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.

858 results for “disallowance”+ Section 67(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai3,963 Delhi3,468 Bangalore1,272 Chennai1,001 Ahmedabad860 Kolkata858 Pune645 Hyderabad643 Jaipur511 Indore364 Chandigarh309 Cochin282 Surat261 Raipur142 Visakhapatnam141 Cuttack134 Rajkot94 Nagpur88 Lucknow84 Amritsar75 Allahabad59 Ranchi57 Karnataka56 Calcutta48 Jodhpur43 Agra43 Guwahati42 Dehradun27 Panaji24 Telangana21 SC20 Patna19 Varanasi15 Jabalpur6 Kerala6 Rajasthan4 Punjab & Haryana4 A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1 ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1 Orissa1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)74 Section 26356 Disallowance54 Section 14A50 Section 9045 Addition to Income45 Section 25035 Section 143(1)33 Deduction30 Section 154

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

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 1247/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 92C

disallowance i.e., Rs. 1,19,67,718/- is also a subject matter of addition by virtue of clause (f) under Explanation [1] to the section

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

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 2037/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata

Showing 1–20 of 858 · Page 1 of 43

...

26

Limitation/Time-bar16

12 Jan 2026

AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 92C

disallowance i.e., Rs. 1,19,67,718/- is also a subject matter of addition by virtue of clause (f) under Explanation [1] to the section

SIDDHI VINAYAKA GRAPHICS PVT. ,KOLKATA vs. A.D.I.T., CPC, BENGALURU/ACIT, CIRCLE - 7(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 61/KOL/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 May 2023AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargi.T.A No.61/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Siddhi Vinayaka Graphics Pvt. Ltd.................................................……Appellant 58/5B, B.T. Road, Kolkata-700002 [Pan: Aakcs3206R] Vs. Adit, Cpc, Bengaluru/ Acit, Circle-7(2), Kolkata….…...................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri P. R. Kothari, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 13, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 16, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 30.11.2022 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “For That On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), Nfac Erred In Sustaining The Addition On Account Of Alleged Late Deposit Of Employee’S Contribution To Pf/Esi Etc. To The Extent Of Rs.792872/- Made By The Ld. Assessing Officer In Summary Assessment.”

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

section 36(1)(va) from beginning being similar to that now held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2022) 448 ITR 518 (SC), the base of Checkmate's case is changed and disallowance u/s. 36(1)(va) is not warranted upto asst. yr. 2020-21 even in case of belated deposit

SIDDHI VINAYAKA GRAPHICS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.D.I.T., CPC, BENGALURU / I.T.O., CIRCLE - 7(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 143/KOL/2023[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jun 2023AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri P. R. Kothari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

section 36(1)(va) from beginning being similar to that now held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2022) 448 ITR 518 (SC), the base of Checkmate's case is changed and disallowance u/s. 36(1)(va) is not warranted upto asst. yr. 2020-21 even in case of belated deposit

M/S JMS MINING PVT. LTD,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-2, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 146/KOL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jul 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri P. M .Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 135Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 37Section 80G

Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, any amount of GSR expenses whether it is made for donation or for other purposes is not an allowable expense. Therefore, the claim of deduction on CSR expenses amounting to Rs. 67,50,000/- (50% of Rs. 1,35,00,000/-) is required to be disallowed

ACIT, CIRCLE - 13(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. PADMA LOGISTICS & KHANIJ PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 606/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 May 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 2

disallowance under section 14A to investments made by the company in companies other than investment made in Aryan Mining and Trading Corporation Pvt. Ltd. as per follows: Particulars Rs. Opening investments (other than investment made in Aryan 1,43,00,500 Mining & Trading Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Closing investments (other than investment in Aryan Mining & 1,67

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,NEW TOWN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 5(1),, KOLKATA

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

ITA 2806/KOL/2025[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Feb 2026AY 2023-2024

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 250Section 270ASection 37(1)Section 40C

1,48,87,000/- was not an allowable expenditure and added the same to the total income of the assessee. Further, the Ld. AO disallowed an amount of ₹38,40,909/- u/s 14A of the Act r.w. rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 on account of expenses related to exempt income. An amount

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,NEW TOWN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 5(1),, KOLKATA

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

ITA 2803/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Feb 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 250Section 270ASection 37(1)Section 40C

1,48,87,000/- was not an allowable expenditure and added the same to the total income of the assessee. Further, the Ld. AO disallowed an amount of ₹38,40,909/- u/s 14A of the Act r.w. rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 on account of expenses related to exempt income. An amount

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,NEW TOWN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 5(1),, KOLKATA

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

ITA 2804/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Feb 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 250Section 270ASection 37(1)Section 40C

1,48,87,000/- was not an allowable expenditure and added the same to the total income of the assessee. Further, the Ld. AO disallowed an amount of ₹38,40,909/- u/s 14A of the Act r.w. rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 on account of expenses related to exempt income. An amount

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

1 & 2 of the assessee’s appeal relates to the disallowance of Rs.19,31,16,000/- made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) under section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The assessee in the present case is a Government of India Undertaking, which is engaged in Banking business. The return of income

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)

67 respectively. He also relied upon the provisions of Section 41 of the Income Tax Act. 5. The principal contention is that unless the burden is discharged with regard to the existence of the liability by the assessee, it is open for the Revenue to invoke the provisions of Section 41(1) of the Act and to make addition

TATA GLOBAL BEVERAGE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result ITA No.1869/Kol/2014 is allowed

