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.

318 results for “disallowance”+ Section 43(6)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi2,447Mumbai2,090Chennai603Ahmedabad495Bangalore475Jaipur441Hyderabad387Kolkata318Chandigarh233Raipur212Pune200Indore199Surat143Rajkot119Amritsar116Cochin110Visakhapatnam91Nagpur82Guwahati76SC64Lucknow62Jodhpur52Allahabad49Agra31Cuttack29Patna29Ranchi27Dehradun15Varanasi11Jabalpur9Panaji8A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)74Addition to Income58Section 14A57Disallowance54Section 25052Section 36(1)(va)37Deduction35Section 14734Section 143(2)29Section 80I

TATA CONSUMER PRODUCTS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed

ITA 373/KOL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2014-15 & Assessment Years: 2015-16

For Appellant: Sriram Sashdari, ARFor Respondent: Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, DR
Section 250Section 43(6)Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 928

Section 43(6)(c) read with Section 32 of the Act, and therefore Section 50C is not applicable, reliance in this regard is placed on the following- -Decision of the jurisdictional Tribunal in the case of Eveready Industries India Ltd. -vs.- PCIT (2020) 181 ITD 528 (Kolkata Trib.) wherein the Hon'ble ITAT has held that while computing

Showing 1–20 of 318 · Page 1 of 16

...
28
Section 143(1)25
Depreciation16

TATA CONSUMER PRODUCTS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed

ITA 372/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2014-15 & Assessment Years: 2015-16

For Appellant: Sriram Sashdari, ARFor Respondent: Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, DR
Section 250Section 43(6)Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 928

Section 43(6)(c) read with Section 32 of the Act, and therefore Section 50C is not applicable, reliance in this regard is placed on the following- -Decision of the jurisdictional Tribunal in the case of Eveready Industries India Ltd. -vs.- PCIT (2020) 181 ITD 528 (Kolkata Trib.) wherein the Hon'ble ITAT has held that while computing

RIDHI VINCOM PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 4(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 947/KOL/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Oct 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Ito, Ward 4(1) Ridhi Vincom Pvt. Ltd. Aaykar Bhawan Poorva, C/O M/S Salarpuriajajodia& Co. P-7, Chowringhee Square, 7, C.R. Avenue, 3 Rd Floor, Vs. 8Th Floor, Kolkata-700069, Kolkata-700072, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecr9858C Assessee By : Shri S. Jhajharia, Ar Revenue By : Shri Manas Mondal, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.10.2025

For Appellant: Shri S. Jhajharia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manas Mondal, DR
Section 43(5)(d)

6. Section 43(5) of the Income Tax Act defines ‘speculative transaction’. As per the Scheme of the Act, a transaction of speculative nature carries a differential treatment qua the non speculative transaction in the matter of set off and carry forward of losses arising therefrom. The proviso to Section 43(5) provides for certain exceptions in varied situation

DCIT, CIR-5(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S COAL INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

ITA 1697/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2026AY 2014-15
Section 115J

disallowed\nunder Rule 8D of the IT Rules and the disallowance has been made only\nunder clause (iii) of Rule 8D as per the formulae mentioned therein and\nthe same is not to be considered for the purpose of MAT and the\naddition, if any, made to the book profit on account of disallowance u/s\nPage 43\nITA

D.C.I.T CIR - 10(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S EUREKA FORBS LTD, KOLKATA

ITA 2037/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2026AY 2015-16
Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 92C

43,615/- under Repairs\nand Maintenance without there being any justification of as to why such\ndisallowance should be restricted to 10% and not more or fully disallowed.\n3. That on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred\nin correct in law as well as facts in deleting the disallowance

D.C.I.T CIR - 10(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S EUREKA FORBS LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1247/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2026AY 2013-14
Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 92C

43,615/- under Repairs\nand Maintenance without there being any justification of as to why such\ndisallowance should be restricted to 10% and not more or fully disallowed.\n3. That on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred\nin correct in law as well as facts in deleting the disallowance

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(2), GANGTOK, GANGTOK SIKKIM vs. SIKKIM STATE COOPERATIVE SUPPLY AND MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED , GANGTOK SIKKIM

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1711/KOL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 270ASection 274Section 40Section 80GSection 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

6) of section 270A, and the appellant has disclosed all the material facts to substantiate the said explanation. Therefore, the action of AO in imposing penalty under section 270A for under reporting of income, in respect of this disallowance, cannot be sustained. iii) Disallowance of claim of deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act: 6.3.3 On these facts

M/S. COAL INDIA LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

ITA 1406/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2026AY 2013-14
Section 115J

section 115JB of the\nAct is a self-contained code and only the disallowances mentioned in\nthe explanation could have been made. Further, clause (f) of\nExplanation 1 to section 115JB of the Act refers to the amount or\namounts of expenditure relatable to any income to which section 10\napplies. The Ld. AO has not made any disallowance

COAL INDIA LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

ITA 467/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2026AY 2012-13
Section 115J

