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.

76 results for “disallowance”+ Section 36clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai7,834Delhi7,031Bangalore2,375Chennai2,291Kolkata2,046Ahmedabad1,033Jaipur818Pune783Hyderabad762Indore514Chandigarh465Surat339Raipur290Visakhapatnam235Karnataka228Rajkot227Cochin227Amritsar218Nagpur208Lucknow173Cuttack119Agra100Guwahati95Telangana88Ranchi76Jodhpur73SC73Panaji64Allahabad64Calcutta61Patna47Kerala33Varanasi31Jabalpur30Dehradun30Punjab & Haryana15Rajasthan7Himachal Pradesh5Orissa3A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1ANIL R. DAVE AMITAVA ROY L. NAGESWARA RAO1RANJAN GOGOI PRAFULLA C. PANT1Andhra Pradesh1Tripura1

Key Topics

Section 36(1)(va)62Disallowance61Addition to Income46Depreciation35Section 143(3)34Section 14A32Section 234A30Section 80I28Section 35E28Section 32(2)

TRIDENT METAL ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED,RANCHI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEAL) NFAC, DELHI, DEILHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 54/RAN/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 2Section 2(24)Section 2(24)(x)Section 3Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

disallowance made u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act in respect of delay in deposit of Employees’ Contribution of 2 AY: 2018-19 Trident Metal Energy Pvt. Ltd. Provident Fund and Employees State Insurance (PF & ESI) totaling to Rs.52,686/-. Since the issue raised in the grounds taken by the assessee has been adjudicated by the recent verdict

Showing 1–20 of 76 · Page 1 of 4

21
Section 43B19
Deduction18

S. K. TIMBERS,BURMAMINES vs. ACIT CIRCLE 3, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2/RAN/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Jun 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 2Section 2(24)Section 2(24)(x)Section 3Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

disallowance made u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act in respect of delay in deposit of Employees’ Contribution of Provident Fund and Employees State Insurance (PF & ESI) totaling to Rs.9,05,917/-. Since the issue raised in the grounds taken by the assessee has been adjudicated by 2 AY: 2017-18 S. K. Timber the recent verdict

MANOJ KUMAR MISHRA,SAHARPURA, SINDRI, JHARKHAND-828122 vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1, DHANBAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 15/RAN/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi20 Dec 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 2Section 2(24)Section 2(24)(x)Section 3Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

disallowance made u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act in respect of delay in deposit of Employees’ Contribution of Provident Fund and Employees State Insurance (PF & ESI) totaling to Rs.57,28,360/-. The issue relating to ground taken by the assessee have come to rest by the recent verdict of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chekmate Services

INDUTECH SOLUTIONS AND MANUFACTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMSHEDPUR vs. CIT APPEALS, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 55/RAN/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 2Section 2(24)Section 2(24)(x)Section 3Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

disallowance made u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act in respect of delay in deposit of Employees’ Contribution of Provident Fund and Employees State Insurance (PF & ESI) totaling to Rs.9,05,917/-. 2 AY: 2018-19 Indutech Solutions and Manufacture Pvt. Ltd. Since the issue raised in the grounds taken by the assessee has been adjudicated by the recent verdict

ALOK KUMAR KHAITAN,RANCHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, RANCHI, RANCHI

In the result, both the appeals of the different assessee are dismissed

ITA 51/RAN/2021[2018 -19]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi29 Mar 2023

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 2Section 2(24)Section 2(24)(x)Section 3Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

disallowance made u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act in deposit of Employees’ Contribution of Provident Fund and Employees State Insurance (PF & ESI) totaling to Rs.1,70,592/- and Rs. 4,21,871/-. The issue relating to grounds taken by the different assessee have come to rest by the recent verdict of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chekmate Services

