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.

575 results for “disallowance”+ Section 36clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi3,406Mumbai3,247Chennai896Bangalore692Ahmedabad638Jaipur614Kolkata575Hyderabad560Pune401Chandigarh345Indore314Raipur239Surat188Cochin188Visakhapatnam173Rajkot172Amritsar161Nagpur117Lucknow95SC87Guwahati85Jodhpur73Ranchi68Allahabad62Cuttack58Panaji55Agra38Patna38Jabalpur28Dehradun27Varanasi12A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1ANIL R. DAVE AMITAVA ROY L. NAGESWARA RAO1RANJAN GOGOI PRAFULLA C. PANT1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1

Key Topics

Section 36(1)(va)63Addition to Income62Section 143(3)59Disallowance54Section 14A40Section 14737Deduction33Section 26326Section 25022Section 43B

KATHLEEN CONFECTIONERS,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-32, KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1187/KOL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Jan 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri N. S. Saini, Advocate & Shri SonuFor Respondent: Shri Loviesh Shelley, JCIT, DR
Section 143(1)Section 2(24)Section 3Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

disallowed u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was not justified in making adjustment u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act. Before proceeding further, it will be relevant to mention here that under section

Showing 1–20 of 575 · Page 1 of 29

...
20
Section 6818
Limitation/Time-bar13

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

disallowance made 43B read with section u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act in respect of delay in deposit of Employees

DCIT, CIR. 5(1), KOLKATA vs. KARAM CHAND THAPAR & BROS COAL SALES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for AY 2015-16 is partly allowed and appeal for AY 2016-17 is dismissed

ITA 321/KOL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. Nos. 320 & 321/Kol/2021 Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,........Appellant Circle-5(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 -Vs.- Karam Chand Thapar & Bros. Coal Sales Limited,........................Respondent 25, Brabourne Road, Kolkata-700001 [Pan;Aabck1281H] Appearances By: Shri G. Hukugha Sema, Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Shri N.S. Saini, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 02, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 28, 2023 O R D E R

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

disallowance under section 36(1)(va) of the Act to only those payments made beyond the due date of filing

DCIT, CIR. 5(1), KOLKATA vs. KARAM CHAND THAPAR & BROS COAL SALES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for AY 2015-16 is partly allowed and appeal for AY 2016-17 is dismissed

ITA 320/KOL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. Nos. 320 & 321/Kol/2021 Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,........Appellant Circle-5(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 -Vs.- Karam Chand Thapar & Bros. Coal Sales Limited,........................Respondent 25, Brabourne Road, Kolkata-700001 [Pan;Aabck1281H] Appearances By: Shri G. Hukugha Sema, Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Shri N.S. Saini, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 02, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 28, 2023 O R D E R

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

disallowance under section 36(1)(va) of the Act to only those payments made beyond the due date of filing

FRONTIER TEXTILES (P) LTD. ,HOWRAH vs. DCIT,CIR-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 710/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar& Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

disallowance of Rs. 2,13,086/- by the Ld. CIT(A) as made by the AO in respect of PF/ESI u/s 2(24)(x) read with Section 36

NAVEEN MERICO ENGINEERING CO. PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT,CIR. 12(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 424/KOL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri Bibekananda Madhu, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Disallowance of employees' contribution to EPF & ESI u/s 36(1)(va) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition u/s 36(v)(a) at Rs. 11,12,290/- on the basis of retrospective amendment, as per changes made in Finance Bill

AGARPARA JUTE MILLS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CC-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 46/KOL/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jul 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

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

36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) is highly arbitrary, unjustified, unwarranted to the facts of the case and untenable in law. iii. For that on the facts and circumstances of the case, action of ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,22,48,863/- be reversed and appellant be allowed the relief

AGARPARA JUTE MILLS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CC-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 47/KOL/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jul 2023AY 2020-2021

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

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

36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) is highly arbitrary, unjustified, unwarranted to the facts of the case and untenable in law. iii. For that on the facts and circumstances of the case, action of ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,22,48,863/- be reversed and appellant be allowed the relief

BINAYAK IMAGINE & DIAGNOSTIC PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 7(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee ispartly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 519/KOL/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Aug 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(3)

disallowance made u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act in respect of delayed deposit of Employees’ Contribution of Provident Fund and Employees State Insurance (PF & ESI) totaling to Rs.69,448/-. Since the issue raised in the grounds taken by the assessee has been adjudicated by the recent verdict of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chekmate Services

NEW TEA CO. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 609/KOL/2022[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Mar 2023AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Sajnay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(24)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250(6)Section 3Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43B

disallowance of 2 New Tea Co. Ltd., AY: 2010-11 Rs.46,800/- in respect of delay in deposit of employees’ provident fund u/s. 2(24)(x) read with section 36

DALMIA LAMINATORS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 7(1), KOLKATA

