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.

4 results for “disallowance”+ Section 44Dclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai44 Delhi42 Bangalore9 Kolkata4 Chennai3 Ahmedabad2 Dehradun2 Telangana1 Indore1 Nagpur1 Surat1

Key Topics

Section 111A5 Section 143(3)4 Disallowance4 Section 69C3 Section 403 Addition to Income3 Section 143(2)2 Section 3012 Section 37(1)2 Deduction

I.T.O WD - 1(1),ASANSOL, ASANSOL vs. M/S EAST INDIA MINING & POWER ASSOCIATES, PURULIA

In the result, assessee’s CO is partly allowed

ITA 2520/KOL/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Aug 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69C

disallowed under sections 29 to 44D of the Income-tax Act and/or sections 57 to 59 of the Income-tax Act, for reasons

I.T.O WD - 8(3),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S RUIA SONS PVT LTD., KOLKATA

In the result the appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 365/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

2

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm] I.T.A No. 365/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2009-10 I.T.O., Ward-8(3), -Vs.- M/S. Ruia Sons Pvt. Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aaccr 3949 Q] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri Arup Kumar Sinha, Cit For The Respondent : Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate

For Appellant: Shri Arup Kumar Sinha, CITFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 194JSection 301Section 40

44D or mask the true character of the income by disguising it as a capital receipt as in a case falling within section 44E or assume diverse other forms. But there must be some artifice or device enabling the assessee to avoid payment of tax on which is really and in truth his income. If the assessee parts with

I.T.O WD - 7(3),KOLKATA., KOLKATA vs. M/S SHALINI PROPERTIES & DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED., KOLKATA

In the result the appeal preferred by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 171/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm] I.T.A No. 171/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2009-10 I.T.O., Ward-7(3) -Vs.- M/S. Shalini Properties & Developers Kolkata Pvt. Limited., Kolkata [Pan : Aahcs 7896 N] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri Arup Kumar Sinha, Cit For The Respondent : Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate

For Appellant: Shri Arup Kumar Sinha, CITFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 301Section 37(1)

44D or mask the true character of the income by disguising it as a capital receipt as in a case falling within section 44E or assume diverse other forms. But there must be some artifice or device enabling the assessee to avoid payment of tax on which is really and in truth his income. If the assessee parts with

LALITA STEEL INDUSTRIES (P) LTD,KOLKATA vs. J.C.I.T (OSD) UNDER CIT - IV, KOLKATA

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

ITA 539/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2009-10

Section 111ASection 143(3)

disallowed by AO on the ground that income is chargeable at a special rate. Therefore, no expense of whatsoever will be allowed from the income showed u/s. 111A of the Act. Before us the Ld. AR further took alternative plea stating that if such expenses are not allowed against the STCG u/s.111A of the Act then allow them as business