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.

36 results for “disallowance”+ Section 747clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi223Mumbai203Jaipur45Chennai38Kolkata36Ahmedabad34Bangalore32Chandigarh20Pune19Indore12Lucknow10Hyderabad9Surat8Visakhapatnam5Amritsar5Ranchi4Panaji4Cuttack3SC3Cochin2Patna2Raipur2Calcutta1Jodhpur1Nagpur1Rajkot1Karnataka1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)49Section 26325Addition to Income23Disallowance21Section 4020Section 14715Deduction15Section 40A(3)14Section 6810Section 142(1)

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - VII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. THE HOOGHLY MILLS CO. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 601/KOL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Apr 2016AY 2006-07

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

For Appellant: Shri S.Jhajharia, FCA &For Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar, Addl.CIT, Sr.DR
Section 40A(7)(b)

747,598 & C.O.32-KOL-2011 Assessment years: 2006-2007 & 2007-08 Page 19 of 31 disallowance to 1% of dividend income declared by the assessee deleting the addition.” 35. Ground no.4 taken by the Revenue is that the CIT(A) was unjustified in deleting disallowance of Rs.12,17,890/- under rule 8D read with section

ABDUL HAI,BURDWAN vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), ASANSOL, ASANSOL

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

Showing 1–20 of 36 · Page 1 of 2

8
Section 1488
TDS7
ITA 1759/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: Disposed
ITAT Kolkata
13 Apr 2018
AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am] I.T.A. No. 1759/Kol/2014 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Abdul Hai................................…………………………………………………………………………..Appellant Prop. National Traders, Raha Lane, Asansol, Burdwan – 713 301 [Pan: Aanph 9226 J] I.T.O. Ward 2(1) Asansol,...................……………………………………………...................Respondent Burdwan – 713 304 Appearances By: Shri Debanuj Basu, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Pinaki Mukherjee, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 22, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 13, 2018 Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Asansol Dated 01.07.2014. 2. The Issue Raised In Ground No. 1 Relates To The Addition Of Rs. 18,232/- Made By The A.O. & Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A) On Account Of Difference In The Balance Of Sundry Creditors By Treating The Same As Bogus.

Section 133(6)Section 194CSection 40Section 40A(3)

747/-. In order to verify the balance of sundry creditors shown by the assessee in his balance sheet, notices under section 133(6) were issued by the A.O. As per the information received by the A.O. in response to one of such 2 I.T.A. No. 1759/Kol/2014 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Abdul Hai notices, M/s. Karnataka Soaps & Detergents Ltd. had shown

SARDA MINES PVT. LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-05(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 867/KOL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Dec 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. No. 867/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Sarda Mines Pvt. Ltd...............................………………………………………………Appellant 6Th Floor, Circular Court, 8, Ajc Bose Road, Kolkata – 700017. [Pan : Aahcs 2419 R] D.C.I.T., Cir 5(2) Kolkata………………………………………………......................Respondent Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata - 69 Appearances By: Shri A.K. Gupta, Fca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Md. Usman, Cit Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 21, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 14, 2017 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Principal Cit – 2, Kolkata Dated 28.03.2017 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Therein Read As Under: “1. For That The Order Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax -2, Kolkata (In Short ‘Cit’) Dated 28.03.2017 Is Without Jurisdiction & Illegal As None Of The Condition Precedent For Exercise Of The Power Under Section 263 Of The Act Exists And/Or Has Been Satisfied & As Such The Said Order Is Erroneous & Without Jurisdiction & Liable To Be Cancelled. 2. For That The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Was Not In Any Way Erroneous Or Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue & As Such The Cit Would Not Exercise Any Power Under Section 263 Of The Act. The Cit Erred In Holding That The Order Of Assessment Is Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue.

