Assessment Year

KAJORA PACHAI & C.S. SHOP,BURDWAN vs. ITO, WARD - 1(3), DURGAPUR, BURDWAN

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 1198/KOL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year :2008-09

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 40Section 40A(3)

Section 40(A)(3) of the Act. The AO also observed that the case of assessee does not fall under the exceptions provided in clause 6DD of income Tax Rules of the IT Rules 1962. Therefore, he has disallowed a sum of ₹ 73,48,251/- and added it to the total income of the assessee. 4. Matter was carried before

PRASANTA KARMAKAR,KOLKATA vs. JCIT, RANGE - 26, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 258/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jan 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.258/Kol/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Prasanta Karmakar Vs. Jcit, Range-26, Kolkata R-26, Kol, Aykar Bhawan, 41, Bose Para Road, Barisha, Dakshin, Dhakuria, Kolkata – Kolkata – 700 008. 700 068. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Agapk 0496 Q (Assessee) .. (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Monoj Dutta, Fca, S.K. Roy, Adv. Respondent By: Shri Soumyajit Dasgupta, Addl. Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22/11/2017 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10/01/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2011-12, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–7, Kolkata, In Appeal No.359/Cit(A)-7/Range- 26/14-15, Dated 28.01.2016, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S.144/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 17.03.2014. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1.That The Ld. Cit(A) Totally Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs.10,98,184/- U/S.40(A)(Ia)/194H Which Was Not The Issue In The Original Asst. Order Wherein The A.O. Made The Total Disallowance As Bogus Commission Payment & Rejected Books U/S.145(3) & Such Addition Has To Be Deleted Being Totally Injudicious & Out Of Context Especially When The Cit(A) Himself Has Admitted That Commission Payment Is Genuine & Is Required To Be Allowed. 2.That The Disallowance Of Rs.10,98,184/- Is Totally Bad & Uncalled For In View Of The Findings In The Asst. Order Dt. 20.01.2016 Of The Assessee U/S. 143(3) For The Asst. Year 2013-2014 & Hence Cannot Be Sustained. 3. That The Ld. Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate That The Retailer'S Commission Is Determined & Communicated By The Principal Ttsl Through E-Mail Every Month

For Appellant: Shri Monoj Dutta, FCA, S.K. Roy, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Soumyajit Dasgupta, Addl. CIT
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 40

184/-. We also note that the recipient of income has paid the tax in their respective hands therefore, the disallowance under section

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S KAMARHATTY COMPANY LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of Revenue (in Ground No

ITA 2080/KOL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Dr.A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2011-12

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)

Section 14A r.w.r. Rule 8D of the I.T. Rules by the Assessing Officer is not warranted. That being so, we decline to interfere in the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). Hence, we confirm the order passed by Ld. CIT(A). 4.4.In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue (in Ground No.2) is dismissed. 5.Ground No.3 raised

TATA GLOBAL BEVERAGE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result ITA No.1869/Kol/2014 is allowed

ITA 1866/KOL/2014[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Dec 2017AY 2006-2007

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

For Appellant: Shri Kanchun Kaushal, FCA & Shri Piyush Chawla, FCAFor Respondent: Shri S.Dasgupta, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 115Section 115W

section 14A read with Rule 80 without appreciating the fact that only those investments on which dividend income was actually earned ought to have been considered for computing disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii)of the Income Tax Rules.” ITA Nos.1866 -1868,1870 & 1869/Kol/2014 Tata Global Beverages Limited A.Y.2006-07 to 2009-10 39. Though the Assessee has raised several grounds

TATA GLOBAL BEVERAGE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result ITA No.1869/Kol/2014 is allowed

ITA 1868/KOL/2014[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Dec 2017AY 2007-2008

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

For Appellant: Shri Kanchun Kaushal, FCA & Shri Piyush Chawla, FCAFor Respondent: Shri S.Dasgupta, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 115Section 115W

section 14A read with Rule 80 without appreciating the fact that only those investments on which dividend income was actually earned ought to have been considered for computing disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii)of the Income Tax Rules.” ITA Nos.1866 -1868,1870 & 1869/Kol/2014 Tata Global Beverages Limited A.Y.2006-07 to 2009-10 39. Though the Assessee has raised several grounds

TATA GLOBAL BEVERAGE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result ITA No.1869/Kol/2014 is allowed

ITA 1870/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Dec 2017AY 2009-2010

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

For Appellant: Shri Kanchun Kaushal, FCA & Shri Piyush Chawla, FCAFor Respondent: Shri S.Dasgupta, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 115Section 115W

section 14A read with Rule 80 without appreciating the fact that only those investments on which dividend income was actually earned ought to have been considered for computing disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii)of the Income Tax Rules.” ITA Nos.1866 -1868,1870 & 1869/Kol/2014 Tata Global Beverages Limited A.Y.2006-07 to 2009-10 39. Though the Assessee has raised several grounds

TATA GLOBAL BEVERAGE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result ITA No.1869/Kol/2014 is allowed

ITA 1867/KOL/2014[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Dec 2017AY 2007-2008

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

For Appellant: Shri Kanchun Kaushal, FCA & Shri Piyush Chawla, FCAFor Respondent: Shri S.Dasgupta, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 115Section 115W

section 14A read with Rule 80 without appreciating the fact that only those investments on which dividend income was actually earned ought to have been considered for computing disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii)of the Income Tax Rules.” ITA Nos.1866 -1868,1870 & 1869/Kol/2014 Tata Global Beverages Limited A.Y.2006-07 to 2009-10 39. Though the Assessee has raised several grounds

TATA GLOBAL BEVERAGE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result ITA No.1869/Kol/2014 is allowed

ITA 1869/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Dec 2017AY 2009-2010

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

For Appellant: Shri Kanchun Kaushal, FCA & Shri Piyush Chawla, FCAFor Respondent: Shri S.Dasgupta, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 115Section 115W

section 14A read with Rule 80 without appreciating the fact that only those investments on which dividend income was actually earned ought to have been considered for computing disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii)of the Income Tax Rules.” ITA Nos.1866 -1868,1870 & 1869/Kol/2014 Tata Global Beverages Limited A.Y.2006-07 to 2009-10 39. Though the Assessee has raised several grounds