M/S VED TEXTILES & APPARELS,RANCHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, RANCHI, RANCHI

In the result, both the appeals of the different assessee are dismissed

ITA 50/RAN/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi29 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 2Section 2(24)Section 2(24)(x)Section 3Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

disallowance made u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act in deposit of Employees’ Contribution of Provident Fund and Employees State Insurance (PF & ESI) totaling to Rs.1,70,592/- and Rs. 4,21,871/-. The issue relating to grounds taken by the different assessee have come to rest by the recent verdict of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chekmate Services

M/S PINNACLE CAPITAL SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,RANCHI vs. PCIT, RANCHI, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, 5, MAIN ROAD, RANCHI-834004

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 130/RAN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaym/S Pinnacle Capital Solutions (P) Ltd., P.C.I.T., Virdi Niwas, Jamshedpur, East Ranchi. Vs. Singhbhum, Jharkhand-831001. Pan No. Aaacp 9726 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(2)

36(viia)(d) of the Act and Chapter (VIA). Since 5% of Rs. 7,19,23,183/- comes to Rs. 35,96,159/-, it means the assessee had debited more than what was allowable under the said Section and therefore, the same should have been disallowed

NEPAL CHANDRA DEY,RANCHI vs. ASSITANT /DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, RANCHI, RANCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 63/RAN/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi15 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No.63/Ran/2022 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Nepal Chandra Dey.……....…...………………......................……...…..….. Appellant 58, Tatisilwai, Gandhi Nagar, Ranchi – 835103. [Pan: Agrpd0835D] Vs. Acit/Dcit, Circle-1, Ranchi.…..…..………..…….……….…………….. Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Pranob Kumar Koley, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 02, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 15, 2023 Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 15.06.2022 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’).

Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

section 36(1)(va) is applicable from 1st April 2022, but the same was not taken into consideration and the appeal was rejected.” 5. A perusal of the above grounds of appeal and statement of facts would show that the only issue raised in this appeal is relating to the disallowance

M/S CENTRAL COALFIELDS LTD..,RANCHI vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, , RANCHI

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

ITA 57/RAN/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi30 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

disallow an amount of Rs.8.51 crore, which represents employees contribution towards ESI and PF. According to the ld. Commissioner, this amount was to be added back with the aid of section 36

EXMAM SECURITY SERVICES PVT. LTD., JAMSHEDPUR,JAMSHEDPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, ITA No. 49/RAN/2021 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 48/RAN/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi28 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

section 36(1) as well as 43B by Finance Act, 2021. The discussion made in that order read as under: “3. On due consideration of the above facts and circumstances, we find that ITAT, Kolkata has duly examined the amendment brought in by virtue of Finance Act, 2021. On the proposition and the discussion made by the ITAT

EXMABN SECURITY SERVICES PVT.LTD.,JAMSHEDPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, ITA No. 49/RAN/2021 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 49/RAN/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi28 Sept 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

section 36(1) as well as 43B by Finance Act, 2021. The discussion made in that order read as under: “3. On due consideration of the above facts and circumstances, we find that ITAT, Kolkata has duly examined the amendment brought in by virtue of Finance Act, 2021. On the proposition and the discussion made by the ITAT

PANKAJ AGARWAL,JAMSHEDPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR

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

ITA 67/RAN/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi01 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

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

Section 139(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

section 36(1) as well as 43B by Finance Act, 2021. The discussion made in that order read as under: “3. On due consideration of the above facts and circumstances, we find that ITAT, Kolkata has duly examined the amendment brought in by virtue of Finance Act, 2021. On the proposition and the discussion made by the ITAT

PANKAJ AGARWAL,JAMSHEDPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR

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

ITA 68/RAN/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi01 Aug 2022AY 2019-20

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

Section 139(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

section 36(1) as well as 43B by Finance Act, 2021. The discussion made in that order read as under: “3. On due consideration of the above facts and circumstances, we find that ITAT, Kolkata has duly examined the amendment brought in by virtue of Finance Act, 2021. On the proposition and the discussion made by the ITAT

NEERAJ KUMAR SINHA,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ITO WARD-1(1), JAMSHEDPUR

