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.

149 results for “disallowance”+ Section 244clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai732Delhi597Chennai241Bangalore184Kolkata149Ahmedabad112Cochin96Jaipur93Hyderabad67Nagpur63Pune62Lucknow43Indore38Calcutta36Cuttack33Visakhapatnam30Surat28Chandigarh27Amritsar23Raipur23Allahabad20Ranchi17Rajkot16Karnataka10Agra6SC6Jodhpur5Varanasi5Telangana3Jabalpur2Punjab & Haryana2Guwahati2ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Patna1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)91Section 271(1)(c)89Section 27484Section 14A64Addition to Income61Disallowance60Deduction28Section 4027Penalty27Section 68

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 14A (1) and 14A(2) read with rule 8D. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Kolkata Tribunal in the Company's own case for Y 2002-03 [kindly refer pages 127-133 of the paper book]. In this case, the AO had disallowed proportionate interest expenditure. The company contended that although

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

Showing 1–20 of 149 · Page 1 of 8

...
26
Section 143(2)24
Section 26323
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 14A (1) and 14A(2) read with rule 8D. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Kolkata Tribunal in the Company's own case for Y 2002-03 [kindly refer pages 127-133 of the paper book]. In this case, the AO had disallowed proportionate interest expenditure. The company contended that although

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 14A (1) and 14A(2) read with rule 8D. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Kolkata Tribunal in the Company's own case for Y 2002-03 [kindly refer pages 127-133 of the paper book]. In this case, the AO had disallowed proportionate interest expenditure. The company contended that although

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

section 37. For this conclusion, we draw support from the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT –vs.- Mahalakshmi Textiles Mills Limited –vs.- CIT [66 ITR 710], wherein it was held that in a case, where the productive unit set up by the asessee remained the same but a part of it, which has become

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

section 37. For this conclusion, we draw support from the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT –vs.- Mahalakshmi Textiles Mills Limited –vs.- CIT [66 ITR 710], wherein it was held that in a case, where the productive unit set up by the asessee remained the same but a part of it, which has become

ITO, WD-7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S M.S.K. TRAVELS AND TOURS LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 284/KOL/2015[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jun 2018AY 2008-2009

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ]

For Appellant: Shri N.B.Som, Addl. CIT, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Bikash Chanda, AR
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 5(2)Section 9Section 9(1)(i)Section 9(2)Section 90(1)

Disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) is, therefore, deleted.” This is what leaves the Revenue aggrieved. 5. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions. It emerges first of all that the India-Sweden Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement contains a protocol forming part of case records before us at pages 14 to 15. This protocol clause with reference

EASTERN INDIA EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION,KOLKATA vs. ITO, (EXEMPTION)-II, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 654/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Dec 2016AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.654/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2011-2012) Eastern India Educational Vs. The Income Tax Officer Institution, (Exemption)-Ii, 10B, Birla Building, 4Th Floor, Middleton Row, 5Th Floor, 9/1, R.N.Mukherjee Road, Kolkata-700071 Kolkata-700071 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaate 0448 G .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri D.S.Damle, Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri G.Mallikarjuna, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 29/11/2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 07/12/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2011-2012, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), Kolkata, Dated 29.3.2016, U/S.263 Of The I.T.Act. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessment U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The Ay. 2011-12 Was Completed An 18.03.2014 Determining The Total Income At Rs. 20,35,850/- . On Further Verification Of Records, It Has Been Found That Dividend Income At Rs.3,21,19,822/- Was Earned By The Assessee & Claimed Exempt U/S. 10(34) Of The I.T. Act, 1961. As Per Provisions Of Section 14A Of The I.T.Act, 1961, Expenditure Incurred In Relation To Income Which Do Not Form Part Of Total Income Requires To Be Disallowed In Accordance With The Provisions Of Rule 8D Of The I. T. Rules, 1962. The Computation Of Such Disallowance Was Made In The Assessment Order, Which Was Determined

For Appellant: Shri D.S.Damle, ARFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT DR
Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 263

Section 14A(2) of the Income Tax Act states that: "The Assessing Officer shall determine the amount of expenditure incurred in relation to such income which does not form part of the total income under this Act in accordance with such method as may be prescribed .... ". In view of the above, disallowance u/s. 14A offered by the assessee