Section 263Section 35A

747 in which it has been held that there must be some material either intrinsic in the order of assessment itself or otherwise before the CIT to order reassessment or enquiry into the matter. The Commissioner of Income Tax must have some material on the file which may compel him to pass an order under section

DCIT, CIR-10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. LUCKY GOLD STAR COMPANY LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1381/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37

section 36(1)(va) in the case of employees contribution and overrule the judicial pronouncement of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. GSRTC which was concluded after considering the ratio judgment in the case of Alom Extrustion Ltd. iii. That the appellant craves to add, delete or modify any of the grounds of appeal

DCIT, CIR-10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. LUCKY GOLD STAR COMPANY LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1382/KOL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Apr 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37

section 36(1)(va) in the case of employees contribution and overrule the judicial pronouncement of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. GSRTC which was concluded after considering the ratio judgment in the case of Alom Extrustion Ltd. iii. That the appellant craves to add, delete or modify any of the grounds of appeal

ITO, WD-29(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S SPECIAL LEATHER INDUSTRIES, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal (ITA No

ITA 1505/KOL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: : Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl.CIT, ld. Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate, ld.AR
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 40A(3)

disallowances for violation of section 40A(3) of the Act under the heads ‘Purchase of Raw materials’ of Rs.5,30,52,747

KEJRIWAL AUTO ELECTRIC ENGINEERING WORKS,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-MURSHIDABAD, MURSHIDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 760/KOL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Feb 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am Kejriwal Auto Electric Vs. Dcit, Circle-Murshidabad, Engineering Works, Ayakar Bhawan, 1/4C, Khagendra Chatterjee 39, R.N.Tagore Road, Road, P.O. Berhampore-742101 Kolkata-700002 Dist Murshidabad "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadfk 3389 H .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri V.N.Purohit, Ca Revenue By : Sk.Z.H.Tanweer, Jcit, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 27/12/2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 23/02/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2007-08, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-21, Kolkata In Appeal No.1339/Dcit.C-Murshidabad/Cit(A)- 21/Kol/14-15, Dated 01.03.2016, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 27.11.2009. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessee Is Engaged In Manufacturing, Repairing & Trading Of Battery & Battery Products. The Assessee Also Works As A Commission Agent. The Assessee Filed Its E-Return Of Income On 29.10.2007 Disclosing Its Total Income At Rs.Nil. The Assessee’S Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & The Ao Framed The Assessment Disallowing Interest On Cc A/C Rs.13,36,747/- & Term Loan A/C Rs.2,06,389/- U/S.43B(E) Of The Act. 3. Aggrieved From The Order Of Ao, The Assessee Filed An Appeal

For Appellant: Shri V.N.Purohit, CAFor Respondent: SK.Z.H.Tanweer, JCIT, SR.DR
Section 143(3)Section 40Section 43B

section 43B(c) read with Explanation 3D and accordingly disallowed Rs.13,36,747/- and Rs. 2,06,386/- claimed as interest

EIH LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 314/KOL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jun 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Respondent: Shri Vijay Shankar, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

747/- for Trident Mumbai project, the assessee contended that the amount was capitalized and thus not claimed as tax deductible. Accordingly, the question of disallowing such expenditure does not arise. 10 ITA Nos.348-314/K/2011 & CO No.23/K/2011 EIH Limited AY 2006-07 5.1. The Learned CITA observed that most of the payments have been made to the payees of USA, UK, Germany

DCIT, CIRCLE - 8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. EIH LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 348/KOL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jun 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Respondent: Shri Vijay Shankar, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

747/- for Trident Mumbai project, the assessee contended that the amount was capitalized and thus not claimed as tax deductible. Accordingly, the question of disallowing such expenditure does not arise. 10 ITA Nos.348-314/K/2011 & CO No.23/K/2011 EIH Limited AY 2006-07 5.1. The Learned CITA observed that most of the payments have been made to the payees of USA, UK, Germany

ITO, WARD - 1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. GKW LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 459/KOL/2012[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Apr 2017AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganesh, I.T.A. No. 459/Kol/2012 Assessment Years: 1996-97

Section 143(3)Section 37Section 40A(3)

section 40A(3) of the Act in the return of income. The ld AO without any discussion again disallowed an amount of Rs.74,635/- in the assessment thereby resulting in double disallowance. The ld CIT(A) deleted the same in first appeal. Aggrieved, the revenue is in appeal before us on the following ground:- “1.That the Ld. CIT(Appeals

DIPAK KUMAR DASBHOWMIK,PASCHIM MIDNAPORE vs. I.T.O., WARD - 38(1), MIDNAPORE , PASCHIM MIDNAPORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2384/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40

747 Less: Demand notice dt. Rs.18,870 02.11.2011 Undercharge Rs.3,68,877 In view of the above circumstances, I have reason to believe that the income of the assessee has escaped the assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961. Hence, proceeding u/s 148 of the I.T. Act, is initiated. Issued notice

