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.

8 results for “disallowance”+ Section 50Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai85Delhi25Chennai22Raipur17Bangalore13Kolkata8Ahmedabad6Hyderabad6Cochin4Pune3Amritsar3Indore2Jodhpur1Karnataka1Calcutta1Surat1

Key Topics

Section 14A14Section 143(3)8Section 50B7Section 26Disallowance5Addition to Income3Section 472Section 102Section 115J2

ITO, WARD-2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. DATEX OHMEDA (INDIA) PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2038/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jun 2018AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Smt. Madhumita Roy

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 47

disallowing the addition of LTCG to the tune of Rs.28,45,92,456/- by holding that the assessee was liable to LTCG as slump sale u/s 50B in view of the fact that the appellant is not qualified for exemption u/s 47(vib) of the I.T. Act as the demerger did not fulfil the conditions laid u/s 2(19AA

WELLMAN COKE INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-5(1), KOL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 444/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed
ITAT Kolkata
03 Oct 2023
AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194ISection 2Section 250Section 50BSection 80I

section 50B of the Income Tax Act was disallowed and added to the income of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee

ACIT, CIRCLE - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. MCNALLY BHARAT ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED, KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1369/KOL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A No.1369/Kol/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Acit, Circle-1(1), Kolkata Vs. M/S. Mcnally Bharat Engineering Co. Ltd. 4, Mangoe Lane, 7Th Floor, Kolkata. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcm9443R (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Radhey Shyam, CITFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Gupta, AR
Section 115JSection 143(3)

section 50B of the Act. The Revenue fails in its second substantive grievance as well. 9. Lastly comes the third issue of provision for leave encashment disallowance

SAMIR KUMAR MAITY,HOWRAH vs. I.T.O WD - 48(2),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1767/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri I. Banerjee, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 48Section 50B

section 50B of the Act was not available, he computed the capital gains u/s 50B of the Act as under:- Cost of acquisition of cold storage plant as per Balance sheet of the year 2005-06 45,00,000 Add: Addition claimed to have been made amounting To Rs 7,76,000/- disallowed

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. XPRO INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 214/KOL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Mar 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasusdevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2005-06

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(42)Section 36(2)Section 50B

50B of the IT Act treating the transfer slump sale as per provision of section 2(42C) of the IT Act. ITA No.214/Kol/2011 A.Y. 2005-06 DCIT Cir-11, Kol. v. M/s Xpro India Ltd. Page 2 2. On the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance

M/S. KANORIA CHEMICALS & INDUSTRIES LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ADDITIONAL CIT, RANGE - 10, KOLKATA

ITA 2184/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. M.L.Meenaआयकर अपील सं.य/ Assessment Year:2012-13 बनाम / M/S. Kanoria Chemicals & Addl. Cit, Range-10, Industries Ltd Kolkata V/S. C/O Salapuria Jajodia & P-7 Chowringhee Co. 7 Chittaranjan Square, Kolkata-700 Avenue, Kolkata-72. 069. Pan: Aabck1291K अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent .. आयकर अपील सं.य/ Assessment Year:2012-13 बनाम / Dcit, Circle-10 M/S. Kanoria P-7 Chowringhee Square, Chemicals & Industries V/S. 3Rd Kolkata-700 069, Limited, Park Plaza, 7Th Fl., 71 Park Street, Floor. Kolkata-700 016. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent ..

Section 14ASection 43A

disallowed the aforesaid interest/premium only on the ground that the assessee has not routed the said expenditure through P & L account. The Ld. Counsel in this respect has submitted that it has been held time and again that irrespective of the accounting entries, the allowability of the claim is to be examined as per provisions of the Income

D.C.I.T CIR - 10,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ICI INDIA LTD, KOLKATA

ITA 2121/KOL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Mar 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri R. N. Bajoria, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Niraj Kumar, CIT, DR
Section 10Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 50B

section 2(19AA) of the Act and the transfer of the undertaking was on slump sale to another company, the same would have to be treated as slump sale of undertaking u/s 50B of the Act. It was pleaded that the shareholding of 49% by the assessee in the Joint Venture company to which the undertaking has been sold

M/S AKZO NOBEL INDIA LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS ICI INDIA LTD.),KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

ITA 1829/KOL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Mar 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri R. N. Bajoria, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Niraj Kumar, CIT, DR
Section 10Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 50B

section 2(19AA) of the Act and the transfer of the undertaking was on slump sale to another company, the same would have to be treated as slump sale of undertaking u/s 50B of the Act. It was pleaded that the shareholding of 49% by the assessee in the Joint Venture company to which the undertaking has been sold