ACIT, CC-2(1), KOL, KOLKATA vs. SHALIMAR HATCHERIES LIMITED, KOLKATA

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

ITA 546/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 546/Kol/2023) Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Appellant Central Circle-2(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 3Rd Floor, 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata-700107 -Vs.- Shalimar Hatcheries Ltd.,......................Respondent 46C, Chowringhee Road, Park Street, 17Th Floor, Everest House, Kolkata-700071 [Pan: Aadcs6537J] - A N D - C.O. No. 13/Kol/2023 (In I.T.A. No. 546/Kol/2023) Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Shalimar Hatcheries Ltd.,..................Cross Objector 46C, Chowringhee Road, Park Street, Kolkata-700071 [Pan: Aadcs6537J] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Central Circle-2(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata-700107 Appearances By: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue

Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 35(1)(ii)

244 (Bombay) – Order dated 08.08.2023; (viii) Ferrous Infra Pvt. Ltd. –vs.- DCIT- 63 taxmann.com 201 (Delhi)- Order dated 21.05.2015. Sr. 1 to 8 (index) 5 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 & C.O. No. 13/KOL/2023 (in ITA No. 546/KOL/2023) Shalimar Hatcheries Ltd. The copies of these decisions have been filed before us as discernable from the above Index. 9. We have duly considered

DCIT, CIR-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S KHAITAN INDIA LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue(in Ground Nos

ITA 1217/KOL/2015[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Dec 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1216 & 1217/Kol/2015 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10) Dcit, Circle-11(1), Kol Vs. M/S. Khaitan India Ltd. P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata 46C, J.L. Nehru Road, – 69. “Everest House”, 18Th Floor, Kolkata – 700 071. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabck 2326 B (Assessee) .. (Respondent) Assesseeby:Shrisallongyaden, Addl. Cit Respondent By:Shri Arvind Agarwal, Adv. & Shri. Sanjay Bhattacharya, Fca सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 21/09/2017 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20/11/2017

For Appellant: ShriSallongYaden, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Agarwal, Adv. & Shri. Sanjay Bhattacharya, FCA
Section 10(34)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

244/- Total Rs.27,67,92,553/- Average value of investment Rs.1 3,83,96,277 l- ..... (B) Value of assets (as per B/S) as on 01.04.2007 Rs. 86,02,71,056/- Value of assets (as per B/S),as on 31.03.2008 Rs. 94,65,06,232/- Total - Rs.180,67,77,288/- Average value of total assets Rs.90

DCIT, CIR-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S KHAITAN INDIA LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue(in Ground Nos

ITA 1216/KOL/2015[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Dec 2017AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1216 & 1217/Kol/2015 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10) Dcit, Circle-11(1), Kol Vs. M/S. Khaitan India Ltd. P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata 46C, J.L. Nehru Road, – 69. “Everest House”, 18Th Floor, Kolkata – 700 071. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabck 2326 B (Assessee) .. (Respondent) Assesseeby:Shrisallongyaden, Addl. Cit Respondent By:Shri Arvind Agarwal, Adv. & Shri. Sanjay Bhattacharya, Fca सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 21/09/2017 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20/11/2017

For Appellant: ShriSallongYaden, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Agarwal, Adv. & Shri. Sanjay Bhattacharya, FCA
Section 10(34)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

244/- Total Rs.27,67,92,553/- Average value of investment Rs.1 3,83,96,277 l- ..... (B) Value of assets (as per B/S) as on 01.04.2007 Rs. 86,02,71,056/- Value of assets (as per B/S),as on 31.03.2008 Rs. 94,65,06,232/- Total - Rs.180,67,77,288/- Average value of total assets Rs.90

ANJALI JEWELLERS,KOLKATA vs. PCIT, CENTRAL-1, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 140/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey]

Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 4,38,244/-. Thereafter the AO notes that the Ld. A.R. of the assessee had appeared along with accountant of the assessee and had produced books of accounts and supporting documents along with bank statement and finances as requisitioned by him. And the AO acknowledges that he has gone through the details and documents

ITO, WARD - 1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ATN INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 1531/KOL/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Oct 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri Rajat Kr. Kureel, JCIT, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Miraj D. Shah, AR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 73

section 47(iv) of the Act. But the ld AO not convinced with this contention stated that since the value of transferred assets to the tune of Rs. 60,56,419/- were not deducted by the assessee in the depreciation schedule, it had claimed excess depreciation of Rs. 15,05,244/- and accordingly the same was disallowed

M/S. SPML INFRA LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 8(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