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

ITA 291/RAN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi08 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayneeraj Kumar Sinha, I.T.O., Prop.-M/S Neeraj Engineering, Chota Ward-1(1), Vs. Ghamaria, Saraikela-Kharsawan, Jamshedpur. Jamshedpur-832108 (Jharkhand) Pan No. Bopps 2885 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 154

disallowance relying on various case laws referred to in the order of the ld. CIT (Appeals). 1.9 For that the amendment brought in by the Finance Act, 2021 in Sections 36

PRAVIN ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ACIT , NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 107/RAN/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi11 Sept 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.107/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Pravin Engineering Pvt. Ltd.......................…...........................……….……Appellant Plot No.6A, Phase-1, Industrial Area, Adityapur, Jharkhand - 832109. [Pan: Aabcp0358E] Vs. Acit, National E-Assessment Centre, New Delhi.……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 10, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 11, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 28.02.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Company & Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.73,21,980/-. The Case Of The Was Selected For Scrutiny & The Assessing Officer Completed The Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Act Assessing Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.84,67,210/-. During The Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer Pointed Out That The Tax Audit Report Has Identified That The Assessee Paid Its Directors A Sum Of Rs.11,36,000/- As Bonus Or Commission Which Was Otherwise Payable As Profits Or Dividend & This Amount Was Covered By Section 36(1)(Ii) Of The Act. The Assessing Officer Disallowed The Claim Of Commission As Claimed By The Assessee.

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(ii)

section 36(1)(ii) of the Act. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of commission as claimed by the assessee

PREM CHAND SINGH,CHATRA vs. PR.CIT, DHANBAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 351/RAN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi11 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.107/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Pravin Engineering Pvt. Ltd.......................…...........................……….……Appellant Plot No.6A, Phase-1, Industrial Area, Adityapur, Jharkhand - 832109. [Pan: Aabcp0358E] Vs. Acit, National E-Assessment Centre, New Delhi.……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 10, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 11, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 28.02.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Company & Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.73,21,980/-. The Case Of The Was Selected For Scrutiny & The Assessing Officer Completed The Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Act Assessing Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.84,67,210/-. During The Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer Pointed Out That The Tax Audit Report Has Identified That The Assessee Paid Its Directors A Sum Of Rs.11,36,000/- As Bonus Or Commission Which Was Otherwise Payable As Profits Or Dividend & This Amount Was Covered By Section 36(1)(Ii) Of The Act. The Assessing Officer Disallowed The Claim Of Commission As Claimed By The Assessee.

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(ii)

section 36(1)(ii) of the Act. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of commission as claimed by the assessee

JITENDRA KUMAR SINGH,JAMSHEDPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR

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

ITA 64/RAN/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi27 Jul 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 139Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

disallowance of sum of Rs.3,32,786/- and in AY 2019-20 of Rs. 3,71,758/- being contribution of employee’ s share towards ESI and PF set up for the welfare of the employee u/s. 36(1)(va) read with section

JITENDRA KUMAR SINGH,JAMSHEDPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR

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

ITA 65/RAN/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi27 Jul 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 139Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

disallowance of sum of Rs.3,32,786/- and in AY 2019-20 of Rs. 3,71,758/- being contribution of employee’ s share towards ESI and PF set up for the welfare of the employee u/s. 36(1)(va) read with section

DCIT CIRCLE-1, DHANBAD vs. BHARAT COKING COAL LTD.,, DHANBAD

In the result, this appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 103/RAN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 37Section 37(1)

Section 37(1) and deleting the disallowance of ₹ 20,36,75,000/- claimed as demurrage charges u/s 37(1) of the IT Act, 1961. (iii) That

ACIT CIRCLE-1, DHANBAD vs. M/S. BHARAT COKING COAL LIMITED, DHANBAD

In the result, this appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 95/RAN/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 37Section 37(1)

Section 37(1) and deleting the disallowance of ₹ 20,36,75,000/- claimed as demurrage charges u/s 37(1) of the IT Act, 1961. (iii) That