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.

1,261 results for “disallowance”+ Section 41(4)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai5,685Delhi4,880Bangalore1,813Chennai1,582Kolkata1,261Ahmedabad1,194Hyderabad770Pune759Jaipur673Indore492Chandigarh417Surat368Cochin251Raipur249Visakhapatnam227Nagpur201Cuttack187Amritsar185Rajkot177Lucknow169Karnataka127Agra110Guwahati90Allahabad83Ranchi64Panaji50Calcutta49SC46Telangana43Jodhpur40Dehradun33Patna31Varanasi22Jabalpur21Kerala15Punjab & Haryana7Rajasthan5Orissa2A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2ANIL R. DAVE AMITAVA ROY L. NAGESWARA RAO1Himachal Pradesh1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1Bombay1Tripura1

Key Topics

Section 14A76Section 143(3)69Addition to Income55Disallowance54Section 6835Section 14734Deduction32Section 25029Section 115J27Section 148

M/S GREEN STAR CORPORATION,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 45, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 2463/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Apr 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm Assessment Year: 2011-12

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 41(1)

disallowance, if any, has to be made in the year in which they were claimed. It cannot be taxed as income of this year unless it falls under the provisions of section 41(1) of the Act. Let us now examine the scope of Sec. 41(1) of the Act. 8. Hyderabad Bench of Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench

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: Disposed

Showing 1–20 of 1,261 · Page 1 of 64

...
24
Section 43B22
Limitation/Time-bar14
ITAT Kolkata
29 Jul 2016
AY 2010-2011

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

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 263Section 40

disallow the said sum of Rs.551,30,41,569/-, while passing the assessment order in our case on March, 2013 under section 143(3)/144 of the said Act in respect of the assessment year 2010-11, the said Assessment Order, according to you, was allegedly erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue within the meaning

ITO, WARD - 3(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. C D STEEL PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1360/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Aug 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2013 14

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 41(1)Section 43BSection 68

disallowance of expenditure to the tune of ₹1,33,880/- made in the course of assessment. We notice herein as well that Revenue’s has no case on merits since the assessee; who had not derived any business income in the relevant previous year, incurred the impugned expenditure alike telephone, electricity charges and other expenses for running its business whose

DCIT, CIRCLE-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. SIMPLEX INFRASTRUCTURES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Ground No. 1 of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 141/KOL/2015[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Oct 2017AY 2006-2007

Bench: Sri N.V. Vasudevan & Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy]

Section 250Section 80Section 80ISection 91

disallowance of Rs.6,41,53,757/- made against the claim of retention money on foreign project, without taking into account the contention of the A.O. that the assessee did not following any consistent policy year by year for claiming relief u/s 91.” 7. The ld. DR, submitted that the Assessing Officer, for the Assessment Year 2006-07, has in detail

DCIT, CIRCLE-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. SIMPLEX INFRASTRUCTURES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Ground No. 1 of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 140/KOL/2015[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Oct 2017AY 2005-2006

Bench: Sri N.V. Vasudevan & Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy]

Section 250Section 80Section 80ISection 91

disallowance of Rs.6,41,53,757/- made against the claim of retention money on foreign project, without taking into account the contention of the A.O. that the assessee did not following any consistent policy year by year for claiming relief u/s 91.” 7. The ld. DR, submitted that the Assessing Officer, for the Assessment Year 2006-07, has in detail

ACIT,CIRCLE-36, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S SOORAJMULL NAGARMULL, KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1907/KOL/2016[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jul 2018AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganeshassessment Year :2001-02 Acit, Cicle-36, Aayakar V/S. M/S Soorajmull Nagarmull, Bhawan, Poorva, 8Th 8 B.B.D. Bag (East), Floor, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700001 Kolkata-107 [Pan No.Aaaab 0601 N] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Md. Usman Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Akkal Dudhwewal, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 26-06-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 20-07-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2001-02 Calls Into Question Correctness Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Kolkata’S Order Dated 08.07.2016, Passed In Case No.142/Cit(A)/10/Cir-36/15-16/Kol, Reversing Assessing Officer’S Action Invoking Section 41(1) After Treating The Assessee’S Liability Amount Of ₹12,97,47,322/- To Be A Case Of Cessation Of Liability Assessment Order Dated 30.03.2015, Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. 2. We Notice At The Outset That Cit(A)’S Detailed Discussion On The Above Sole Issue Of Cessation Of Liability U/S 41(1)(A) Of The Act Reads As Follows:- “06. Decision: 1. I Have Carefully Considered The Action Of The Ld.Ao In Adding An Amount Of Rs.12,97,47,322/- U/S. 441(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, On Grounds That There Was A Cessation Of Liability On The Part Of The Assessee For The Impugned Amount & That Therefore It Would Constitute Part Of The Income Of The Assessee-Firm. It Is To Be Observed That This Is The 2Nd Round Of The Assessment Order For The A.Y 2001-02, And

Section 139(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 41Section 41(1)Section 41(1)(a)Section 441(1)

Section 41(l) amounting to Rs.12,97,47,322/- and disallowed bad debts of Rs.5,63,402/-. Against the said order, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)-XX. Kolkata. In the appellate order passed u/s 250 dated 31.03.2008, the Ld. C!T(A: deleted both the additions made by the AO. Against this appellate order

M/S ADHUNIK INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. JCIT, RG-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1281/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 May 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No.1281 /Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D.Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT, Sr.Dr
Section 143(3)Section 80I

41 [undertaking] referred to in 42[clause (ii) or] clause ( iv) 43[ 43a [or clause (vi )]] of sub-section (4)] which fulfils all the following conditions, namely :— (i ) it is not formed by splitting up, or the reconstruction, of a business already in existence : Provided that this condition shall not apply in respect of an 44[undertaking] which is formed

