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.

167 results for “disallowance”+ Section 239clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi818Mumbai643Chennai297Bangalore189Kolkata167Jaipur57Ahmedabad56Raipur55Hyderabad52Pune38Surat29Amritsar28Lucknow20Chandigarh19Indore16Rajkot15Cuttack15Karnataka12SC7Ranchi6Nagpur6Guwahati5Cochin5Panaji5Patna4Telangana4Agra4Jodhpur4Varanasi2Jabalpur2Punjab & Haryana2Allahabad2Visakhapatnam1Kerala1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)85Section 14A72Deduction60Addition to Income55Disallowance54Section 80I50Section 115J42Section 26341Section 4024Depreciation

DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. COAL INDIA LIMITED , KOLKATA

ITA 623/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2026AY 2012-13
Section 115JSection 250

section 37(1) of the Act, he disallowed a sum of ₹19,25,000/- and added the same to the total income of the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) decided the issue against the assessee as the assessee could not establish that the liability had crystallised during the year and thus was allowable as a deduction and his finding

DCIT, CIR-5(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S COAL INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

ITA 1697/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2026AY 2014-15
Section 115J

section 37(1) of the Act, he disallowed\na sum of ₹19,25,000/- and added the same to the total income of the\nassessee. The Ld. CIT(A) decided the issue against the assessee as the\nassessee could not establish that the liability had crystallised during\nthe year and thus was allowable as a deduction and his finding

Showing 1–20 of 167 · Page 1 of 9

...
24
Section 25016
Section 14716

DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. COAL INDIA LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 622/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2026AY 2011-12
Section 115J

section 37(1) of the Act, he disallowed\na sum of ₹19,25,000/- and added the same to the total income of the\nassessee. The Ld. CIT(A) decided the issue against the assessee as the\nassessee could not establish that the liability had crystallised during\nthe year and thus was allowable as a deduction and his finding

DCIT, CIR-5(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S COAL INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

ITA 1696/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2026AY 2013-14
Section 115J

section 37(1) of the Act, he disallowed\na sum of ₹19,25,000/- and added the same to the total income of the\nassessee. The Ld. CIT(A) decided the issue against the assessee as the\nassessee could not establish that the liability had crystallised during\nthe year and thus was allowable as a deduction and his finding

M/S. COAL INDIA LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

ITA 1406/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2026AY 2013-14
Section 115J

section 37(1) of the Act, he disallowed\na sum of ₹19,25,000/- and added the same to the total income of the\nassessee. The Ld. CIT(A) decided the issue against the assessee as the\nassessee could not establish that the liability had crystallised during\nthe year and thus was allowable as a deduction and his finding

COAL INDIA LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

ITA 467/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2026AY 2012-13
Section 115J

section 37(1) of the Act, he disallowed\na sum of ₹19,25,000/- and added the same to the total income of the\nassessee. The Ld. CIT(A) decided the issue against the assessee as the\nassessee could not establish that the liability had crystallised during\nthe year and thus was allowable as a deduction and his finding

DALMIA SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-12, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee ( in ITA no

ITA 1937/KOL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Aug 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1937/Kol/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dalmia Securities (P) Ltd. Vs. D.C.I.T, Cir-12, Kolkata Ideal Plaza, 4Th Floor, 11/1 Sarat Bose Aayakarbhawan, P-7, Rood, Kolkata – 700 069. Chowrighee Square, Kolkata – 700 069. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcd1813G (Assessee) .. (Revenue/Department) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2078/Kol/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 D.C.I.T, Cir-12, Kolkata Vs. Dalmia Securities (P) Ltd. Aayakarbhawan, P-7, Ideal Plaza, 4Th Floor, 11/1 Chowrighee Square, Kolkata – Sarat Bose Rood, Kolkata – 700 069. 700 069. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcd 1813 G (Revenue/Department) .. (Assessee) िनधा"रतीकीओरसे /Assessee By : Shri Asim Choudhury, Advocate राज"कीओरसे /Revenue By :Shri Sallongyaden, Acit, Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 16/08/2017 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 31/08/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Two Cross-Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Pertaining To Assessment Year 2011-12, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Kolkata In Appeal No.499/Cit(A)-18/11-12/Cir- 12(1)/Kol, Dated 08.08.2016, Which Is Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961,(Herein After Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 21.02.2014. 2. These Two Cross-Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Respectively Relate To The Same Assessee, Same Assessment Year, Identical

