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.

361 results for “disallowance”+ Section 192clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,100Delhi1,020Bangalore571Kolkata361Chennai248Indore172Hyderabad128Jaipur127Ahmedabad81Chandigarh76Nagpur74Agra66Raipur62Lucknow61Amritsar55Pune43Cuttack37Calcutta34Visakhapatnam32Surat31Rajkot30Cochin27Guwahati25Ranchi18SC14Jodhpur13Varanasi12Dehradun10Patna8Karnataka8Allahabad6Kerala5Telangana5Panaji4Orissa2Rajasthan2ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Uttarakhand1Jabalpur1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1RANJAN GOGOI PRAFULLA C. PANT1Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Section 250365Section 143(3)62Addition to Income38Section 14736Section 4032Disallowance31Deduction25Section 26322Section 14819TDS

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

192 (Guj.); (iv) Dolphin Drilling Limited –vs.- ACIT (2009) 121 TTJ 433 (Del.); (v) CIT –vs.- Dunlop Rubber Co. Limited (1983) 142 ITR 493 (Kol.). 15. The ld. counsel for the assessee then referred to the provisions of section 194G and section 204 and submitted that as per clause(iii) of section 204- ‘person responsible for paying’ ‘winnings from lottery

Showing 1–20 of 361 · Page 1 of 19

...
15
Section 194C13
Section 14A12

M/S RECKITT BENCKISER (I) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. JCIT, R-12, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed while both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1671/KOL/2008[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 May 2016AY 2003-2004

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

Section 40

disallowed by the Assessing Officer under section 40(a)(i) for want of TDS. However, keeping in view that the assessee had already deducted tax under section 192

DEBJYOTI MISHRA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-22(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1411/KOL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: : Shri M.Balaganesh & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D.Shah, ld.ARFor Respondent: Md. Ghyas Uddin, JCIT, ld.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 234ASection 40

disallowed and added Rs.29,700/- under Chapter VIIB of the Finance Act. Ld.AR argued that in facts and circumstances of the case, the provisions of sections 192

CHNHB HEALTH INSURANCE CO. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 6(1), , KOLKATA

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

ITA 511/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Apr 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 250

section 14A read with Rule 8D are attracted. The computation of disallowable expenses u/s 14A read with Rule 8D is made hereunder: 8D2(i): Expenses directly relating to exempt income: Rs. 49,74,192

DCIT, CIRCLE - 8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. TATA RYERSON LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, both appeals of Revenue are dismissed and that of assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose and CO of assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1124/KOL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Sept 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year:2006-07

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40

section 1941(1)(ba) speaks of any remuneration or fees or commission by whatever name called other than those on which tax is deductible u/s. 192 to a director of a company on which tax has to be deducted at the applicable rate and the above provision has been inserted by the Finance

DCIT, CIRCLE - 8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. TATA STEEL PROCESSING & DISTRIBUTION LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, both appeals of Revenue are dismissed and that of assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose and CO of assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 379/KOL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Sept 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year:2006-07

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40

section 1941(1)(ba) speaks of any remuneration or fees or commission by whatever name called other than those on which tax is deductible u/s. 192 to a director of a company on which tax has to be deducted at the applicable rate and the above provision has been inserted by the Finance

TATA STEEL PROCESSING AND DISTRIBUTION LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both appeals of Revenue are dismissed and that of assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose and CO of assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 303/KOL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Sept 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year:2006-07

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40

section 1941(1)(ba) speaks of any remuneration or fees or commission by whatever name called other than those on which tax is deductible u/s. 192 to a director of a company on which tax has to be deducted at the applicable rate and the above provision has been inserted by the Finance

RANIGANJ CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,,RANIGANJ vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2, ASANSOL, ASANSOL

In the result, ITA No.1983/Kol/2014 is partly allowed while ITA

ITA 1983/KOL/2014[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Sept 2016AY 2008-2009