JASHOJIT MUKHERJEE,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-50, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 403/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 403/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Jashojit Mukherjee -Vs- Acit, Circle-50, Kolkata [Pan: Afapm 7208 R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Himmatsinghka, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT
Section 133(6)Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

4. However, Mr. Arvind, learned counsel appearing for the revenue relied upon the decisions of Rajasthan and Punjab & Haryana High Courts in Rama Steel Rolling Mills & General Engg. Works v. ITO [2013] 35 taxmann.com 262 and Mrs. Adarsh Sood v. CIT [2014] 47 taxmann.com 268/225 Taxman 67 respectively. He also relied upon the provisions of Section 41 of the Income

M/S. EVEREADY INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT-4, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 805/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

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

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

Disallowance u/s 14A of the Act was not made by the A.O keeping in view the circular No. 5/2014 (F.No. 225/182/2013-ITA.II) dated 11-02-2014 as well as provisions laid down in the Act. (d) It is seen from clause 17 of TAR that the assesse did not take valuation of properly sold as per provisions of section

DCIT, MIDDLETONTON ROW vs. BISHNUPUR PUBLIC EDUCATION INSTITUTE, BISHNUPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1021/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Bishnupur Public Education Institute Dcit 10B, Middleton Row, 5 Th Floor, Gopeswarpalli, Bishnupur, Vs. Kolkata-700071, West Bengal Bankura-722122, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabtb4176D Assessee By : S/Shri S.M. Surana & Sunil Surana & Dipak Kumar, Ars Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Datta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2025

For Appellant: S/Shri S.M. Surana &For Respondent: Shri Subhendu Datta, DR
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 13(9)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)

disallowance were carried out, those may be rectified. Hence, the CBDT itself accepted the position that even returns filed u/s.139 is to be accepted. It means that it has enlarged its scope of section 139 of the Act, which includes provisions of section 139(4) also. Here provision of section 139(4) w.e.f. 01.04.2017 lays down that any person

INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S STANDARD LEATHER PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 2620/KOL/2013[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Sept 2016AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Years:2010-11

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

4. Once this is accepted, we are of the opinion that the approach of the ITAT was correct inasmuch as the Assessing Officer did not consider this aspect while making additions of the sundry creditors under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. As there was no case for disallowance for responding purchases, no addition could be made under section

DCIT,CIR-11, KOLKATA vs. M/S CENTURY PLYBOARDS (INDIA) LTD., KOLKATA

In the result ITA No.2307/Kol/2013 is dismissed

ITA 2306/KOL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

For Appellant: Shri D.S.Damle, FCAFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna,,CIT,DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 288ASection 80I

41,46,S12/- claimed under Section 80-IC of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Assessee submitted that the facts would clearly show that the deduction claimed u/s 80- IC was considered and examined by AO's predecessor and therefore reopening of assessment on this account amounted to "change of opinion:' and review of the stand already taken

D.C.I.T CIR - 10,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S PHILLIPS CARBON BLACK LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA 2123/Kol/13 and ITA

ITA 2123/KOL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Aug 2016AY 2006-07

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

For Appellant: Shri D.S.Damle, FCA, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Kalyan Nath, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 10Section 14Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

41. During the previous year the assessee earned dividend income of Rs. 1,55,10,976/- and interest of Rs.1,17,565/- on tax-free US 64 Bonds and claimed these as exempt u/s. 10. In response to the query, made to the assessee why management expenses should not be disallowed on pro-rata basis interms of section

ACIT, CIRCLE-3, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S TATA METALICS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, while all the four appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 956/KOL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Mar 2016AY 2005-06

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

section 14A on account of common and general expenses is required to be made to the extent of 0.5% of average value of investment as provided in the said Rule. The limited contention raised by her is that while computing such disallowance, investment which yielded dividend income during the year under consideration only should be considered. Since this contention

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

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

4. Briefly stated the facts of the cases are that during the relevant previous year, the assessee derived dividend income to the tune of Rs. 3,55,81,107/- which was exempt under section 10(34) of the Act. For earning the exempt income, the assessee had offered disallowance of Rs. 10,00,000/- under section 14A in the return

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

4. Briefly stated the facts of the cases are that during the relevant previous year, the assessee derived dividend income to the tune of Rs. 3,55,81,107/- which was exempt under section 10(34) of the Act. For earning the exempt income, the assessee had offered disallowance of Rs. 10,00,000/- under section 14A in the return

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

4. Briefly stated the facts of the cases are that during the relevant previous year, the assessee derived dividend income to the tune of Rs. 3,55,81,107/- which was exempt under section 10(34) of the Act. For earning the exempt income, the assessee had offered disallowance of Rs. 10,00,000/- under section 14A in the return

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

4. Briefly stated the facts of the cases are that during the relevant previous year, the assessee derived dividend income to the tune of Rs. 3,55,81,107/- which was exempt under section 10(34) of the Act. For earning the exempt income, the assessee had offered disallowance of Rs. 10,00,000/- under section 14A in the return

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

4. Briefly stated the facts of the cases are that during the relevant previous year, the assessee derived dividend income to the tune of Rs. 3,55,81,107/- which was exempt under section 10(34) of the Act. For earning the exempt income, the assessee had offered disallowance of Rs. 10,00,000/- under section 14A in the return

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

4. Briefly stated the facts of the cases are that during the relevant previous year, the assessee derived dividend income to the tune of Rs. 3,55,81,107/- which was exempt under section 10(34) of the Act. For earning the exempt income, the assessee had offered disallowance of Rs. 10,00,000/- under section 14A in the return