Search: disallowance | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

190 results for “disallowance”+ Section 36(1)(viii)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,279 Mumbai1,222 Bangalore416 Chennai220 Kolkata190 Jaipur157 Ahmedabad153 Chandigarh138 Cochin96 Hyderabad92 Nagpur90 Indore77 Rajkot50 Pune49 Surat43 Visakhapatnam42 Cuttack40 Calcutta39 Lucknow37 Guwahati34 Raipur33 Ranchi33 Telangana29 Karnataka28 Allahabad22 Amritsar14 Jodhpur12 Patna11 SC10 Dehradun8 Varanasi8 Agra7 Kerala5 Rajasthan2 Jabalpur2 Panaji1 H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1 Himachal Pradesh1 ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)95 Section 26371 Section 80I54 Addition to Income51 Section 14A50 Deduction49 Section 115J47 Disallowance43 Section 143(2)23 Section 92C

ALLAHABAD BANK,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-6, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal No

ITA 1802/KOL/2009[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasusdevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

disallowances of Rs.30,00,00,000 claimed under section 36(1)(viii) for creation of special reserve under the said

ALLAHABAD BANK,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-6, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal No

Showing 1–20 of 190 · Page 1 of 10

...

21

ITA 1803/KOL/2009[2003-04]Status: Disposed

ITAT Kolkata

03 Feb 2016

AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasusdevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

disallowances of Rs.30,00,00,000 claimed under section 36(1)(viii) for creation of special reserve under the said

ALLAHABAD BANK,KOLKATA vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE - 6, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for A

ITA 2175/KOL/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Mar 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 115JSection 14A

disallowance of Rs.11,63,09,158/- made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) on account of deduction claimed by the assessee under section 36(1)(viii

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]

viii) Ventilator used with annaesthesia apparatus ix) Magnetic Resonance Imaging System x) Surgical Laser xi) Ventilators other than those used with anesthesia xii) Gamma Knife xiii) Bone marrow transplant equipment including silasticlogn standing intravenous catheters for chemotherapy 4 I.T.A. No.519/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Binayak Imaging & Diagnostic Pvt. Ltd. xiv) Fibreoptic endoscopes including Paediatricresectoscope/audit resectoscope, peritoneoscopes, Arthoscope, Microlaryngoscope, Fibreoptics Flexible

DCIT,CIRCLE-6, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. WEST BENGAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals being ITA Nos

ITA 1376/KOL/2009[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Dec 2015AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 143(3)Section 254

viii) including proviso thereto as well as section 36(2)(v). In this regard, he invited our attention to the working given by the Assessing Officer on page 8 to point out that the opening balance in the provisions made as per section 36(1)(viia) was Rs.7.94 crores. He also invirted our attention to the working given at page

UNITED BANK OF INDIA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, LTU - 1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 75/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं/I.T.A No.75/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) United Bank Of India Vs. Acit, Ltu-1, Kolkata. 16, Old Court House Street, Kol-1. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaacu5624P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Vijay Shankar, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 24/02/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/02/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 23, Kolkata’S Order Dated 08.06.2017 Passed In Case No.06/Cit(A)-23/L.T.U-1/16-17 Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’). Heard Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Learned Authorized Representative For Assessee & Shri Vijay Shankar, Cit-Dr Appearing At The Revenue’S Behest. 2. The Assessee’S First Substantive Grievance Challenges Correctness Of Both The Lower Authorities’ Action Disallowing Club Entrance Fees Of Rs.97,794/- In The Course Of Assessment Affirmed In The Lower In The Lower Appellate Proceedings. The Assessee Herein Is Admittedly A Bank Which Claimed The Impugned Expenditure As An Allowable Deduction Under Revenue Head. The Assessing Officer’S Assessment Order Dated 25.02.2015 Held The Same To Be Capital Expenditure Than Revenue In Nature. The Cit(A) Has Confirmed The Impugned Disallowance.

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Shankar, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 35DSection 35D(1)(ii)Section 35D(2)(c)

36(1)(viii) was restricted by him to Rs.135,79,30,968/- thereby making a disallowance of Rs.62,69,78,740/- on this issue. 14. The disallowance made by the Assessing Officer on account of its claim for deduction under section

UNITED BANK OF INDIA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, LTU, CIRCLE - 1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed (ITA No

ITA 428/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: the ITAT. The grounds may be extracted for reference:

Section 115JSection 14ASection 15JSection 211Section 250Section 36(1)(viii)

36(1) (viii) disallowance is directed to be deleted therefore." 4.3 Accordingly, this ground is allowed in favour of the assessee. 5. Regarding the issue of disallowance of Rs. 1.47 Crores under Section

DCIT/ACIT, LTU - 1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. UNITED BANK OF INDIA, KOLKATA

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed (ITA No

ITA 215/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: the ITAT. The grounds may be extracted for reference:

Section 115JSection 14ASection 15JSection 211Section 250Section 36(1)(viii)

36(1) (viii) disallowance is directed to be deleted therefore." 4.3 Accordingly, this ground is allowed in favour of the assessee. 5. Regarding the issue of disallowance of Rs. 1.47 Crores under Section

DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(1) , KOLKATA vs. M/S. SPPL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2074/KOL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jul 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Hon’Ble & Dr. M. L. Meena, Hon’Ble]

