← All Phrases

“section 40A(2)(b)”

DisallowancesSection 40A(2)(b)Section 40A(2)(b)622 judgments

The decision most relied on for section 40A(2)(b) is CIT v. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. (254 ITR 377), cited in 417 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on section 40A(2)(b)

CIT v. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd.
254 ITR 377 · 2002 · High Court
417
citing judgments

When there is a nexus between an expenditure and the purpose of business, incurred on grounds of commercial expediency, the Revenue cannot question its reasonableness or assume the role of the businessman to compel profit maximization. This principle applies even if the business is not that of the assessee itself.

CIT v. Winsome Textile Industries Ltd.
319 ITR 204 · 2009 · High Court
378
citing judgments

Section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which disallows expenditure incurred in relation to exempt income, is not applicable if the assessee has not earned any exempt income in the relevant assessment year.

Biocon Ltd. v. DCIT
35 Taxmann.com 335 · 2013 · ITAT
322
citing judgments

The discount arising from the grant of Employee Stock Option Plans (ESOPs) is an allowable business expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as it is an ascertained liability, not a contingent one, and constitutes a revenue expense rather than a capital expense.

CIT v. Walchand & Co.
65 ITR 381 · 1967 · Supreme Court
314
citing judgments

The necessity and reasonableness of business expenditure, including the utilization of borrowed funds, must be judged from the perspective of a businessman based on commercial expediency, and cannot be dictated by revenue authorities. The onus is on the assessee to demonstrate the business purpose and commercial expediency.

India Cements Ltd. v. CIT
60 ITR 52 · 1966 · Supreme Court
247
citing judgments

Expenses incurred for obtaining a loan for the purpose of the assessee's business, such as debenture discount, bank guarantee charges, and stamp duty, are considered revenue expenditure. These liabilities, though potentially spread over time, are deductible as revenue expenses.

CIT v. Ankitech (P) Ltd.
340 ITR 14 · 2012 · High Court
202
citing judgments

Deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) cannot be taxed in the hands of a non-shareholder. The Supreme Court confirmed this view, affirming the Delhi High Court's decision in Ankitech.

Challapalli Sugars Ltd. v. CIT
98 ITR 167 · 1975 · Supreme Court
185
citing judgments

Interest on borrowed capital utilized for acquiring a capital asset is capitalized until business commences. Once business is set up, this interest is deductible under section 36(1)(iii) even if the asset has not yet been put to use, accepting commercial accounting standards in the absence of contrary statutory provisions.

DCIT v. Core Health Care Ltd.
298 ITR 194 · 2008 · Supreme Court
165
citing judgments

Interest expenditure incurred for acquiring capital assets, even if capitalized in the books, is deductible if for the purpose of business. Section 36(1)(iii) is a self-contained code regarding such deductions.

Judgments citing section 40A(2)(b)

Pramukh Aranya Developers, Junagadh vs. Pr. CIT, Rajkot-1, Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the assessee (in ITA No

ITA 372/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.372 /Rjt/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: (2018-19) M/S. Pramukh Aranya Developers Office No. 5, First Floor, Cit Centre, Opp. New Collector Officer, B/H. Sardar Baug, Junagadh - 362001 The Pr. Cit-1, Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot - 360001 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaofp3393F (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Appellant By राजस्व की प्रत्यर्थी ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. Ar : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld.Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: : 04/02/2025 : 28/04/2025 आदेश / Order By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee Has Challenged The Correctness Of The Order Dated 30.03.2024, Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income- Tax (In Short “Ld Pcit"), Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Act'), For The Assessment Year2018-19.Grievances Raised By The Assessee, Which, Being Interconnected, Will Be Taken Up Together, Are As Follows: M/S. Pramukh Aranya Developers V. Pcit

For Respondent: Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. AR
Section 143(3)Section 22Section 23(5)Section 263

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, राजकोट न्यायपीठ, राजकोट । IN THE INCOMETAXAPPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Ludhiana vs. Lalit Kumar Prop. Lalit Co., Mis Babu Ram Hem Raj, Faridkot

