SOBAN SINGH,DEHRADUN, UTTRAKHAND vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(1)(1), DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN, UTTRAKHAND
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The tribunal held that Section 40A(3) applies to individual payments exceeding INR 10,000, not the aggregate of payments to multiple parties. Since each payment to individual landlords was below the prescribed limit, the disallowance made by the AO was incorrect and subsequently deleted.
What were the facts?
The assessee paid rent to six different parties in cash, with each individual payment being below INR 10,000. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed the entire gross rent amount under Section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, considering it a violation. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance.
What were the issues?
The key legal issue was whether the disallowance under Section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act applies to the aggregate rent paid to multiple parties or to individual payments made to each party.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DEHRADUN “SMC” BENCH: DEHRADUN
Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL
ORDER
PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM :
The present appeal is filed by assessee against the order dated 03.12.2025 by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A), NFAC, Delhi [“Ld.CIT(A)”] in Appeal No.NFAC/2021-22/10363960 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] arising out of assessment order dated 25.03.2024 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act pertaining to Assessment Year 2022-23.
Heard the contentions of both the parties at length and perused the material available on record. From the perusal of the table reproduced at page 12 of Ld. CIT(A)’s order containing the party-wise details of rent paid during the previous year, it is observed that assessee had paid rent to total Six parties in cash every month and the payment made to each individual owner was below the maximum limit prescribed u/s 40A(3) of the Act of INR 10,000/-. The AO has wrongly considered the gross amount of rent paid to all the landlords as in violation of provision of section 40A(3) of the Act. Since the rent paid to each individual land owner was below INR 10,000/- on each occasion, therefore, provision of section 40A(3) are not applicable. Accordingly, no disallowance is required to be made u/s 40A(3) of the Act. In the light of above facts, we delete the disallowance made by the AO. All the grounds of appeal taken by the assessee are allowed.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 12.03.2026.
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 →- Smt Usha W/O Shri Tarun vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maruti Nandan Minetech Private Limited vs. The Joint CommissionerRajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Rentex Polymers Private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services TaxDelhi · 29 Oct 2026
- Ajay Kumar @ Ajay Sharma vs. Union Of INDIA Rep Thr The Intelligence Officer, Directorate General Of GST Intelligence (Dggi)Jharkhand · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Shila Traders vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 29 Oct 2026