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 192(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,100Delhi1,015Bangalore571Kolkata361Chennai248Indore177Jaipur135Hyderabad133Ahmedabad122Chandigarh82Nagpur74Cochin72Agra69Amritsar67Raipur62Lucknow62Pune50Cuttack47Visakhapatnam42Surat37Calcutta34Rajkot33Guwahati26Ranchi19SC14Jodhpur13Varanasi12Dehradun11Patna8Allahabad8Karnataka8Kerala5Telangana4Panaji4Orissa2Rajasthan2Uttarakhand1Jabalpur1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Punjab & Haryana1RANJAN GOGOI PRAFULLA C. PANT1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 250356Section 143(3)57Section 14745Addition to Income41Section 14838Disallowance30Section 26322Deduction22Section 4018Section 14A

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. HINDUSTAN URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.(HINDUSTAN VIDYUT PRODUCT LTD.,), NEW DELHI

ITA 1616/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 246ASection 271(1)(c)Section 40Section 40ASection 9(1)(vii)

Section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act and the appellant's payment of commission, without TDS will not be hit U/S 40(a)(i). Also, the jurisdictional High Court (Delhi HC) in CIT vs. Eon Technology Pvt. Ltd. 203 Taxman 268 (Delhi) has held, inter alia, as under - "When a non-resident agent operates outside the country no part

Showing 1–20 of 361 · Page 1 of 19

...
15
Section 69C12
TDS11

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. HINDUSTAN URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.(HINDUSTAN VIDYUT PRODUCT LTD.,), NEW DELHI

ITA 1615/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 246ASection 271(1)(c)Section 40Section 40ASection 9(1)(vii)

Section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act and the appellant's payment of commission, without TDS will not be hit U/S 40(a)(i). Also, the jurisdictional High Court (Delhi HC) in CIT vs. Eon Technology Pvt. Ltd. 203 Taxman 268 (Delhi) has held, inter alia, as under - "When a non-resident agent operates outside the country no part

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-2(2), KOLKATA vs. M/S SHALIMAR WIRES INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1354/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 5(2)(b)Section 9(1)

1). While interpreting a Section one has to give weightage to every word used in that section. While interpreting the provisions of the Income Tax Act one cannot read the charging Sections of that Act de hors the machinery Sections. The Act is to be read as an integrated Code. Section 195 appears in Chapter XVII which deals with collection

SINGHANIA & SONS (P) LTD,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 10(2), KOLKATA

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

ITA 412/KOL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Dec 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Hon’Ble Vice-, Kz) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Singhania & Sons Pvt. Ltd…………...............................................................………………….............Appellant 3D, Duckback House 41, Shakespeare Sarani Kolkata – 700 017 [Pan : Aadcs 6078 A] Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- Nfac...............................................………..…......Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manoj Katarua, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Biswanath Das, Addl. Cit, D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue.

Section 14ASection 250

1)(va) of the Act and Rs. 30,68,583/- being employers' contribution under being employers' contribution under Section 43B of the Act. CIT(A) deleted the addition by holding that the assessee Section 43B of the Act. CIT(A) deleted the addition by holding that the assessee Section 43B of the Act. CIT(A) deleted the addition by holding

M/S PREMIER IRRIGATION ADRITEC (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-11(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 387/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 2(24)Section 250Section 3Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

disallowable item, interest thereon could not be allowed and that the interest was in the nature of penalty for infraction of law and hence inadmissible. The Commissioner of income tax (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal, in that case had upheld the finding of the assessing officer. The Hon'ble High Court held that whenever interest is charged under

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

disallowance cannot be under sections 192, 194C and 194J of the Act as no such evidence brought on record to show that the said Assistant is an employee or carrying out any work under contract or rendered any professional or technical services to the Assessee as required under said charging sections. Therefore, we find force in the arguments

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

DESANA POLY PLASTIC INDUSTRIES,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 34, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 452/KOL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am ]

Section 139Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

1)(va) of the Act and Rs. 30,68,583/- being employers' contribution under Section 43B of the Act. CIT(A) deleted the addition by holding that the assessee had made the payment before the due date" of filing of the return, which was a fact apparent from the record - that if the employees' contribution is not deposited

M/S BALAJI EXPORT CORPORATION,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 29, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 530/KOL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Dec 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) &Shri A. T. Varkey] Assessment Year: 2019-20

Section 139Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

1)(va) of the Act and Rs. 30,68,583/- being employers' contribution under Section 43B of the Act. CIT(A) deleted the addition by holding that the assessee had made the payment before the due date" of filing of the return, which was a fact apparent from the record - that if the employees' contribution is not deposited

MAITHAN ALLOYS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 560/KOL/2021[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata11 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 139Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

1)(va) of the Act and Rs. 30,68,583/- being employers' contribution under Section 43B of the Act. CIT(A) deleted the addition by holding that the assessee had made the payment before the due date" of filing of the return, which was a fact apparent from the record - that if the employees' contribution is not deposited

MAITHAN ALLOYS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 559/KOL/2021[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata11 Feb 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 139Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

1)(va) of the Act and Rs. 30,68,583/- being employers' contribution under Section 43B of the Act. CIT(A) deleted the addition by holding that the assessee had made the payment before the due date" of filing of the return, which was a fact apparent from the record - that if the employees' contribution is not deposited