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm ] I.T.A Nos.1983 & 1984/Kol/2014 Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2009-10 Raniganj Co-Operative Bank Ltd. -Vs.- D.C.I.T., Circle-2 & Jcit Raniganj Range-2, Asansol (Pan:Aaffr 3315 J)) (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri U.Dasgupta, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, Jcit.Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri U.Dasgupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, JCIT.Sr.DR
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 24Section 6

disallowance can only lead to an inference that the AO was not satisfied with the claim of the Assessee that no expenditure was incurred to earn exempt income. 12. I have given a very careful consideration to the rival submissions. By the Finance Act of 2001, Parliament enacted section 14A with retrospective effect from April 1, 1962. Section

GLOSTER LTD(FORMERLY KNOWN AS KETTLEWELL BULLEN & CO. LTD,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-2, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 519/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Soumen Adak, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 194JSection 263Section 40Section 74

192. Assessee had also placed on record the break up of salary for both the persons to demonstrate inclusion of amount of commission paid in the subsequent year. 4.5. Ld. Counsel also referred to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act to assert that the disallowance

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6,, KOLKATA vs. LOKNATH SARAF SECURITIES LTD.,, KOLKATA

In the result, to sum up ITA No

ITA 852/KOL/2008[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jul 2016AY 2003-04

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

Section 43(5)Section 73

disallowed by him in the assessment completed under section 143(3) vide an order dated 13.12.2005. 6. Against the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3), an appeal was preferred by the assessee before the ld. CIT(Appeals) challenging, inter alia, the action of the Assessing Officer in I.T.A. No. 852/KOL./2008 Assessment year: 2003-2004 Assessment

ACIT, CIR. 2(1), JALPAIGURI vs. SHRI BHOLANATH AGARWAL, COOCHBEHAR

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

ITA 46/KOL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Jan 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

Section 131Section 133Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 188Section 250

192 of the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016. The AO has disallowed the claim of set-off of the appellant by further stating that the survey was conducted on 18.7.201.5. whereas the declaration under IDS 2016 had been made on 23.9.2016. I have gone through the sections

ALLBANK FINANCE LTD,KOLKATA vs. J.C.I.T (OSD) CIR - 5,KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 465/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jan 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri N.Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganeshita No. 465/Kol/2013 A.Y 2009-10

For Appellant: S/Shri B.K Ghosh & Pijush Dey, FCAs, ld.ARsFor Respondent: Shri S.S Alam, JCIT/Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)

disallowances amounting to Rs.12,24,192 under section 14A without bringing on record any cogent reasons for disregarding and rejecting

D.C.I.T CIR - 1,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ELDYNE ELECTRO SYSTEMS PVT LTD, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1353/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Feb 2016AY 2009-10

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

Section 192Section 194HSection 40

section 192. Necessary documentary evidence to show such deduction of tax from the payment of salary was also filed by the assessee and keeping in view the same, the ld. CIT(Appeals) deleted the disallowance

ACIT, CIRCLE-3, SURI, BIRBHUM, BIRBHUM vs. SRI SAROJIT KUMAR DEY, BIRBHUM

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2218/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Sept 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. No. 2218/Kol/2014 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Acit, Circle-3, Suri.............................……………………………………………………Appellant Aayakar Bhawan, Lalkuthipara Suri, Birbhum -731101 Shri Sarojit Kr. Dey……………….......................................................................Respondent Ahmadpur, Birbhum West Bengal, Pin - 731201 [Pan: Adqpd8637B] Appearances By: Shri Kalyan Nath, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. None Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 14, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 22, 2017 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Am This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of Learned Cit (Appeals) Asansol Dated 13.10.2014 On The Following Grounds: 1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit (A) Was Not Justified In Holding Rejection Of The Assessee’S Default In Complying The Provisions Of Section 194C(6) & (7). 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit (A) Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 75,82,759/- & Rs. 38,11,909/-. 3. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit (A) Was Not Correct In Law As Well As In Fact In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 7,00,000/- Taking The Plea Of Section 40(A)(Ia) Which Was Quoted By Mistake In His Order Though The Ao At The Beginning Narrated The Expenses As Per Section 192 Of The I.T. Act, 1961. 2. The Assessee In The Present Case Is An Individual Who Is Engaged In The Business Of Running Country Spirit Bottling Plant Cum Warehouse. The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration