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

ITA 106/KOL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(3)Section 2(24)Section 250Section 3Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 68

disallowance made u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act in respect of delay in deposit of Employees’ Contribution of Provident Fund and Employees State Insurance (PF & ESI) totaling to Rs.13,04,162/-. The issue relating to ground taken by the assessee have come to rest by the recent verdict of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chekmate Services

M/S. KANAK PROJECTS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CPC, BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 775/KOL/2022[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jul 2023AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 2Section 2(24)Section 2(24)(x)Section 3Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

disallowance made u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act in respect of delay in deposit of Employees’ Contribution of Provident Fund and Employees State Insurance (PF & ESI) totaling to Rs.35,944/-. Since the issue raised in the grounds taken by the assessee has been adjudicated by the recent verdict of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chekmate Services

KALIPADA SAHA,HOOGHLY vs. ITO, WARD 24(3), HOOGHLY

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1447/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg&Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 2Section 2(24)Section 2(24)(x)Section 3Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

disallowance made u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act in respect of delay in deposit of Employees’ Contribution of Provident Fund and Employees State Insurance (PF & ESI) totaling to Rs.18,22,874/-. Since the issue raised in the grounds taken by the assessee has been adjudicated by the recent verdict of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chekmate Services

NAZIR AHMED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CPC, BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 398/KOL/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Feb 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 2Section 2(24)Section 2(24)(x)Section 3Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

disallowance made u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act in respect of delay in deposit of Employees’ Contribution of Provident Fund and Employees State Insurance (PF & ESI) totaling to Rs.10,51,352/-. The issue relating to ground taken by the assessee have come to rest by the recent verdict of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chekmate Services

RADHASHYAM MANDAL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-27(1), HALDIA, HALDIA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 476/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(1)Section 2Section 2(24)Section 3Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43B

disallowed then it could be allowable u/s. 37(1) of the Act which is the residual provision of the Act and provides that where any expenditure is wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business, the same is allowable for deduction. In support of his arguments he relied on the following Coordinate Bench decisions: a) Nirakar Security & Consultancy Services

T & I GLOBAL LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 471/KOL/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 May 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 2Section 2(24)Section 2(24)(x)Section 3Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

disallowance made u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act in respect of delay in deposit of Employees’ Contribution of Provident Fund and Employees State Insurance (PF & ESI) totaling to Rs.32,82,761/-. The issue relating to ground taken by the assessee have come to rest by the recent verdict of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

NSIB SECURITY SERVICES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CPC, BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 738/KOL/2022[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Mar 2023AY 2020-2021

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 2Section 2(24)Section 2(24)(x)Section 3Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

disallowance made u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act in respect of delay in deposit of Employees’ Contribution of Provident Fund and Employees State Insurance (PF & ESI) totaling to Rs.10,51,352/-. The issue relating to grounds taken by the assessee have come to rest by the recent verdict of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chekmate Services

MOHAMMED QURBAN,MEDINIPUR vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 162/KOL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 2Section 2(24)Section 2(24)(x)Section 3Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

disallowance made u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act in respect of delay in deposit of Employees’ Contribution of Provident Fund and Employees State Insurance (PF & ESI) totaling to Rs.90,727/-. Since the issue raised in the grounds taken by the assessee has been adjudicated by the recent verdict of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chekmate Services

M/S CAPITAL TOURS(INDIA) PVT. LTD ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-12(1), KOLKATA

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

ITA 507/KOL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.507/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S Capital Tours (India) Pvt. Ltd..............................………...…..…Appellant 1, J Embassy Building, 4, Shakepeare Sarani, Kolkata- 700 071. [Pan: Aabcc2821K] Vs. Ito, Ward-12(1), Kolkata......................................................…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P Barman, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 17, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 16, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 07.06.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-17, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit (Appeals)-17, Kolkata U/S 250 Confirming The Additions & Disallowances Made By Learned Assessing Officer Is Wrong In The Law & Facts Of The Case. 2. That The Ld. Cit (Appeals) - 17, Kolkata Erred In Law As Well As On Facts Of The Case By Confirming The Disallowance Of Employee'S Contribution For

Section 14ASection 2(24)Section 250Section 3Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

36(1)(va) to deposit the amounts retained by it or deducted by it from the employee's income, unless the condition that it is deposited on or before the due date, is correct and justified. The non- obstante clause has to be understood in the context of the entire provision of Section 43B which is to ensure timely payment

M/S. BINDHYA BASHINI TRADERS ,LILUAH, HOWRAH vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 32, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed and the order of the Ld

ITA 1144/KOL/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Sept 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/S Bindhya Bashini Traders, Circle – 32, Kolkata, 268/10, Narayani Complex, Aayakar Bhawan, 110, Vs G.T. Road, Liluah - 711204 Middletown Row, (Pan: Aagfb2388A) Kolkata - 700071 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Miraj D. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Amuldeep Kaur, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a firm and had filed its return of income on 16.08.2018 declaring total income of Rs. 60,69,380/-. The return was processed by the CPC making addition