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.

685 results for “disallowance”+ Section 36(1)(iv)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai3,421Delhi3,303Bangalore1,400Chennai903Kolkata685Jaipur554Ahmedabad456Hyderabad310Pune291Chandigarh256Indore241Raipur178Karnataka119Rajkot117Surat116Amritsar108Visakhapatnam98Cochin98Lucknow79Nagpur56Guwahati49Telangana48SC47Calcutta47Panaji36Allahabad31Jodhpur29Agra24Patna21Cuttack14Kerala14Ranchi14Dehradun14Punjab & Haryana8Rajasthan6Jabalpur6Varanasi5Himachal Pradesh1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Orissa1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)69Addition to Income64Disallowance57Section 80I51Section 36(1)(va)45Deduction43Section 14740Section 143(1)40Section 14A39Section 250

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

iv), and its liability to deposit amounts received by it or deducted by it (Section 36(1)(va)) is, thus crucial. The former forms part of the employers' income, and the later retains its character as an income (albeit deemed), by virtue of Section 2(24)(x) - unless the conditions spelt by Explanation to Section 36(1)(va) are satisfied

Showing 1–20 of 685 · Page 1 of 35

...
31
Section 26329
Depreciation18

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

iv), and its liability to deposit amounts received by it or deducted by it (Section 36(1)(va)) is, thus crucial. The former forms part of the employers' income, and the later retains its character as an income (albeit deemed), by virtue of Section 2(24)(x) - unless the conditions spelt by Explanation to Section 36(1)(va) are satisfied

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 which has been raised only in appeal for AY 2015-16 , ld. Counsel for the assessee fairly submitted that the issue is squarely covered against the assessee in view of the recent judgment by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chekmate Services

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 which has been raised only in appeal for AY 2015-16 , ld. Counsel for the assessee fairly submitted that the issue is squarely covered against the assessee in view of the recent judgment by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chekmate Services

SIDDHI VINAYAKA GRAPHICS PVT. ,KOLKATA vs. A.D.I.T., CPC, BENGALURU/ACIT, CIRCLE - 7(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 61/KOL/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 May 2023AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargi.T.A No.61/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Siddhi Vinayaka Graphics Pvt. Ltd.................................................……Appellant 58/5B, B.T. Road, Kolkata-700002 [Pan: Aakcs3206R] Vs. Adit, Cpc, Bengaluru/ Acit, Circle-7(2), Kolkata….…...................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri P. R. Kothari, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 13, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 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 30.11.2022 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (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: “For That On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), Nfac Erred In Sustaining The Addition On Account Of Alleged Late Deposit Of Employee’S Contribution To Pf/Esi Etc. To The Extent Of Rs.792872/- Made By The Ld. Assessing Officer In Summary Assessment.”

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

iv) to section 143(1)(a) of the Act would show that it provides for disallowance of expenditure indicated in the audit report, but not taken into account in computing the total income in the return. 13. As per the prescribed form 3CD, the following information is required to be given by the auditor: I.T.A No.61/Kol/2023 Assessment year

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

iv), and its liability to deposit amounts received by it or deducted by it (Section 36(1)(va)) is, thus crucial. The former forms part of the employers' income, and the later retains its character as an income (albeit deemed), by virtue of Section 2(24)(x) - unless the conditions spelt by Explanation to Section 36(1)(va) are satisfied

SIDDHI VINAYAKA GRAPHICS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.D.I.T., CPC, BENGALURU / I.T.O., CIRCLE - 7(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 143/KOL/2023[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jun 2023AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri P. R. Kothari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

iv) to section 143(1)(a) of the Act would show that it provides for disallowance of expenditure indicated in the audit report, but not taken into account in computing the total income in the return. 13. As per the prescribed form 3CD, the following information is required to be given by the auditor: “20.(b) Details of contributions received

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. iv

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. iv

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)

iv), and its liability to deposit amounts received by it or deducted by it (Section 36(1)(va)) is, thus crucial. The former forms part of the employers' income, and the later retains its character as an income (albeit deemed), by virtue of Section 2(24)(x) - unless the conditions spelt by Explanation to Section 36(1)(va) are satisfied

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 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.2,13,086/-. 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

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

disallowed. The issue relating to grounds taken by the assessee is no longer res integra and has come to rest by the recent verdict of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT-1 (2022) 143 taxmann.com 178 (SC) dated 12.10.2022 wherein it has been held that “deduction u/s 36(1)(va) in respect of delayed

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 in respect of delay in deposit of employees’ contribution to Provident Fund, the issue is squarely covered against the assessee by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chekmate Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2022) 143 taxmann.com 178 (SC) wherein it has been held that “deduction u/s 36(1

M/S SHRISTI INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-11(2), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1228/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal]

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(24)Section 3Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

iv), and its liability to deposit amounts received by it or deducted by it (Section 36(1)(va)) is, thus crucial. The former forms part of the employers' income, and the later retains its character as an income (albeit deemed), by virtue of Section 2(24)(x) - unless the conditions spelt by Explanation to Section 36(1)(va) are satisfied

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

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

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

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

BENGAL CHEMICALS & PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 477/KOL/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Nov 2022AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri H. V. Bhardwaj, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 154Section 2Section 2(24)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.1,41,02,575/-. 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

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