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.

14 results for “disallowance”+ Section 80Cclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi61Jaipur53Mumbai51Hyderabad24Bangalore20Lucknow15Chandigarh14Kolkata14Pune13Cochin13Chennai12Ahmedabad12Raipur8Indore7Amritsar7Surat6Patna5Nagpur5Agra4Cuttack4Visakhapatnam3Jodhpur3Rajkot1Ranchi1Panaji1Varanasi1Allahabad1

Key Topics

Section 80T16Section 80P14Section 2413Section 8013Addition to Income11Deduction11Section 80C10Section 80D8Section 1397Section 143(1)

NABARUN S K U S LTD.,NADIA vs. I.T.O.WARD-41(1), KRISHNANAGAR

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 89/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Dec 2025AY 2018-19
Section 119Section 139Section 80Section 80ASection 80P

disallowance under section 80P(2)(a)(vi)\nsince assessee's returns were filed much beyond date for filing prescribed\nunder section 139 and even under section 148 On reading sections 80A(5)\nand 80AC as they stood prior to 1-4-2018, it was noted that statutory\nscheme under Act was to admit only such claims for deduction under\nsection

RATULIA SAMABAY KRISHI UNNYAN SAMITI LTD.,EAST MEDINIPUR vs. I.T.O., WARD - 27(3), HALDIA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

6
Disallowance6
House Property5
ITA 2409/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Aug 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal & ShilpiFor Respondent: Shri Somnath Das Biswas, Sr. DR
Section 10ASection 139Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80Section 80ASection 80P

disallowance under section 80P(2)(a)(vi) since assessee's returns were filed much beyond date for filing prescribed under section 139 and even under section 148 - On reading sections 80A(5) and 80AC as they stood prior to 1-4-2018, it was noted that statutory scheme under Act was to admit only such claims for deduction under section

DURGAMONDAP SAMABAY KRISHI UNNAYN SAMATI LTD. ,ITO, WARD NO-49(1), KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD NO- 49(1), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1153/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80Section 80ASection 80P

disallowance under section 80P(2)(a)(vi) since assessee's returns were filed much beyond date for filing prescribed under section 139 and even under section 148 - On reading sections 80A(5) and 80AC as they stood prior to 1-4-2018, it was noted that statutory scheme under Act was to admit only such claims for deduction under section

KHANDRA COLLIERY EMPLOYEES CO OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,BARDHAMAN vs. THE AO, CPC BANGALORE / ITO, WARD-1(1), BURDWAN, BURDWAN

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2594/KOL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A), Where Also He Could Not Succeed.

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 234FSection 250Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

disallowance under section 80P(2)(a)(vi) since assessee's returns were filed much beyond date for filing prescribed under section 139 and even under section 148 - On reading sections 80A(5) and 80AC as they stood prior to 1-4-2018, it was noted that statutory scheme under Act was to admit only such claims for deduction under section

TRIVENI DEVI BHUTRA,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 61(4), KOLKATA

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

ITA 965/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 10Section 10DSection 115BSection 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 80C

80C of the Act and added the same to the returned income of the assessee and assessed the total income at ₹6,05,460/-. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who partly allowed the appeal of the assessee as per his findings as under: “4.1 Ground of Appeal

SANJIT KUMAR GHOSH,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-2(2),DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

In the result, both the appeals are treated as partly allowed

ITA 417/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. Nos.416&417/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Sanjit Kumar Ghosh…...……….....................................……………....Appellant C/O Jain Vinod K & Associates, 41A, Ajc Bose Road, Suite No.613, 6Th Floor, Kolkata-700017. [Pan: Adhpg7981J] Vs. Ito, Ward-2(2), Durgapur.......…..........................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Vinod Jain, Ar, Appeared On 15.06.2023 & None Appeared On 03.11.2023 On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sanjiv Kumar Paul, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On 15.06.2023 & Shri B. K. Singh, Jcit – Sr. Dr, Appeared On 03.11.2023 On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 15, 2023 & November 03, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 10, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 26.11.2021 & 28.04.2022 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively.

Section 250Section 80CSection 80T

80C of the Act. In view of our observation made above while deciding the identical ground in assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2015-16 in ITA No.416/Kol/2023, this issue is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for examination of the factual details/evidences furnished by the assessee and accordingly to decide the issue as per our directions given

SANJIT KUMAR GHOSH,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-2(2),DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

In the result, both the appeals are treated as partly allowed

ITA 416/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. Nos.416&417/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Sanjit Kumar Ghosh…...……….....................................……………....Appellant C/O Jain Vinod K & Associates, 41A, Ajc Bose Road, Suite No.613, 6Th Floor, Kolkata-700017. [Pan: Adhpg7981J] Vs. Ito, Ward-2(2), Durgapur.......…..........................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Vinod Jain, Ar, Appeared On 15.06.2023 & None Appeared On 03.11.2023 On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sanjiv Kumar Paul, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On 15.06.2023 & Shri B. K. Singh, Jcit – Sr. Dr, Appeared On 03.11.2023 On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 15, 2023 & November 03, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 10, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 26.11.2021 & 28.04.2022 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively.