M/S JAYANTA FOOD PRODUCTS,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 383/KOL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey] I.T.A. Nos. 383 & 384/Kol/2021 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20

Section 139Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

1)(va) of the Act and Rs. 30,68,583/- being employers' contribution under Section 43B of the Act. CIT(A) deleted the addition by holding that the assessee had made the payment before the due date" of filing of the return, which was a fact apparent from the record - that if the employees' contribution is not deposited

M/S JAYANTA FOOD PRODUCTS,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 384/KOL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey] I.T.A. Nos. 383 & 384/Kol/2021 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20

Section 139Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

1)(va) of the Act and Rs. 30,68,583/- being employers' contribution under Section 43B of the Act. CIT(A) deleted the addition by holding that the assessee had made the payment before the due date" of filing of the return, which was a fact apparent from the record - that if the employees' contribution is not deposited

RAGHVENDRA PRATAP SINGH,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CPC, BANGAORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 556/KOL/2021[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata18 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey & Shri Rajesh Kumar] I.T.A. No. 556/Kol/2021 Assessment Years: 2019-20 Raghvendra Pratap Singh Vs. Dcit (Cpc) Bangalore (Pan: Amaps3456L) Appellant Respondent

Section 139Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

1)(va) of the Act and Rs. 30,68,583/- being employers' contribution under Section 43B of the Act. CIT(A) deleted the addition by holding that the assessee had made the payment before the due date" of filing of the return, which was a fact apparent from the record - that if the employees' contribution is not deposited

ARUN KUMAR BISWAS,BISHNUPUR vs. ITO, WARD-26(1), KOLKATA

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

ITA 370/KOL/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata16 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey] I.T.A. Nos. 370 & 408/Kol/2021 Assessment Years: 2018-19

Section 139Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

1)(va) of the Act and Rs. 30,68,583/- being employers' contribution under Section 43B of the Act. CIT(A) deleted the addition by holding that the assessee had made the payment before the due date" of filing of the return, which was a fact apparent from the record - that if the employees' contribution is not deposited

GANGOTRI HEALTH CARE & RESEARCH PVT. LTD. ,DARJEELING vs. CPC, BAGALORE(ACIT, CIR. 1, SILIGURI), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 580/KOL/2021[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata16 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey & Shri Rajesh Kumar] I.T.A. No. 580/Kol/2021 Assessment Years: 2019-20 Gangotri Health Care & Research Vs. Cpc, Bangalore [Acit, Cir-1, Pvt. Ltd. Siliguri] (Pan: Aafcg7852G) Appellant Respondent

Section 139Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

1)(va) of the Act and Rs. 30,68,583/- being employers' contribution under Section 43B of the Act. CIT(A) deleted the addition by holding that the assessee had made the payment before the due date" of filing of the return, which was a fact apparent from the record - that if the employees' contribution is not deposited

ARUN KUMAR BISWAS,BISHNUPUR vs. ITO, WARD-26(1), KOLKATA

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

ITA 408/KOL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey] I.T.A. Nos. 370 & 408/Kol/2021 Assessment Years: 2018-19

Section 139Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

1)(va) of the Act and Rs. 30,68,583/- being employers' contribution under Section 43B of the Act. CIT(A) deleted the addition by holding that the assessee had made the payment before the due date" of filing of the return, which was a fact apparent from the record - that if the employees' contribution is not deposited

ORANGE SECURITAS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.O. CIR. 6(2), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 490/KOL/2021[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata16 Feb 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey & Shri Rajesh Kumar] I.T.A. No. 490/Kol/2021 Assessment Years: 2017-18 Orange Securities Pvt. Ltd. Vs. A.O., Circle-6(2), Kolkata (Pan: Aaaco 8239 L) Appellant Respondent

Section 139Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

1)(va) of the Act and Rs. 30,68,583/- being employers' contribution under Section 43B of the Act. CIT(A) deleted the addition by holding that the assessee had made the payment before the due date" of filing of the return, which was a fact apparent from the record - that if the employees' contribution is not deposited

HIND ELECTRIC & TRADING CO.,KOLKATA vs. CPC/ITO, WD-40(3), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 464/KOL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey] I.T.A. No. 464/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2019-20

Section 139Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

1)(va) of the Act and Rs. 30,68,583/- being employers' contribution under Section 43B of the Act. CIT(A) deleted the addition by holding that the assessee had made the payment before the due date" of filing of the return, which was a fact apparent from the record - that if the employees' contribution is not deposited

PREMIER IRRIGATION ADRITEE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 11(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 481/KOL/2021[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata16 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey & Shri Rajesh Kumar] I.T.A. No. 481/Kol/2021 Assessment Years: 2019-20 Premier Irrigation Adritec Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit, Circle-11(1), Kolkata (Pan: Aafcm 4800 Q) Appellant Respondent

Section 139Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

1)(va) of the Act and Rs. 30,68,583/- being employers' contribution under Section 43B of the Act. CIT(A) deleted the addition by holding that the assessee had made the payment before the due date" of filing of the return, which was a fact apparent from the record - that if the employees' contribution is not deposited