Section 143(3)Section 192Section 194CSection 194C(6)Section 194C(7)Section 200(3)Section 40

192 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. The assessee in the present case is an individual who is engaged in the business of running country spirit bottling plant cum warehouse. The return of income for the year under consideration 2 I.T.A. No. 2218/Kol/2014 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sarojit Kr. Dey was filed by him on 11.10.2010 declaring a total

DCIT, CIRCLE - 1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. MCNALLY SAYAJI ENGINEERING LIMITED, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1575/KOL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Mar 2017AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Smt. Shreya Loyalka, CAFor Respondent: Md. Ghayas Uddin, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

192 of the Act on these employees. Hence the arguments of the ld DR is factually incorrect and deserves to be dismissed. In any case, she argued that since there is some deduction of tax at source, then it would only amount to short deduction of tax , for which the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act cannot

MC NALLY SAYAJI ENGINEERING LIMITED,NORTH 24 PARGANAS vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 1,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 927/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Smt. Shreya Loyalka, CAFor Respondent: Md. Ghayas Uddin, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

192 of the Act on these employees. Hence the arguments of the ld DR is factually incorrect and deserves to be dismissed. In any case, she argued that since there is some deduction of tax at source, then it would only amount to short deduction of tax , for which the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act cannot

SRI MANINDRA MOHAN MAZUMDAR,BURDWAN vs. JCIT, RANGE-1, ASANSOL, ASANSOL

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

ITA 2201/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 May 2018AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2201/Kol/2014 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Sri Manindra Mohan Vs. J.C.I.T, Range-1, Asansol Mazumdar Sahana Apartment Mother Teressa 19, Radhangar Road, Burnpur- 713325, Road, Lower Chelidanga, Asansol – Dist- Burdwan. 713304. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aelpm 0074 R (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 10(34)Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 14A

Section 14A read with Rule 8D. The assessee was also required to establish that no interest bearing funds were utilized for makinginvestment in instruments that has given exempt income or that will give exempt income to the assessee. Sri Manindra Mohan Mazumdar Assessment Year: 2009-10 5. ln response, the assessee, vide his letter dated 09.11.2011 & 16.11.2011 has furnishedhis reply

DCIT, LTU-2, KOLKATA vs. M/S CENTURY PLYBOARDS (I), LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objections of assessee are allowed

ITA 2149/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) &Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] Assessment Year: 2014-15

Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 14A

Section 80IE of the Act in respect of the profits derived by the Centply Unit located in the State of Assam, which was in its 6th year of claim. Along with the said note, the appellant also enclosed the relevant audit report in Form 10CCB issued by the Chartered Accountant and the stand-alone audited accounts of the eligible Assam

NF FORGINGS PVT. LTD., ,HOWRAH vs. PR.CIT - 1, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 790/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

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

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 263(1)

section 263, the following explanation was offered by the assessee in writing:- “The grounds raised for issue of show cause notice u/s 263(1) being that the Assessing Officer did not disallow the expenditure attributable to earning of exempt income u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D of the IT Act, 1961 and thus the assessment was passed without making enquiries/ verification

M/S PEERLESS HOSPITEX HOSPITAL AND RESERCH CENTRE LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1107/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Jul 2018AY 2009-2010

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1107/Kol/2014 Assessment Years : 2009-10 M/S Peerless Hospitex Hospital & Research Centre Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-11(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aabcp 7225 L ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Adv. (AR)For Respondent: Shri P. K. Srihari, CIT(DR)
Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 197(1)Section 40

192(1) of the 1961 Act. (iii) On the scope of section 201(1) and section 201(1A)………" 5.1. In view of the aforesaid findings in the facts and circumstances of the case and by respectfully following the aforesaid judicial precedent, we direct that no disallowance