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

ITA 1228/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1228/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Ms. Lata Goyal, ACAFor Respondent: Shri Radhey Shyam, CIT
Section 263

section 142 of the Act, as explained above, therefore order passed by Assessing Officer should be quashed. The ld Counsel further submitted before us that it is also the matter of fact that both the projects undertaken by the assessee were Government projects and were duly monitored by the authorities who have given the said projects to the assessee

DCIT, CIRCLE - 8(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. SPML INFRA LIMITED , KOLKATA

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

ITA 1211/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1228/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Ms. Lata Goyal, ACAFor Respondent: Shri Radhey Shyam, CIT
Section 263

section 142 of the Act, as explained above, therefore order passed by Assessing Officer should be quashed. The ld Counsel further submitted before us that it is also the matter of fact that both the projects undertaken by the assessee were Government projects and were duly monitored by the authorities who have given the said projects to the assessee

SMT TARAMONI JALAN,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-43(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 886/KOL/2015[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Jan 2016AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap

Section 143(3)Section 22Section 24

244 ITR 1, the Assessing Officer held that the said amount was chargeable to tax in the hands of the assessee as income from other sources and accordingly the standard deduction claimed by the asseessee under section 24 was disallowed

DCIT, CIR-11(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S P C CHANDRA (JEWELLERS) PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1197/KOL/2015[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Feb 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2011-12 Dct, Crcle-11(2), V/S. M/S P.C. Chandra P-7, Chowringhee (Jewellers), Pvt. Ltd., Square, Kolkta-69 49C, Gaiahat Road, Kolkata-19 [Pan No.Aabcp 8654 M] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. Cit-Sr-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 11-01-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 02-02-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kolkata Dated 06.07.2015. Assessment Was Framed By Dcit, Circle-11, Kolkata U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 28.08.2013 For Assessment Year 2011-12. Revenue Has Raised Following Ground:- “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Assessee Ld. Cit Has Erred In Deleting The Penalty Of Rs.23,68,786/- Imposed U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The It Act. 1961. 2. That The Appellant Craves For Leave To Add, Delete Or Modify Any Of The Grounds Of Appeal Before Or All The Time Of Hearing.”

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

244 CTR 631 states that "section 271 no where ITA No.1197/Kol/2015 A.Y. 2011-12 DCIT, Cir-11(2), Kol. Vs. M/s PCC(Jewellers), Pvt. Ltd. Page 4 mandates that recording of satisfaction about concealment of assessee's income must be in specific terms and words, satisfaction of AO must reflect from the order either with expressed words recorded

DCIT,CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ALL INDIA TECHNOLOGIES LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 52/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganeshassessment Year :2009-10

Section 143(3)Section 32Section 32(1)Section 32(2)Section 40

section 32(2) of the Act. , The Appellant requests to give direction to allow depreciation allowance accordingly.” 4.2.3 I agree with the contention of the appellant. In view of decisions cited supra I agree that unabsorbed depreciation subsisting as on 1-4-2002, can be carried forward indefinitely. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Reliance Jute and Industries

TCG FACILITIES MANAGEMENT SERVICES PVT LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1631/KOL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1631/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tibrewal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Shankar Halder, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)

section, which needs to be strictly construed. For this, we rely on the judgment of TCG Facilities Management Services Pvt. Ltd. ITA Nos.1631&1648/Kol/2016 Assessment Year:2010-11 theHon’ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of SAIL DSP VR Employees Association 1998 vs. Union of India (2003) 128 Taxman 704 (Calcutta). Therefore, we remit the issue back

ACIT, CIR-2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S TCG FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PVT LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1648/KOL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1631/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tibrewal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Shankar Halder, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)

section, which needs to be strictly construed. For this, we rely on the judgment of TCG Facilities Management Services Pvt. Ltd. ITA Nos.1631&1648/Kol/2016 Assessment Year:2010-11 theHon’ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of SAIL DSP VR Employees Association 1998 vs. Union of India (2003) 128 Taxman 704 (Calcutta). Therefore, we remit the issue back

DCIT, CIRCLE - 8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. E.I.H. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA NO

ITA 2182/KOL/2006[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2015AY 2003-04

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri R.N Bajoria, Sr.Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rajat Subhra Biswas, ld.CIT/DR
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

disallowance is not made by the Learned AO for the Asst Year 2002-03 (i.e the earlier year) and in Asst Year 2005-06 ( in subsequent year). Moreover, there is absolutely no basis for making the disallowance at the rate of 25% of total general charges by the Learned AO. Accordingly, we find no infirmity in the order