6 (SC), wherein it is held that investments made by a banking concern\nare part of the business or banking. Therefore, the income arising from such\ninvestments is attributable to business of banking falling under the head\n'profits and gains of business and profession'. On that basis, the circular\ncontains the decision of the Board that no appeal would

M/S TATA GLOBAL BEVERAGES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2012-

ITA 1854/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 92B

disallowable under section 4O(a)(ii) or section 115-O of the Act.” 3. As the issues raised in these appeals are common and the facts are identical, therefore, as agreed by both the parties, they Page 7 of 41 I.T.A. No.: 1854/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13 I.T.A. No.: 1899/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s. Tata Global Beverages Limited

M/S TATA GLOBAL BEVERAGES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2012-

ITA 1899/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 92B

disallowable under section 4O(a)(ii) or section 115-O of the Act.” 3. As the issues raised in these appeals are common and the facts are identical, therefore, as agreed by both the parties, they Page 7 of 41 I.T.A. No.: 1854/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13 I.T.A. No.: 1899/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s. Tata Global Beverages Limited

D.C.I.T CIR - 10(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S EUREKA FORBS LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1246/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2026AY 2012-13
Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 92C

43,615/- under Repairs\nand Maintenance without there being any justification of as to why such\ndisallowance should be restricted to 10% and not more or fully disallowed.\n3. That on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred\nin correct in law as well as facts in deleting the disallowance

SREELEATHERS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 8(2),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1806/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Oct 2025AY 2017-2018
Section 119Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

6) Guard File\nTRUE COPY\nBy order\nAssistant Registrar,\nIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal,\nKolkata Benches, Kolkata\nLaha/Sr. P.S.", "summary": { "facts": "The assessee, Sreeleathers Limited, filed its return declaring total income. The case was selected for limited scrutiny. The Assessing Officer disallowed expenses under section 14A read with Rule 8D, adding back Rs.47,43

D.C.I.T CIR - 10(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S EUREKA FORBS LTD, KOLKATA

ITA 1248/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2026AY 2014-15
Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 92C

43,615/- under Repairs\nand Maintenance without there being any justification of as to why such\ndisallowance should be restricted to 10% and not more or fully disallowed.\n3. That on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred\nin correct in law as well as facts in deleting the disallowance

MEGAPODE VYAPAAR PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, ITA No. 98/KOL/2023 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 98/KOL/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Mar 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Sri Anikesh Banerjee

Section 144Section 250Section 43(5)

6. The ld. A/R in argument placed that the Revenue had taken wrongly the implication of Section 43(5) of the Act the normal loss as a trading loss as speculative loss. The ld. A/R submitted his argument that there is no question of any unidentified loss and the assessee had established the genuineness of the transaction. Related to other

PAHALAMPUR SAMABAY KRISHI UNNAYAN SAMITY LTD., ,HOOGHLY vs. ITO, WARD 23(1), , HOOGHLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 887/KOL/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Sept 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Pahalampur Samabay Krishi Ito, Ward-23(1), Hooghly Unnayan Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. B. Chakraborthy, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 148Section 153ASection 80Section 80P

6 Pahalampur Samabay Krishi Unnayan Ltd. the assessee, if the assessee does not file its return of income within the due date stipulated under section 139(1) of the Act w.e.f. assessment year 2018-19 onwards. However, we also note that amendment has been introduced in section 143(1)(a)(v) of the Act to provide that the claim

INSTYLE TRADELINKS PVT. LTD,KOLKATA vs. ITO, KOLKATA

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

ITA 210/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 250

6,43,238/- was not genuine and disallowed. Accordingly, he added to the income of the assessee. In addition to that he further found that the assessee debited a loss of Rs. 12,89,526/- on securities under the head of other expenses and the ld. AO disallowed the same and added back to the income of the assessee. Further

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- V (I), KOLKATA vs. BIRLA CORPORATION LIMITED, BIRLA BUILDING

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue is dismissed, as also the cross objection filed by the assessee for both the years

ITA 1024/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 80I

6 for AY 2013-14 & 2014-15 relating to the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules and assessee’s additional ground stating that ld. AO should have accepted the disallowance offered by the assessee u/s 14A of the Act and he erred in invoking and applying Rule 8D: 13. We have heard rival

RAGHVENDRA PRATAP SINGH,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 28, KOLKATA

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

ITA 612/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 40Section 69C

6(b) are allowed. 11. Ground No. 7 relates to estimated disallowance of Rs.6689,134/- for the following expenses:- (a) Labour Charges Rs.16,21,585/- (b) Supervision Charges Rs.15,45,276/- (c) Tyre Expenses Rs.20,43,919/- (d) Repairs & Maintenance Rs.14,78,354/- Rs.66,89,134/- The ld. Assessing Officer made the alleged disallowances for want of proper vouchers

MCLEOD RUSSEL INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 458/KOL/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jun 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: the due date of filing of return under Section 139(1) of the Act.

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37

6. For that the Assessing Officer erred in law and on facts in making disallowance of Rs. 61,99,971/- u/s 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) of the I.T. Act for employees' contribution towards the provident fund beyond the due date prescribed in the Act, but paid before the due date of filing of return