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , KOLKATA vs. SNOWFALL COMMOTRADE PVT LTD , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and cross-objection of the assessee is also dismissed

ITA 2087/KOL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit, Circle-5(1), Kolkata………...….……………….……….……….……Appellant Vs. M/S Snowfall Commotrade Pvt. Ltd….……………………………...…..…..Respondent 27, Modi Building, R N Mukherjee Road, Kolkata-700001. [Pan: Aaics0531J] C.O. 85/Kol/2025 (In Ita No.2087/Kol/2025) Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S Snowfall Commotrade Pvt. Ltd.….……………………………… Cross-Objector 27, Modi Building, R N Mukherjee Road, Kolkata-700001. [Pan: Aaics0531J] Vs. Dcit, Circle-5(1), Kolkata ……………………………..…...…..…………….Respondent Appearances By: Shri J. M. Thad, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sanat Kr. Raha, Cit- Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 07, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 15, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey:

Section 14ASection 250

747/- after making disallowance u/s.14A amounting to Rs.2,84,754/- and disallowance of alleged bogus investment amounting to Rs.6,16,71,539/-. 4. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A) wherein the appeal of the assessee has been allowed on merits but legal ground of the assessee has been dismissed. 5. Being aggrieved

ANIL KUMAR PAIK ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-8(1), KOL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 492/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 492/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Anil Kumar Paik Acit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata C/O S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocates Vs 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor Suite No. 203 Off Hare Street Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aflpp6567R] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate Revenue By : Shri B.K. Singh, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01/12/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/02/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 15/03/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. For That The Ld. Commissioner, Of Income Tax (Appeals)- N.F.A.C. Acted Unlawfully In Impliedly Sustaining; The Purported Addition Of Rs. 1,67.44,907/- Made The Ld. Assistant Commissioner, Of Income Tax, Circle 8(1) Kolkata By Invoking The Mischief U/S. 43Ca Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Without Satisfying The Parameters Thereof & The Adverse Conclusion Reached On That Behalf In Violation Of The Statutory Prescription Is Completely Unfounded, Unjustified & Untenable In Law. 2. For That The Specious Approach Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-N.F.A,C. Of Misreading Evidence, Considering Improper Facts

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Singh, JCIT, Sr. D/R
Section 145Section 250Section 43C

747/-. Disallowance of rent deposit of Rs.2,04,000/- was made by not treating it as revenue expenditure. Further the ld. Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee is not maintaining regular books of accounts because they were not produced before the Assessing Officer in spite of granting various opportunities. During the year, subsequent to the announcement of demonetisation scheme

ITO, WD-53(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI GOUTAM KUMAR KUNDU, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 592/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Oct 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Jm] I.T.A. No. 592/Kol/2014 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Ito, Ward-53(2), Kolkata.............................………………………………………Appellant Aayakar Bhawan Dakshin 2, Gariahat Road (South) Kolkata – 700068. Shri Goutam Kumar Kundu.………………………………………………......Respondent 172, N.S. Road, Kolkata - 700149 [Pan: Aftpk2528M] Appearances By: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri A.K. Tulsiyan, Fca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 05, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 25, 2017 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Am This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of Learned Cit (Appeals) – 33, Kolkata Dated 22.01.2014. 2. Ground No. 1 Raised By The Revenue In This Appeal Is General While The Common Issue Involved In Ground No 2 To 4 Relates To The Deletion By The Ld. Cit (A) Of The Disallowance Of Rs. 29,57,000/- Made By The Ao Out Of Carriage Inward & Delivery Charges. 3. The Assessee In The Present Case Is An Individual Who Is Engaged In The Business Of Dealing In Cement, Iron Rods & Building Materials On Wholesale Basis Besides Hiring Of Mini Trucks. The Return Of Income

Section 145Section 44A

disallowance of Rs. 29,57,000/- made by the AO out of carriage inward and delivery charges. 3. The assessee in the present case is an individual who is engaged in the business of dealing in cement, iron rods and building materials on wholesale basis besides hiring of mini trucks. The return of income 2 I.T.A. No. 592/Kol/2014 Assessment Year

DCIT, CIR-5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S SPACE MATRIX MEDIA (P) LTD, HOWRAH