Section 115JSection 143(3)

disallowed a sum of 7,10,47,161 which the assessee- bank had reduced from loans and advances or debtors on the ground that the impugned bad debt had not been written off in an appropriate manner as required under the accounting principles. According to him, the impugned bad debt supposedly written off by the assessee-bank was mere provision

SREI EQUIPMENT FINANCE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 11(1), , KOLKATA

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

ITA 1019/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Sept 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Srei Equipment Finance Commissioner Of Income-Tax Limited (Appeals), 86C, Vishwakarma, National Faceless Appeal Vs. Topsia Road (South), Topsia, Centre, Delhi Kolkata-700046 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aakcs3431L Assessee By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan & Miss Lata Goyal, Ars Revenue By : Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan &For Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, DR

Section 115JSection 135Section 45Section 45ISection 80G

section 36(1)(viii) of the Act. 6. The issue raised in Ground No. 6 is against the order of ld. CIT (A) upholding the order of ld. AO in adding back in employee’s contribution to ESI deposited within due date of filing rate of return. Srei Equiptment Finance Limited; A.Y. 2018-19 6.1. During the year there

M/S PRICEWATERHOUSE COOPERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 2298/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 May 2020AY 2011-2012

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Pricewaterhouse Coopers Private Limited……...............................……………………......Appellant Block-Ep, Plot –Y14 Salt Lake City Sector-V Kolkata – 700 091 [Pan : Aabcp 9181 H] Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata……..........................…....Appellant Appearances By: Shri Kanchun Kaushal, A/R & Shri Bikash Kr. Jain, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Vijay Shankar, Cit, D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 25Th, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 29Th, 2020 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

Section 144C(13)

36,930/-. Before the DRP, the assessee . Before the DRP, the assessee contended that the order is barred contended that the order is barred by limitation. Objections were raised on the proposed additions made in draft n. Objections were raised on the proposed additions made in draft n. Objections were raised on the proposed additions made in draft assessment order

WEST BENGAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 7(1), KOLKATA

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

ITA 2064/KOL/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jan 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 4A

disallowing claimed deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) and 36(1)(vii) of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) has allowed the appeal of the assessee on the issue of grant received but dismissed the claim of deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) and 36(1)(vii) of the Act. We have gone through the order passed by the AO against

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

viii. It may also be noted that the advances made by each of the Stockists to the erstwhile "Main Seller", MAV Associates were transferred to the Assessee Firm on 1st June, 2009, when the Assessee Firm was appointed by PLE to be the "Main Seller" in place of the erstwhile MAV Associates; ix. The Bhutan Paper Lotteries, of different denominations

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)

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 the rival contentions and gone

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SOUTH CITY PROJECTS (KOLKATA) LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1096/KOL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 36(1)(iii)

36(1)(iii) of the Act. 10. The Ld. A.R while referring to para 6.3.6 submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has recorded a clear-cut finding that the money advanced by the assessee to subsidiary engaged in the same line of business was based on the principle of commercial expediency because the assessee had both strategic and economic interest

DCIT RG 8(2), MUMBAI vs. PHILLIPS ELECTRONICS INDIA LTD ( FORMLERY KNOWN AS PHILIPS MEDICAL SYSTEM INDIA P.LTD),

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, while the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 164/MUM/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Sept 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

Section 271(1)(c)Section 92C

VIII, Mumbai (The CIT(A) have erred in law and on facts in attributing the entire alleged short fall in the profit margin of the appellant to the international transactions, in making the transfer pricing adjustment amounting to INR 26,032,000 instead of computing the transfer pricing adjustment only to the extent of the proportionate share of the value

ACIT - 8(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. PHILIPS MEDICAL SYSTEMS INDIA P. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, while the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 3183/MUM/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Sept 2018AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

Section 271(1)(c)Section 92C

VIII, Mumbai (The CIT(A) have erred in law and on facts in attributing the entire alleged short fall in the profit margin of the appellant to the international transactions, in making the transfer pricing adjustment amounting to INR 26,032,000 instead of computing the transfer pricing adjustment only to the extent of the proportionate share of the value

M/S. PHILIPS MEDICAL SYSTEMS P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO - 8(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, while the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 2723/MUM/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Sept 2018AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

Section 271(1)(c)Section 92C

VIII, Mumbai (The CIT(A) have erred in law and on facts in attributing the entire alleged short fall in the profit margin of the appellant to the international transactions, in making the transfer pricing adjustment amounting to INR 26,032,000 instead of computing the transfer pricing adjustment only to the extent of the proportionate share of the value

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

36(1)(iii) for interest paid on loan taken for purchase of shares. The AO disallowed the interest u/s 14A and levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on the ground that the claim was unsustainable. The penalty was deleted by the appellate authorities. ITA No.1197/Kol/2015 A.Y. 2011-12 DCIT, Cir-11(2), Kol. Vs. M/s PCC(Jewellers), Pvt. Ltd. Page

GIFFORD & PARTNERS LTD.(SINCE MERGED WITH GIFFORD LLP),KOLKATA vs. ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result ITA No.1489/Kol/11 is partly allowed

ITA 1489/KOL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Apr 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] Assessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agarwal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144C

36. It was submitted that in the case of the Assessee, GRSE has not gained any technical knowledge, skill, etc. as a result of service provided to it, which can be subsequently utilized by it. Thus, payments made by it, for services provided do not fall within the scope of FTS, as laid out in Article