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.

338 results for “disallowance”+ Undisclosed Incomeclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,812Delhi1,639Chennai738Bangalore508Jaipur407Kolkata338Hyderabad282Ahmedabad257Indore157Pune130Chandigarh128Rajkot124Cochin100Amritsar87Nagpur77Raipur70Surat68Guwahati54Lucknow42Patna40Allahabad39Visakhapatnam35Jodhpur33Ranchi32Agra28Cuttack27Dehradun10Varanasi7SC6Bombay5Jabalpur5Panaji4H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1

Key Topics

Section 250310Section 14873Section 14767Section 6857Addition to Income57Section 143(3)42Disallowance23Section 143(2)21Section 14A16Section 132

M/S. GARG BROTHERS PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 431/KOL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am ]

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 15Section 2Section 271A

income to the tune of Rs.40 lakhs and certain disallowance under section 14A, amortization of capital issue expenditure. Thus, it is noted that the total undisclosed

M/S. VIJAYSHREE AUTOCOM LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4(3) , KOLKATA

Showing 1–20 of 338 · Page 1 of 17

...
15
Unexplained Cash Credit14
Undisclosed Income12

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2375/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble) Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 250Section 271Section 271A

disallowances made by learned assessing officer is contrary to the law and facts of the case. 2. That the Hon’ble Commissioner of Income Tax (A) 21, Kolkata erred in law as well as on facts of the case by not deleted the penalty-imposed u/s 271AAB on the ground the ld. Assessing Officer has failed to specify

M/S. VIJAYSHREE AUTOCOM LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4(3) , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2374/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble) Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 250Section 271Section 271A

disallowances made by learned assessing officer is contrary to the law and facts of the case. 2. That the Hon’ble Commissioner of Income Tax (A) 21, Kolkata erred in law as well as on facts of the case by not deleted the penalty-imposed u/s 271AAB on the ground the ld. Assessing Officer has failed to specify

M/S. CLIFF TREXIM PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 430/KOL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271A

income to the tune of Rs.40 lakhs and certain disallowance under section 14A, amortization of capital issue expenditure. Thus, it is noted that the total undisclosed

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S AMRIT HATCHERIES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 2305/KOL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 132Section 132(3)Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 271ASection 80I

undisclosed income' and consequently penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act is leviable for the same. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the revenue in this regard are allowed. 7. The next issue to be decided in this appeal in ITA No. 2305/Kol/2016 is as to whether the levy of penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act was justified on account of denial

DCIT, CC-3(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AMICUS REAL ESTATE PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 803/KOL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI SANJAY GARG, HON’BLE (Judicial Member), DR. MANISH BORAD, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, D/R
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250

undisclosed income Thus, while in view of the mandate of sub-section (1) of section 153A of the Act, in every case where there is a search or requisition, the Assessing Officer is obliged to issue notice to such person to furnish returns of income for the six years preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which

AMIT KUMAR SEN,HOOGHLY vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 23(1), , HOOGHLY

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

ITA 388/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.388/Kol/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Amit Kumar Sen, Vs Acit, Circle-23(1), Hooghly Sahapur, Tarakeswar, Hooghly (Wb)-712410 Pan No. :Aavfs 6967 R (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Ray, Shri S.N.Patra & Shri Trideep Nayak, Ars रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Adhikary, Addl/Cit-Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 25/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25/06/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan, Jm : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.12.2024 Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024- 25/1071619653(1) For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. Shri P.K.Ray, Shri S.N.Patra & Shri Trideep Nayak, Ld. Ars Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Abhijit Adhikary, Ld. Sr.Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. At The Time Of Hearing, Ld. Ar Was Specifically Asked To Point Out How The Assessee Has Responded To The Chart Issued By The Assessing Officer, Which Is Recorded In Page 3 Of The Assessment Order. Other Than Referring To Various Replies That Have Been Filed By The Assessee, Which Were Uploaded From The Portal, No Specific Reply To The Said Para Was Pointed Out. Admittedly, The Assessee Has Not Been Able To Dislodge The Said Chart.

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Ray, Shri S.N.Patra and Shri Trideep Nayak, ArsFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Adhikary, Addl/CIT-Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

undisclosed stock, when audited accounts and ledgers were furnished, would likely be challenged successfully and should be deleted from the total income. Grounds for Appeal Against Disallowance

DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. COAL INDIA LIMITED , KOLKATA

ITA 623/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2026AY 2012-13
Section 115JSection 250

disallowed a sum of ₹19,25,000/- and added the same to the total income of the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) decided the issue against the assessee as the assessee could not establish that the liability had crystallised during the year and thus was allowable as a deduction and his finding in this regard is as under: “Perusal

DCIT, CIR-5(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S COAL INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

ITA 1696/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2026AY 2013-14
Section 115J

disallowing period\nexpenditure amounting to Rs. 19,25,000/- without appreciating that the\nexpenditure crystallized during the year.\n3) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned\nCIT(Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in\nadding Rs. 1,92,32,107/- alleging the same as undisclosed income

DCIT, CIR-5(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S COAL INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

