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.

103 results for “disallowance”+ Section 260Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi967Mumbai363Karnataka310Calcutta190Chennai138Bangalore110Kolkata103Telangana100Amritsar48Jaipur36Kerala34Hyderabad33Indore27Nagpur25SC20Lucknow19Ahmedabad18Punjab & Haryana18Chandigarh16Surat10Raipur10Pune9Cochin8Orissa5Allahabad3Panaji3Dehradun2Cuttack2Visakhapatnam1Agra1Andhra Pradesh1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Gauhati1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1Jodhpur1Rajasthan1Tripura1Varanasi1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)101Section 14A79Addition to Income58Disallowance53Section 6838Section 80I36Section 25034Deduction34Section 26329Section 43B

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

disallowances and restrict the addition by applying Net Profit rate @ 8% of gross receipts. Appeal of assessee is allowed”. I.T.A. No. 277/KOL./2016 Assessment year: 2010-2011 Page 33 of 38 26. Against the order passed by the Tribunal in the case of Shri Arun Bhowmik (supra), an appeal under section 260A

KESORAM INDUSTRIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Showing 1–20 of 103 · Page 1 of 6

27
Long Term Capital Gains19
Capital Gains17

In the result the revenue’s appeals for A

ITA 1188/KOL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

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

Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

disallowed the claim of further depreciation to the extent of Rs. 1,15,41,587/- on the premise that the department is in appeal under section 260A

D.C.I.T CIR - 5,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S KESORAM INDUSTRIES LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result the revenue’s appeals for A

ITA 1995/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

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

Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

disallowed the claim of further depreciation to the extent of Rs. 1,15,41,587/- on the premise that the department is in appeal under section 260A

ACIT, CIRCLE-5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S KESORAM INDUSTRIES. LTD, KOLKATA

In the result the revenue’s appeals for A

ITA 1722/KOL/2012[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Apr 2018AY 2008-2009

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

Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

disallowed the claim of further depreciation to the extent of Rs. 1,15,41,587/- on the premise that the department is in appeal under section 260A

KESORAM INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the revenue’s appeals for A

ITA 505/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

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

Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

disallowed the claim of further depreciation to the extent of Rs. 1,15,41,587/- on the premise that the department is in appeal under section 260A

KESORAM INDUSTRIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ADD.CIT,RANGE-5,, KOLKATA

In the result the revenue’s appeals for A

ITA 1037/KOL/2012[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Apr 2018AY 2008-2009

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

Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

disallowed the claim of further depreciation to the extent of Rs. 1,15,41,587/- on the premise that the department is in appeal under section 260A

KESORAM INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ADDL C.I.T RG - 5,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the revenue’s appeals for A

ITA 773/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

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

Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

disallowed the claim of further depreciation to the extent of Rs. 1,15,41,587/- on the premise that the department is in appeal under section 260A

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

disallowed the claim on the ground that initial depreciation is available only in the year of purchase and cannot be claimed in the subsequent year. The ld. CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee by following the decision of this Hon’ble Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2007-08. 10.1. It is submitted that

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

disallowed the claim on the ground that initial depreciation is available only in the year of purchase and cannot be claimed in the subsequent year. The ld. CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee by following the decision of this Hon’ble Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2007-08. 10.1. It is submitted that

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

disallowed the claim on the ground that initial depreciation is available only in the year of purchase and cannot be claimed in the subsequent year. The ld. CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee by following the decision of this Hon’ble Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2007-08. 10.1. It is submitted that

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

disallowed the claim on the ground that initial depreciation is available only in the year of purchase and cannot be claimed in the subsequent year. The ld. CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee by following the decision of this Hon’ble Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2007-08. 10.1. It is submitted that

M/S SHREENATH HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.,HOWRAH vs. I.T.O.,WARD-5(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2390/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble] I.T.A. No. 2390/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Shreenath Holding Pvt. Ltd…………...……………....……..…………..………………....……Appellant 33/34, Ramlal Mukherjee Lane 2Nd Floor Room No. 2D Howrah - 711106 [Pan: Aadcs 5887 P] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1), Kolkata…………………………..............….....….…......Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sunil Surana, A/R, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Jayanta Khanra, Jcit, Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 24Th, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 26Th, 2020 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 2, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The “Ld.Cit(A)”), Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’), Dt. 17/10/2019, For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Is A Company & Is Engaged In The Business Of Trading & Distribution Of Goods. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 16/08/2012 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.15,500/-. During The Year, The Assessee Raised Share Capital Including Premium Amounting To Rs.1,13,55,000/-. The Assessing Officer Conducted Enquiries & The Assessee Presented The Share Holders Including The Directors Of The Share Holding Companies Before The Assessing Officer. After Due Enquiry, The Assessing Officer Accepted The Explanations Of The Assessee That The Cash Credits In The Form Of Share Capital Were Genuine, Except In The Case Of M/S. Seacom Merchants, Which Had Applied For Shares. An Amount Of Rs. 20,00,000/- Pertaining To M/S. Seacom Merchants, Was Added.