ITA 1867/KOL/2014[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Dec 2017AY 2007-2008

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am ]

For Appellant: Shri Kanchun Kaushal, FCA & Shri Piyush Chawla, FCAFor Respondent: Shri S.Dasgupta, Addl. CIT(DR)

Section 115Section 115W

67,698/- incurred by appellant. 2.1 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the medical insurance premium paid by the appellant on behalf of the employees falls' within the meaning of 'Salary' and any expenditure incurred for the purposes of salary, does not fall within the purview

TATA GLOBAL BEVERAGE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result ITA No.1869/Kol/2014 is allowed

ITA 1868/KOL/2014[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Dec 2017AY 2007-2008

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am ]

For Appellant: Shri Kanchun Kaushal, FCA & Shri Piyush Chawla, FCAFor Respondent: Shri S.Dasgupta, Addl. CIT(DR)

Section 115Section 115W

67,698/- incurred by appellant. 2.1 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the medical insurance premium paid by the appellant on behalf of the employees falls' within the meaning of 'Salary' and any expenditure incurred for the purposes of salary, does not fall within the purview

TATA GLOBAL BEVERAGE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result ITA No.1869/Kol/2014 is allowed

ITA 1869/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Dec 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am ]

For Appellant: Shri Kanchun Kaushal, FCA & Shri Piyush Chawla, FCAFor Respondent: Shri S.Dasgupta, Addl. CIT(DR)

Section 115Section 115W

67,698/- incurred by appellant. 2.1 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the medical insurance premium paid by the appellant on behalf of the employees falls' within the meaning of 'Salary' and any expenditure incurred for the purposes of salary, does not fall within the purview

TATA GLOBAL BEVERAGE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result ITA No.1869/Kol/2014 is allowed

ITA 1866/KOL/2014[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Dec 2017AY 2006-2007

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am ]

For Appellant: Shri Kanchun Kaushal, FCA & Shri Piyush Chawla, FCAFor Respondent: Shri S.Dasgupta, Addl. CIT(DR)

Section 115Section 115W

67,698/- incurred by appellant. 2.1 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the medical insurance premium paid by the appellant on behalf of the employees falls' within the meaning of 'Salary' and any expenditure incurred for the purposes of salary, does not fall within the purview

TATA GLOBAL BEVERAGE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result ITA No.1869/Kol/2014 is allowed

ITA 1870/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Dec 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am ]

For Appellant: Shri Kanchun Kaushal, FCA & Shri Piyush Chawla, FCAFor Respondent: Shri S.Dasgupta, Addl. CIT(DR)

Section 115Section 115W

67,698/- incurred by appellant. 2.1 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the medical insurance premium paid by the appellant on behalf of the employees falls' within the meaning of 'Salary' and any expenditure incurred for the purposes of salary, does not fall within the purview

DCIT, CIRCLE - 8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ASHIANA HOUSING LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2271/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: The Cit-A. The Cit-A By Placing His Reliance On An Order Of Kolkata Bench (Itat, Kolkata) In The Case Of Rei Agro Ltd Reported In (2013) 144 Itd 141 (Kolkata-Trib) Directed The Ao To Verify The Details Of Investment Filed Before Him & To Compute The Expenditure Accordingly In Terms Of Investment, Which Yielded Exempt Income.

For Appellant: Shri A. Bhattacharya, Addl. CIT, ld. Sr.DRFor Respondent: S/Shri Arvind Agarwal, Advocate &

Section 14ASection 14A(1)

disallowed an amount of Rs. 1,03,67,422/- under Rule 8D(2)(ii) and 8D(2)(iii) of Rs.30,07,706/- (Rs.50,19,372 – Rs.20,11,666 and totaling to Rs. 1,33,75,128/- u/s. 14A r.w.r 8D and added the same to the total income of assessee. The assesse 1 I.T.A No. 2271/Kol/2017 M/s. Ashiana Housing Limited

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. INTEGRATED COAL MINING LIMITED, KOLKATA

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 170/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2010-11 Dcit, Circle-6(1), V/S. M/S Integrated Coal P-7, Chowringhee Mining Ltd., 6, Church Square, Kolkata-69 Lane, 1Ste Floor, Kolakta-700001 [Pan No.Aaaci 5584 L] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Dr. P.K. Srihari, Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Diparun Mukherjee, Aca & ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent Shri Alolk Goenka, Aca 15-01-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 15-03-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 43B

67 of the Paper book. The Assessing Officer has however without giving any cogent reason whatsoever applied Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (the 'Rules') and summarily disallowed an aggregate amount of Rs. 55,96,082 under section 14A of the Act. ITA No.170/Kol/2018 A.Y. 2010-11 DCIT, Cir-6(1

ORIENTAL CHARITABLE FOUNDATION,KOLKATA vs. CIT(EXEMPTIONS), KOLKATA

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

ITA 257/KOL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Agrwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Datta, CIT, DR

Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 263

1. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by Assessing Officer under section 143(3) of the Act dated 06.09.2019 was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and hence the Ld. Pr. CIT has erred in initiating proceedings u/s 263 of the Act and subsequently setting aside the order under section

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

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

ITA 2082/KOL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Apr 2016AY 2007-08

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

Section 198 & 199 of the Act. In view of this legal position, the difference amount of Rs. 37,33,151 was correctly added by the AO to the total income of the assessee.” 42. The AO passed the fair order of assessment dated 21.9.2010 giving effect to the directions of the DRP. Aggrieved by the order of the AO dated