Section 250Section 80CSection 80T

80C of the Act. In view of our observation made above while deciding the identical ground in assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2015-16 in ITA No.416/Kol/2023, this issue is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for examination of the factual details/evidences furnished by the assessee and accordingly to decide the issue as per our directions given

PARVESH SHARMA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 49(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1388/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 1388/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Parvesh Sharma,……………………………...……Appellant 106, B.T. Road, Rajbari, Bonhooghly, Kolkata-700108, West Bengal [Pan:Bmpps3173Q] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………..Respondent Ward-49(1), Kolkata, Income Tax Office, Uttarapan Complex Ds-Iv, Kolkata-700054, W.B.

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 24

sections 24(b) and 80C(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the two properties are in the names of Parvesh Sharma and Rohini Sharma. Therefore, the appellant’s assertion that there is no co-owner of the properties is factually incorrect. Furthermore, the appellant claims to have enclosed the purchase deeds for both properties, however, the documents submitted

VINEET BAJORIA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 45(4), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 230/KOL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: S/Shri & Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.228, 229, 230 & 231/Kol/2025 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Vineet Bajoria, C/O. S.N.Ghosh Vs. Ito, Ward 45(4), Kolkata & Associates, Advocates, 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor, Suite No.203, Off Hare Street, Kolkata Pan/Gir No. Adupb 1299 F (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr Dr

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr DR
Section 24Section 80CSection 80DSection 80T

80C of the Act, Rs.5,282/- u/s.80TTA of the Act and Rs.12,426/- u/s. 80D of the Act. 12. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer required the assessee to furnish the details of deduction alongwith evidences. The assessee did not respond and, accordingly, the claim of deduction was disallowed by the AO and upheld

VINEET BAJORIA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 45(4), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 231/KOL/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Sept 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: S/Shri & Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.228, 229, 230 & 231/Kol/2025 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Vineet Bajoria, C/O. S.N.Ghosh Vs. Ito, Ward 45(4), Kolkata & Associates, Advocates, 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor, Suite No.203, Off Hare Street, Kolkata Pan/Gir No. Adupb 1299 F (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr Dr

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr DR
Section 24Section 80CSection 80DSection 80T

80C of the Act, Rs.5,282/- u/s.80TTA of the Act and Rs.12,426/- u/s. 80D of the Act. 12. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer required the assessee to furnish the details of deduction alongwith evidences. The assessee did not respond and, accordingly, the claim of deduction was disallowed by the AO and upheld

VINEET BAJORIA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 45(4), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 229/KOL/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Sept 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: S/Shri & Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.228, 229, 230 & 231/Kol/2025 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Vineet Bajoria, C/O. S.N.Ghosh Vs. Ito, Ward 45(4), Kolkata & Associates, Advocates, 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor, Suite No.203, Off Hare Street, Kolkata Pan/Gir No. Adupb 1299 F (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr Dr

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr DR
Section 24Section 80CSection 80DSection 80T

80C of the Act, Rs.5,282/- u/s.80TTA of the Act and Rs.12,426/- u/s. 80D of the Act. 12. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer required the assessee to furnish the details of deduction alongwith evidences. The assessee did not respond and, accordingly, the claim of deduction was disallowed by the AO and upheld

VINEET BAJORIA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 45(4), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 228/KOL/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Sept 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: S/Shri & Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.228, 229, 230 & 231/Kol/2025 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Vineet Bajoria, C/O. S.N.Ghosh Vs. Ito, Ward 45(4), Kolkata & Associates, Advocates, 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor, Suite No.203, Off Hare Street, Kolkata Pan/Gir No. Adupb 1299 F (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr Dr

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr DR
Section 24Section 80CSection 80DSection 80T

80C of the Act, Rs.5,282/- u/s.80TTA of the Act and Rs.12,426/- u/s. 80D of the Act. 12. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer required the assessee to furnish the details of deduction alongwith evidences. The assessee did not respond and, accordingly, the claim of deduction was disallowed by the AO and upheld

RAJU SAHA,BARASAT, TWENTY FOUR PARGANAS NORTH vs. DCIT/ACIT, CIRCLE - 61,, KOLKATA

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

ITA 2056/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Nov 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 2056/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Raju Saha,……………………………….……...……Appellant Swapanapuri, Duttapukur Hatkhola, Barasat, 24-Parganas (N), Kolkata-743248, West Bengal [Pan:Awops1579E] -Vs.- Dcit/Acit,…………………………………….……..Respondent Circle-61, Kolkata, Office Of The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bamboo Villa, 169, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata-700014

Section 10Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 192Section 270ASection 80C

section 144 of the Act was issued to the assessee, but the assessee failed to furnish any response. As per Form 16 filed by the assessee, gross salary of the assessee during FY 2017-18 is Rs.218,07,893/-. The assessee has been allowed exemption of Rs.2,34,913/- and Rs.3,00,000/- u/s. 10 on account

ASHOK CHAURASIA,PARBATIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, HALDIA

Appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 358/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144Section 250Section 44ASection 68

section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the addition is not tenable at law and liable to be deleted. 12. That the Assessing Officer has erred in law as well as in facts by making an addition to the income-from business amounting to Rs. 14,09,790 where no mention of such income is discussed