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1292/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Apr 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2010-11 Dcit, Circle-5, V/S. M/S Space Matrix Media P-7, Chowringhee (P)Ltd., Jalan Industrial Square, Kolkta-69 Complex, Right Lane No.3 Domjur, Howrah-711302 [Pan No.Aakcs 7272 F] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Dev Kumar Kothari, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 20-02-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 04-04-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Vi, Kolkata Dated 25.03.2014. Assessment Was Framed By Dcit, Circle-5, Kolkata U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 09.01.2013 For Assessment Year 2010-11. The Grounds Raised By Revenue Reads As Under:- “1. That On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case, The Cit(A) Erred On Facts As Well As In Law In Holding That Depreciation Of Rs.6,92,40,656/- On Plants & Machinery Purchased Of Rs.40,90,09,565/- Was Allowable, Ignoring The Fact That The Plant & Machinery Acquired Was Commissioned At The End Of The Relevant Previous Year & In This Regard The Auditor In His Report Did Not Mention The Actual Date Of Installation / Commissioning Date In 3 Cd Report Field Along With The Return However, Cit(A) Accepted The Additional Evidences In This Regard In Contravention To Rule 46A.”

Section 143(3)

747/-. However, the Assessing Officer is directed to capitalize the aforesaid amount and allow depreciation on the same. The balance addition is deleted. The addition is reduced accordingly.” The Revenue, being aggrieved, is in appeal before us. 10. Before us both parties relied on the order of Authorities Below as favorable to them. ITA No.1292/Kol/2014 A.Y. 2010-11 DCIT

M/S BISSESWARIALL MANNALAL & SONS,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-33, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee( Ground No

ITA 1140/KOL/2015[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Apr 2019AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1140/Kol/2015 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S Bisseswarlall Vs. Dcit, Cir-33, Kolkata 10B, Middleton Row,3Rd Floor, Mannalal& Sons 12, Pretoria Street, 5Th Floor, Kolkata Kolkata – 71. – 700 071. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacfb 7736 L (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Bhide, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Robin Chowdhury, Addl. CIT Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 24Section 80Section 80I

disallowance of deduction claimed by the assessee, under section 80-IC (2) (b) of the Act in respect of profit of Rs. 34,73,556/-, derived by the assessee on sale of black tea manufactured from green leaf purchased. This order is recalled for limited purpose which is given in para No.3 of MA .No. 97/Kol/2018, dated 29.08.2018, the same

M/S. INLAND TEEVRA PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT, CENTRAL - 2, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1027/KOL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 153ASection 153DSection 263Section 37

747/- as an expenditure and has not suo moto disallowed the same. He observed that the aforesaid expenditure in the form of interest on late deposit of TDS was not an allowable expenditure u/s. 37 of the act as the same had not been incurred solely for the purpose of business. He, therefore, held that no deduction was allowable

M/S THE MORAN TEA CO. (INDIA) LTD. EMPLOYEES'S GRATUITY FUND,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-36(4), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2265/KOL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Mar 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 10Section 10(25)Section 10(25)(iv)Section 143(2)Section 3G

disallowed the claim of the assessee. 3. Appeal to the ld. CIT(Appeals) did not bring any relief to the assessee. 4. Ld. Counsel for the assessee admitted the fact that at present the assessee is not in a position to submit the certificate contemplated under section 10(25(Iv) of the Income Tax Act. He submitted that though

CARBON FINANCE LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-8(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 517/KOL/2014[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Mar 2017AY 2004-2005

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

For Appellant: Ms. Ruchira Kheria, ACA `For Respondent: Shri S. S. Alam, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 10(35)Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 94(7)

disallowances u/s. 94(7) of the Act of Rs.1,05,747/- and should have added it in the computation under the head Short Term Capital Gain. Thus, according to AO, it was a fit case for imposition of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and the computation of tax sought to be evaded calculated as per Explanation

DCIT,CIRCLE-1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S CHEVIOT CO. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of revenue are dismissed and COs of assessee are allowed

ITA 530/KOL/2012[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2016AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kr. Pande, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

disallowance of deduction u/s. 80HHC in view of amended provision of section 80HHC and also CBDT’s Circular No. 2/2006 dated 17.01.2006. It has also been explained with reference to the record that incentive received by the assessee has not been included in the export turnover. So, as per Hon’ble ITAT’s direction, assessee is to get exemption