DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)., VIJAYAWADA vs. 3K ENTERTAINMENT PRIVATE LIMITED, VIJAYAWADA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's grounds of appeal. Specifically, it found that Section 40A(3) was not invoked in the lower orders, upheld the CIT(A)'s direction to disallow 15% of expenditure, and found no fault with the CIT(A)'s exercise of Rule 46(A)(3).
What were the facts?
The Revenue appealed an order from the CIT(A) concerning the Assessment Year 2012-13. The appeal raised multiple grounds, but only three were considered for adjudication.
What were the issues?
Whether Section 40A(3) was applicable, the correctness of disallowing 15% of expenditure, and the propriety of the CIT(A)'s actions under Rule 46(A)(3).
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM
Before: SHRI V. DURGA RAO, HON’BLE & SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, HON’BLE
PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER
This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Vijayawada, dated 01/02/2017 for Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Revenue has raised as many as 09 grounds, but we find 03 grounds are necessary for adjudication i.e. ground Nos. 3, 7 & 8. 3. Ground No.3 relating to invocation of section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "Act"). The (M/s. 3K Entertainment Pvt. Ltd.)
provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act have neither coming out of the assessment order nor ld. CIT(A)’s order. Therefore, this ground of appeal raised by the Revenue cannot be survived, same is dismissed.
Ground No.7 relating to disallowance of exp
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 40A(3)
- Rekha Agarwal, Jaipur vs ITO WD 4(1), JaipurITA 844/JPR/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Infra Developers, Shivpuri vs Income Tax Officer, AshoknagarITA 454/AGR/2026[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Saiyed Zaharul Alam, Murshidabad vs I.T.O., Ward - 42(1), MurshidabadITA 2233/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2013-2014
- M/S Sadana Electric Store, Lucknow vs DCIT Range-6, LucknowITA 283/LKW/2024[2014-15]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2014-15
- Nagendra Prasad, Patna vs ITO Ward -5(3) Patna, Dak BanglowITA 362/PAT/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Md. Akhtar Ansari, Proprietor Of M/S Indian Associates vs. State Of Jharkhand, Through Commissioner Of State Tax, Commercial Tax Dept.Jharkhand · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S. Amarjothi Granites (INDIA) PVT. LTD., Berhampur, Ganjam vs. The Commissioner, Commercial Tax And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S. Mishka Steels LLP And Anr. vs. The Superintendent Of Central Goods And Service Tax, Cx, Range-Ii, Behala Div. And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Gujarat Co-Operative Milk Marketing Federation Limited vs. Union Of INDIAGujarat · 14 Oct 2026
- Ramesh K Devadiga vs. Khernagar Nandadeep Co Operative Housing Society LTDBombay · 14 Oct 2026