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.

135 results for “disallowance”+ Section 194C(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai547Kolkata413Delhi402Chennai200Bangalore181Ahmedabad135Hyderabad69Jaipur58Cuttack52Cochin48Rajkot42Visakhapatnam40Raipur38Pune38Indore36Nagpur25Chandigarh25Amritsar21Surat19Panaji17Karnataka15Lucknow14Allahabad13Ranchi12Guwahati11Patna7Kerala7Calcutta5Jodhpur5Dehradun5Agra4SC3Jabalpur3Gauhati1Telangana1Uttarakhand1Rajasthan1Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 40105Section 143(3)100Section 80I99Disallowance92Addition to Income67Deduction47Section 143(2)44Section 194C44TDS35Section 14A

EAGLE STEEL INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2871/AHD/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri P. K. Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri James Kurian, Sr. D.R
Section 194CSection 194C(6)Section 194C(7)Section 197Section 197ASection 40

Section 194C(7) of the Act, is disallowed u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act. 2. Against the order of the ld. A.O., assessee preferred first statutory appeal before the ld. CIT(A) but to no avail and he confirmed disallowances made by the ld. A.O. 3

Showing 1–20 of 135 · Page 1 of 7

23
Depreciation22
Section 43B17

HYDCO ENGINEERING PVT. LTD.,,CHHATRAL vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2858/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Sept 2018AY 2012-13
Section 143(3)Section 194(7)Section 194CSection 194C(6)Section 234CSection 40

disallowance in respect of payments made to V. Logistics Services of Rs.99,000/- and to Prajapati Carriage Services of Rs.2,30,400/- totalling to Rs.3,29,400/- by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the I.T. Act for non compliance of provisions of section 194C of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4.4 The AO observed that

ASIAN MILLS PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADDL.CIT, RANGE-1,,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1397/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Mar 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1397/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 Asian Mills Pvt. Ltd., A.C.I.T., 104, Sakar Iii, Vs. Range-1, Opp. Old High Court, Ahmedabad. Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380014. Pan: Aabca8236G & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1531/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 D.C.I.T., Asian Mills Pvt. Ltd., Circle-1(1)(1), Vs. 104, Sakar Iii, Ahmedabad. Opp. Old High Court, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380014. Pan: Aabca8236G

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parin Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr.D.R
Section 194Section 194CSection 194C(6)Section 194C(7)Section 40Section 6Section 7

disallowance consist of 3 components. My findings component wise are as under: (1) Payment to transporters (Rs.2,22,48,327/-) In accordance with section 194C

THE ITO,PATAN WARD-3,, MEHSANA vs. M/S. SIDDHI VINAYAK TRANSPORT, MEHSANA

In the result, the Department’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2348/AHD/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Jul 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Subhash Bains, CIT (D.R.)For Respondent: Shri M.J. Shah, A.R
Section 194ASection 194A(3)(iii)Section 40

section 194C(3) of the Act, disallowance of payment for sub-contractor cannot be made on the ground that the assessee

SHRI ALTAFHUSEN M. SIDDIKI,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(4), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee i

ITA 969/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.577/Ahd/2012 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.969/Ahd/2015 { "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Altafhusen M. Siddiki, Prop Dcit, Circle-9 Of Sunmoon Roadways 6/D/1, Vs Ahmedabad Pursottam Estate, Nr. Cozy Hotel, Ranipur Patia, Sarkhej Road, Narol, Ahmedabad-382405 Pan No.Arsps3765P

For Appellant: Shri Tej Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, CIT- DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 234ASection 40Section 40A(3)Section 44ASection 68

section 194C no deduction u/s 194C was called for. However, with regard to the freight disallowance of Rs.41,204/- general reply has been submitted. ITA Nos.577/Ahd/2012 & ITANo.969/Ahd/2015 Altafhusen M. Siddiki For AY 2008-09 & 2010-11 22 45. We, therefore, in the given facts and circumstances of the case confirm the disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) for freight payment

SHRI ALTAFHUSEN MAHEMUDUL HASAN SIDDIKI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,RANGE-9,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee i

ITA 577/AHD/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Sept 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.577/Ahd/2012 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.969/Ahd/2015 { "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Altafhusen M. Siddiki, Prop Dcit, Circle-9 Of Sunmoon Roadways 6/D/1, Vs Ahmedabad Pursottam Estate, Nr. Cozy Hotel, Ranipur Patia, Sarkhej Road, Narol, Ahmedabad-382405 Pan No.Arsps3765P

For Appellant: Shri Tej Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, CIT- DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 234ASection 40Section 40A(3)Section 44ASection 68

section 194C no deduction u/s 194C was called for. However, with regard to the freight disallowance of Rs.41,204/- general reply has been submitted. ITA Nos.577/Ahd/2012 & ITANo.969/Ahd/2015 Altafhusen M. Siddiki For AY 2008-09 & 2010-11 22 45. We, therefore, in the given facts and circumstances of the case confirm the disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) for freight payment

CRYSTAL QUINONE PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 1420/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & M/S. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1420/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) बनाम/ Crystal Quinone Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Cir-1(1)(2), Opp. Old Excise Chawky, Vs. Ahmedabad S.M. Road, Ahmedabad