For Appellant: Shri Asim Choudhury, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri SallongYaden, ACIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

disallowance of Rs.8,18,239/- under Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D(iii) of the lncome Tax Rules

DCIT,CIRCLE-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S DALMIA SECURITIES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee ( in ITA no

ITA 2078/KOL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Aug 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1937/Kol/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dalmia Securities (P) Ltd. Vs. D.C.I.T, Cir-12, Kolkata Ideal Plaza, 4Th Floor, 11/1 Sarat Bose Aayakarbhawan, P-7, Rood, Kolkata – 700 069. Chowrighee Square, Kolkata – 700 069. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcd1813G (Assessee) .. (Revenue/Department) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2078/Kol/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 D.C.I.T, Cir-12, Kolkata Vs. Dalmia Securities (P) Ltd. Aayakarbhawan, P-7, Ideal Plaza, 4Th Floor, 11/1 Chowrighee Square, Kolkata – Sarat Bose Rood, Kolkata – 700 069. 700 069. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcd 1813 G (Revenue/Department) .. (Assessee) िनधा"रतीकीओरसे /Assessee By : Shri Asim Choudhury, Advocate राज"कीओरसे /Revenue By :Shri Sallongyaden, Acit, Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 16/08/2017 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 31/08/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Two Cross-Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Pertaining To Assessment Year 2011-12, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Kolkata In Appeal No.499/Cit(A)-18/11-12/Cir- 12(1)/Kol, Dated 08.08.2016, Which Is Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961,(Herein After Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 21.02.2014. 2. These Two Cross-Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Respectively Relate To The Same Assessee, Same Assessment Year, Identical

For Appellant: Shri Asim Choudhury, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri SallongYaden, ACIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

disallowance of Rs.8,18,239/- under Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D(iii) of the lncome Tax Rules

M/S. SWAGAT TREXIM PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 3(1), KOLKATA (FORMERLY D.C.I.T., CC - 3(2), KOLKATA), KOLKATA

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

ITA 1850/KOL/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Dec 2024AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 1850/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2011-2012 M/S. Swagat Trexim Pvt. Limited,..…………Appellant 32/7, Sahapur Colony, Kolkata-700053 [Pan:Aaecs1238F] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………...Respondent Ward-3(1), Kolkata, [Formerly Dcit, Central Circle-3(2), Kolkata] Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri A.K. Tulsian, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Kallol Mistry, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: November 21, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: December 11, 2024 O R D E R

Section 1Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14A

239/- on its investment and the same was offered for tax. Thereafter ld. Assessing Officer added back the dividend income which was offered to tax by invoking the provisions of section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Act and proceeded to make disallowance

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2011-12 &

ITA 2111/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37(1)Section 40Section 43B

disallowance was made in the assessment year 2006-07 and in first appeal, the CIT(A) by order dated July 9, 2010 deleted the addition made by the AO. Against the said order, the revenue preferred further appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal, being ITA No. 1936 (Kol) of 2010. The said appeal has since been rejected

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2011-12 &

ITA 2112/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37(1)Section 40Section 43B

disallowance was made in the assessment year 2006-07 and in first appeal, the CIT(A) by order dated July 9, 2010 deleted the addition made by the AO. Against the said order, the revenue preferred further appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal, being ITA No. 1936 (Kol) of 2010. The said appeal has since been rejected

BIRLA CORPORATION LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-6(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2011-12 &

ITA 494/KOL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37(1)Section 40Section 43B

disallowance was made in the assessment year 2006-07 and in first appeal, the CIT(A) by order dated July 9, 2010 deleted the addition made by the AO. Against the said order, the revenue preferred further appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal, being ITA No. 1936 (Kol) of 2010. The said appeal has since been rejected

BIRLA CORPORATION LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-6(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2011-12 &

ITA 495/KOL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37(1)Section 40Section 43B

disallowance was made in the assessment year 2006-07 and in first appeal, the CIT(A) by order dated July 9, 2010 deleted the addition made by the AO. Against the said order, the revenue preferred further appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal, being ITA No. 1936 (Kol) of 2010. The said appeal has since been rejected

ITO, WARD-36(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. SRI RAM COMMERCIAL CO., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2200/KOL/2014[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Apr 2017AY 2011-2012
Section 142(1)Section 14ASection 40

239/- as against the disallowances of Rs. 24,95,563/-. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) is not correct in accepting the fresh computation violating Rule 46A and thereby, allowing the disallowable expenditure even below the expenditure disallowed by the assessee in its return of income. 4. On the facts

RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA) LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T, RANGE-12, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeals are dismissed and the Assessee’s appeal in I

ITA 2151/KOL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Sept 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 2113/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2006-07 Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata -Vs- M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2150/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2006-07 M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2114/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata -Vs- M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2151/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2008-09 M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 760/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 762/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata -Vs- M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Md. Usman, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 80I

disallowance of Rs. 50,000/- pertaining to its exempt income. Learned Senior Counsel is very fair in pointing out that our discussion on the twin identical issues in assessment year 2006-07 have already upheld the CIT(A) findings in preceding years. We thus reject this tax payer’s appeal I.T.A. No. 2151/Kol/2013. 7. Coming to Revenue’s appeal

RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA) LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T, RANGE-12, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeals are dismissed and the Assessee’s appeal in I

ITA 2150/KOL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Sept 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 2113/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2006-07 Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata -Vs- M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2150/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2006-07 M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2114/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata -Vs- M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2151/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2008-09 M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 760/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 762/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata -Vs- M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Md. Usman, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 80I

disallowance of Rs. 50,000/- pertaining to its exempt income. Learned Senior Counsel is very fair in pointing out that our discussion on the twin identical issues in assessment year 2006-07 have already upheld the CIT(A) findings in preceding years. We thus reject this tax payer’s appeal I.T.A. No. 2151/Kol/2013. 7. Coming to Revenue’s appeal

DCIT/CIR-12/KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA) LTD., KOLKATA

Appeals are dismissed and the Assessee’s appeal in I

ITA 2114/KOL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Sept 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 2113/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2006-07 Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata -Vs- M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2150/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2006-07 M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2114/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata -Vs- M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2151/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2008-09 M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 760/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 762/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata -Vs- M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Md. Usman, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 80I

disallowance of Rs. 50,000/- pertaining to its exempt income. Learned Senior Counsel is very fair in pointing out that our discussion on the twin identical issues in assessment year 2006-07 have already upheld the CIT(A) findings in preceding years. We thus reject this tax payer’s appeal I.T.A. No. 2151/Kol/2013. 7. Coming to Revenue’s appeal

DCIT, CIR-12, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA) LTD., KOLKATA

Appeals are dismissed and the Assessee’s appeal in I

ITA 762/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Sept 2018AY 2009-2010

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 2113/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2006-07 Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata -Vs- M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2150/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2006-07 M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2114/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata -Vs- M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2151/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2008-09 M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 760/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 762/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata -Vs- M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Md. Usman, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 80I

disallowance of Rs. 50,000/- pertaining to its exempt income. Learned Senior Counsel is very fair in pointing out that our discussion on the twin identical issues in assessment year 2006-07 have already upheld the CIT(A) findings in preceding years. We thus reject this tax payer’s appeal I.T.A. No. 2151/Kol/2013. 7. Coming to Revenue’s appeal

D.C.I.T CIR - 12,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA) LTD, KOLKATA

Appeals are dismissed and the Assessee’s appeal in I

ITA 2113/KOL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Sept 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 2113/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2006-07 Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata -Vs- M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2150/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2006-07 M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2114/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata -Vs- M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2151/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2008-09 M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 760/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 762/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata -Vs- M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Md. Usman, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 80I

disallowance of Rs. 50,000/- pertaining to its exempt income. Learned Senior Counsel is very fair in pointing out that our discussion on the twin identical issues in assessment year 2006-07 have already upheld the CIT(A) findings in preceding years. We thus reject this tax payer’s appeal I.T.A. No. 2151/Kol/2013. 7. Coming to Revenue’s appeal

RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-12, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeals are dismissed and the Assessee’s appeal in I

ITA 760/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Sept 2018AY 2009-2010

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 2113/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2006-07 Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata -Vs- M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2150/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2006-07 M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2114/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata -Vs- M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2151/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2008-09 M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 760/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 762/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Dcit, Circle-12, Kolkata -Vs- M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 2655 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Md. Usman, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 80I

disallowance of Rs. 50,000/- pertaining to its exempt income. Learned Senior Counsel is very fair in pointing out that our discussion on the twin identical issues in assessment year 2006-07 have already upheld the CIT(A) findings in preceding years. We thus reject this tax payer’s appeal I.T.A. No. 2151/Kol/2013. 7. Coming to Revenue’s appeal