ITA 1697/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2026AY 2014-15
Section 115J

undisclosed income both under the normal provisions as well\nas u/s 115JB of the Act. The Ld. AO noted on comparison of ITS details\nas per Form No. 26AS that certain interest and rental income had not\nbeen credited by the assessee in the profit and loss account though the\nsame were reflected in Form No. 26AS and the credit

DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. COAL INDIA LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 622/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2026AY 2011-12
Section 115J

disallowing period\nexpenditure amounting to Rs. 19,25,000/- without appreciating that the\nexpenditure crystallized during the year.\n3) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned\nCIT(Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in\nadding Rs. 1,92,32,107/- alleging the same as undisclosed income

M/S. COAL INDIA LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

ITA 1406/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2026AY 2013-14
Section 115J

undisclosed income both under the normal provisions as well\nas u/s 115JB of the Act. The Ld. AO noted on comparison of ITS details\nas per Form No. 26AS that certain interest and rental income had not\nbeen credited by the assessee in the profit and loss account though the\nsame were reflected in Form No. 26AS and the credit

COAL INDIA LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

ITA 467/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2026AY 2012-13
Section 115J

undisclosed income both under the normal provisions as well\nas u/s 115JB of the Act. The Ld. AO noted on comparison of ITS details\nas per Form No. 26AS that certain interest and rental income had not\nbeen credited by the assessee in the profit and loss account though the\nsame were reflected in Form No. 26AS and the credit

BENI PRASAD LAHOTI,HOWRAH vs. DCIT, CC-2(2), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 306/KOL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

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

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 14ASection 153ASection 271(1)(c)

disallowance of speculation loss of Rs.28,83,6322/- was deleted by the CIT(A). Asst. Year: 2012-13 Returned income under Rs. 1,68,765/- section 139 Returned income under Rs. 8,76,720/- section 153A Income disclosed under Rs. 7,50,000/- section 132(4) Addition under section Rs. 1,37,648/- 14A Assessed income Rs.10,14,368/- Penalty

BENI PRASAD LAHOTI,HOWRAH vs. DCIT, CC-2(2), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 302/KOL/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Dec 2022AY 2008-09

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

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 14ASection 153ASection 271(1)(c)

disallowance of speculation loss of Rs.28,83,6322/- was deleted by the CIT(A). Asst. Year: 2012-13 Returned income under Rs. 1,68,765/- section 139 Returned income under Rs. 8,76,720/- section 153A Income disclosed under Rs. 7,50,000/- section 132(4) Addition under section Rs. 1,37,648/- 14A Assessed income Rs.10,14,368/- Penalty

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AMAR KUMAR AGARWAL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1499/KOL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Jhajharia, ARFor Respondent: S/shri Raja Sengupta &
Section 132Section 153ASection 44ASection 69A

disallowance of expenditure of Rs. 112,959,517/-estimating income at the rate of 12.5% of such bogus purchases." 8.2.6. Further, reliance is also placed in the case of 'M/S. Alokik Steels Pvt. Ltd Village vs Principal Commissioner Of Income on 3 March, 2021, ITA No. 861/JP/2019', the Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur had held as under:- "Further, there

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AMAR KUMAR AGARAWAL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1498/KOL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Jhajharia, ARFor Respondent: S/shri Raja Sengupta &
Section 132Section 153ASection 44ASection 69A

disallowance of expenditure of Rs. 112,959,517/-estimating income at the rate of 12.5% of such bogus purchases." 8.2.6. Further, reliance is also placed in the case of 'M/S. Alokik Steels Pvt. Ltd Village vs Principal Commissioner Of Income on 3 March, 2021, ITA No. 861/JP/2019', the Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur had held as under:- "Further, there

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AMAR KUMAR AGARWAL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1440/KOL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Jhajharia, ARFor Respondent: S/shri Raja Sengupta &
Section 132Section 153ASection 44ASection 69A

disallowance of expenditure of Rs. 112,959,517/-estimating income at the rate of 12.5% of such bogus purchases." 8.2.6. Further, reliance is also placed in the case of 'M/S. Alokik Steels Pvt. Ltd Village vs Principal Commissioner Of Income on 3 March, 2021, ITA No. 861/JP/2019', the Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur had held as under:- "Further, there

DEPUTY COMMSSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AMAR KUMAR AGARWAL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1497/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Jhajharia, ARFor Respondent: S/shri Raja Sengupta &
Section 132Section 153ASection 44ASection 69A

disallowance of expenditure of Rs. 112,959,517/-estimating income at the rate of 12.5% of such bogus purchases." 8.2.6. Further, reliance is also placed in the case of 'M/S. Alokik Steels Pvt. Ltd Village vs Principal Commissioner Of Income on 3 March, 2021, ITA No. 861/JP/2019', the Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur had held as under:- "Further, there

AMAR KUMAR AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CC - 4(3),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2007/KOL/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Jhajharia, ARFor Respondent: S/shri Raja Sengupta &
Section 132Section 153ASection 44ASection 69A

disallowance of expenditure of Rs. 112,959,517/-estimating income at the rate of 12.5% of such bogus purchases." 8.2.6. Further, reliance is also placed in the case of 'M/S. Alokik Steels Pvt. Ltd Village vs Principal Commissioner Of Income on 3 March, 2021, ITA No. 861/JP/2019', the Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur had held as under:- "Further, there