HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-10(1), DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to recompute the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) at 30% for resident payments. For the LWF amount, the Tribunal directed the AO to ensure no double addition is made in the assessee's hands.
What were the facts?
The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s order confirming the disallowance of INR 56,916,238 under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the disallowance of INR 8,930 for employee's contribution to Labour Welfare Fund. The assessee argued that the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) should be 30% for resident payments, not 100%, and the LWF disallowance resulted in double disallowance.
What were the issues?
Whether the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for resident payments should be 30% or 100%, and whether the disallowance of employee's contribution to LWF amounts to a double disallowance.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 40(a)(ia),Section 36(1)(va),Section 143(1),Section 250,Section 253(1)(a)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘B’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL
PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2018-19, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/Addl./JCIT(A)- 12, Mumbai’s DIN and order no. ITBA/APL/S/250/2023- 24/1061122525(1), dated 19.02.2024, involving proceedings under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
This assessee’s appeal raises the following substantive grounds: “Appeal under section 253(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), against the order dated 19 February 2024 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
More judgments on Section 40(a)(ia)
- Rekha Agarwal, Jaipur vs ITO WD 4(1), JaipurITA 844/JPR/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Cdg Petchem Limited, Hyderabad vs ITO, Ward - 1(1), HyderabadITA 1900/HYD/2025[2018-2019]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-2019
- M/S. Shree Laminators Ltd., Kolkata vs DCIT, Circle 4(4), KolkataITA 1534/KOL/2026[2011-2012]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2011-2012
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1493/KOL/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1492/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2013-2014
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Chandan Kumar Bathual vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Cuttack-Iii Range, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Manoranjan Sadangi vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Gopalpur Range, GanjamOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Bijaya Kumar Parekh vs. State Tax Officer, CT And GST Balangir Circle, BalangirOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Puspanjali Bhuyan vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S A2Z Infra Engineering LTD vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026