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 68

260A of the Income Tax Act cannot reappreciate the evidence to come to any contrary evidence. Income Tax Act cannot reappreciate the evidence to come to any contrary evidence. Income Tax Act cannot reappreciate the evidence to come to any contrary evidence. Considering that the authorities have rendered the findings of facts based on that the authorities have rendered

BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-7(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 462/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35(1)(i)Section 43BSection 56(2)(x)Section 80J

Disallowance of prior period expenses. 13. We note that the revenue audit team has pointed out certain objections during the course of audit before the ld. Assessing Officer and then ld. Assessing Officer proposed these issues to the ld. PCIT to invoke jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. We have also examined the audit objections raised by the audit

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. GREENEX CHEMICALS PVT. LTD.,, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1983/KOL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. J.Sudhakar Reddy & Sh.S.S.Viswanethra Ravivs Acit, M/S. Greenex Chemicals Central Circle-2(4), Pvt.Ltd., 4/1, Middleton Aayakar Bhawan, Street, 5Th Floor, Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700071. Kolkata-700107. Pan-Aaacg8396G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. A.K.Singh, Cit Dr Respondent By Sh. M.D.Shah, Ar Date Of Hearing 13.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 20.03.2019 Order Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravithis Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 18.04.2016 Passed By Cit(A)-20, Kolkata For Ay 2014-15 U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “Act”).

Section 143(3)

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. No substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. The appeal and the stay petition, accordingly, shall stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.” 4.1. The Jurisdictional Tribunal in the case of Kamla Prasad Kajaria (HUF) vs. ITO; ITA No. 1760/Kol/2017; order dt. 24/05/2018, under similar circumstances held

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

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed as not maintainable and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 300/KOL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Aug 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: S/Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.A & A.K. Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Aroop Kumar, CIT
Section 143(3)

Section 260A. No substantial question of law is raised. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.” ' It is pertinent to note that the decision of Bombay High Court was subjected to further appeal by the revenue before the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Special Leave Petition (SLP) was dismissed by the Supreme Court. 5.17. We also find that there

M/S. LOKNATH SARAF SECURITIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 6, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed as not maintainable and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 418/KOL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Aug 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: S/Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.A & A.K. Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Aroop Kumar, CIT
Section 143(3)

Section 260A. No substantial question of law is raised. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.” ' It is pertinent to note that the decision of Bombay High Court was subjected to further appeal by the revenue before the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Special Leave Petition (SLP) was dismissed by the Supreme Court. 5.17. We also find that there

ITO, WARD-5(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S VISHNU DISTRIBUTORS PVT LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is devoid of any merit, hence dismissed

ITA 50/KOL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 50/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2012-2013

Section 131Section 14ASection 68

260A of the Income Tax Act, (the Act) and they are required to examine as to whether any substantial questions of law arise for consideration, we exercise our discretion in the matter and condone the delay in filing the appeal. ITAT/187/2023 This appeal by the revenue is directed against the order dated 27th March, 2019 passed by the Income

ITO, WARD - 40(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. SHRI VISHWANATH GUPTA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 1732/KOL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी एम .बालागणेश, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

Section 10(38)Section 11Section 142(1)Section 68

section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeal is, therefore, summarily dismissed. We make no order as to costs. We also note that the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court held that the Assessing Officer 8. was not justified in disallowing

DCIT, C.C.-3(4), KOLKATA vs. M/S TANISHQUE TRADE LINK PVT. LTD, HOWRAH

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 17/KOL/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Mar 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 17/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tanishque Tradelink Pvt. Ltd. Tax, Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata Vs Bhabatarini Apartment G.T. Road, Room No. 602 Howrah - 711201 [Pan : Aacct7512R] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K. Tibrewal, Fca Revenue By : Shri Biswanath Das, Cit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18/01/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/03/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 24/09/2020, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), For Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. That On Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law As Well As In Facts In Allowing The Bogus Share Capital Raised In The Books Of The Assessee Without Appreciating The Fact That The Assessee Failed To Discharge Its Primary Onus To Prove & Establish The Identity & Creditworthiness Of The Investor Companies & Genuineness Of The Transaction. 2. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law As Well As In Facts In Ignoring That The Identity & Creditworthiness Of The Shareholders & Even The Genuineness Of The Transactions Remained Unexplained. 3. That On Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Invoking His Powers U/S. 250(4) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 In Directing The Assessing Officer To Make Further Enquiry & Report The Results Of The

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tibrewal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT D/R
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 250Section 250(4)Section 263Section 68

disallowance to be made u/s. 14A even after giving a categorical finding that the assessee has not earned any exempt income whatsoever. 8th Page is merely computation of total income and tax payable thereof. From the above, it is clear that the AO has not carried out any of the Directions given in the order u/s. 263 and made additions

NINESTAR MERCHANTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-3(3), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2183/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey)

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263

260A of the Income Tax Act cannot reappreciate the evidence to come to any contrary evidence. Considering that the authorities have rendered the findings of facts based on documents which have not been disputed, we find that there are no substantial question of law which arises in the present Appeal for consideration. 49. We also find that