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 684/CHANDI/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.682/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.683/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.684/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Dcit Central Circle-1 Shri Lalit Kumar Sco 1-6, 2Nd Floor, Opp. Bvm School बनाम/ (Prop. Lalit Co. & M/S Babu Ram Hem Raj) New Grain Market Kitchlu Nagar Vs. Faridkot - 151203 Ludhiana-141001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adapk-3617-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 4. Co. No.25/Chandi/2024 (In Ita No. 682/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 5. Co. No.26/Chandi/2024 (In Ita No. 683/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 6. Co. No.27/Chandi/2024 (In Ita No. 684/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma (CIT) & Shri Vivek Vardhan
Section 147Section 68

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND HON

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Ludhiana vs. Lalit Kumar, Prop. Lalit Co., Ms Babu Ram Hem Raj, Faridkot

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 682/CHANDI/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.682/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.683/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.684/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Dcit Central Circle-1 Shri Lalit Kumar Sco 1-6, 2Nd Floor, Opp. Bvm School बनाम/ (Prop. Lalit Co. & M/S Babu Ram Hem Raj) New Grain Market Kitchlu Nagar Vs. Faridkot - 151203 Ludhiana-141001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adapk-3617-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 4. Co. No.25/Chandi/2024 (In Ita No. 682/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 5. Co. No.26/Chandi/2024 (In Ita No. 683/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 6. Co. No.27/Chandi/2024 (In Ita No. 684/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma (CIT) & Shri Vivek Vardhan
Section 147Section 68

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND HON

Income Tax Officer, Vejapur vs. Darshan Orna Limited, Navrangpura

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1606/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1606/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Income Tax Officer Darshan Orna Limited बनाम/ Vejalpur 102, Shri Balaju Paragon V/S. Ahmedabad – 380 015 C.G. Road Navrangpura Ahmedabad – 380 009 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aadcd 7142 E अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Deepak Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/04/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

inflate stock to justify the cash sales later recorded. The AO also pointed out that though the assessee reported related party transactions under Section 40A(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act in its Form 3CD, the same transactions were not disclosed as related party transactions under the Companies ... purchases were made in the normal course of business, and that the related party status was duly disclosed in the Form 3CD under section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. It was contended that the purchases recorded in the books were supported by corresponding stock entries. The assessee further submitted

M/S Prefect Footwear, Agra vs. Pr.CIT., (Centrl), Kanpur

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 23/AGR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.23/Agr/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S. Perfect Footwear Pr. Cit (Central), बनाम/ 76, Kailash Vihar Kanpur. Vs. Bye Pass Road, Agra -282005. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aarfp-0237-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Sushil Maheshwari, Ca – Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Arun Kumar Yadav – Ld. Cit-Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee Assails Invocation Of Revisionary Jurisdiction U/S 263 By Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Kanpur (Pr.Cit) For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17 Vide Impugned Order Dated 15-03-2021 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Ao U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 14-12-2018. Having Heard Rival Submissions & Upon Perusal Of Case Records, Our Adjudication Would Be As Under. 2. Upon Perusal Of Assessment Order, It Could Be Seen That The Assessee’S Return Of Income Was Selected For Scrutiny. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, Notices Were Issued To The Assessee U/S 142(1) On Various Issues Which Were Duly Responded To By The Assessee In E-Proceedings. The Assessment Order Take Note

For Appellant: Sh. Sushil Maheshwari, CA – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. Arun Kumar Yadav – Ld. CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “DB” BENCH, AGRA BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM AND HON’BLE

S S Transport Company, Yamuna Nagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Yamuna Nagar

The appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 870/CHANDI/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.870 /Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S S.S. Transport Company Ito-Ward No.4 C/O Tejmohan Singh Yamunanagar. बनाम/ Vs. #527, Sector 10-D Chandigarh – 160011 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abhfs-5575-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Tej Mohan Singh (Advocate )– Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit )– Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-03-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24-03-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 30-04-2024 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) On 28-12-2017. The Grievance Of The Assessee Is Confirmation Of Addition Of Rs.34.91 Lacs & Confirmation Of Adhoc Disallowance Of Expenses. The Registry Has Noted Delay Of 48 Days In The Appeal Which Stand Condoned. Having

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh (Advocate )– Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT )– Ld. Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 40A(2)(b)

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND HON