For Appellant: Bandish Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: Santosh Karnani, Sr. DR
Section 145ASection 14ASection 194CSection 40

3. confirming the disallowance of Rs. 14,59,857/- on account of non-deduction of TDS under section 194C read

REAL CARGO MUMBAI,ARVALLI vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, MODASA

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

ITA 268/AHD/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad. This Appeal In Ita No.268/Ahd/2024 For Assessment Year 2010-11, Is Filed By The Assessee Before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Division Bench, Ahmedabad Has Arisen From The Appellate Order Dated 25.09.2023 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Appeals), Nfac, Delhi U/S. 250 Of The Income- Tax Act,1961 , Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1056508501(1), Which Has In Turn Arisen From The Assessment Order Dated 18.12.2018 Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S. 143(3) Read With Section 254 Of The Income-Tax Act 1961. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee In Memo Of Appeal Filed With The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad , Reads As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri S.N.Divatia ,Advocate & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadav,CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 189(1)Section 250Section 253(3)Section 254Section 40

disallowance in the case the assessee is not the one in default in light of section 201(1) squarely applies in facts of the instant case. The Revenue however opposes this contention by submitting that the second proviso is made applicable w.e.f. 01.04.2013 only. Learned counsel representing assessee at this stage quotes Tribunal’s decision in Rajeev Kumar Agarwal

SHRI SAMIR CHANDRAVADAB BHALAVAT,,BARODA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SABARKANTHA WARD-4,, MODASA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 216/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Jul 2020AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Manish Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vidhyut Trivedi, Sr. D.R
Section 194CSection 194C(7)Section 40

disallowed under section 40(a)( ia). In other words where tax is not deductible addition under section 40(a)( ia) cannot be made. From this it follows that second proviso to section 194C(3

SUMMIT (INDIA) WATER TREATMENT & SERVICES LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-4, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 1338/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 May 2019AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Dhinal Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri O.P. Sharma, CIT-D.R
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 271BSection 40

disallowed u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act, Failure to do so resulted in underassessment of income of Rs.2f03,66,683/~ with consequent short levy of tax of Rs, 66,07,9707- (1T+SC+EC). 3. The scrutiny of records revealed that assessee had export of Rs. 13,66,87,344/- to M/s. Summit Research Labs USA which was a related

DILIP HIRALAL MEHTA, HUF,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(2)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1454/AHD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jan 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant & Ms.Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1454/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2009-10 Dilip Hiralal Mehta-Huf Vs. Ito,Ward-5(2)(2) Prop. Of Ispat Incorporate Ahmedabad. B-208, Nirman Complex Opp: Havmor Restaurant Navrangpura, Ahmedabad Pan : Aaehm 4045 F

For Appellant: Shri T.P. Hemani, and Shri Parimal B. Parmar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Santosh Karnani, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 234ASection 263Section 40Section 40A(2)Section 40A(3)

section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2009-10 with the following grounds: “1. The learned CIT(A) has erred both in law and on the facts of the case in confirming the action of AO in passing an order u/s 2 143(3

SHRI VISHAL DILIP PALANY,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(4),, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 1410/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Vishal Dilip Palani, Income Tax Officer, C/O. Ketan H. Shah, Advocate, Vs Ward 9(4), 903, Sapphire Complex, C.G. Road, Ahmedabad Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan : Alopp 0931 E अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.J. Shah & Shri Rushin Patel, Ars Revenue By : Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 08/09/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/10/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xv, Ahmedabad [“Cit(A) In Short]” Dated 04.02.2013. 2. At The Outset, It Is Noted That There Is A Delay Of 357 Days On The Part Of The Assessee In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit Giving Details Of The Deteriorating Health Of His Father As Well As Financial Problems Faced During The Relevant Period Which Resulted In The Said Delay. Keeping In View The Same, We Are Satisfied That There Was A Sufficient Cause For The Delay Of 357 Days On The Part Of The Assessee In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Learned Departmental Representative Has Not Raised Any Objection In This Regard. We, Therefore, Shri Vishal Dilip Palani Vs. Ito Ay : 2009-10 2

For Appellant: Shri M.J. Shah &For Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40

194C(1) for payments made to the outside parties and consequently the disallowance made u/s.40(a)(ia) by the authorities below are deleted. The appellant thus gets relief of Rs.56,03,210/-.” 7. We also adopt the same reasoning to conclude that both the lower authorities have erred in making the impugned Section 40(a)(ia) disallowance on the freight

SHRI VISHAL D PALANI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, TDS-3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1603/AHD/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Nov 2022AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri M.J. Shah, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 194Section 201Section 201(1)Section 40

194C(1) for payments made to the outside parties and consequently the disallowance made u/s.40(a)(ia) by the authorities below are deleted. The appellant thus gets relief of Rs.56,03,210/-.” 7. We also adopt the same reasoning to conclude that both the lower authorities have erred in making the impugned Section 40(a)(ia) disallowance on the freight

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE.1(1)(1)., AHMEDABAD vs. M/S.BURT HILL DESIGN PVT. LTD.(NOW STANTEC CONSULTING PVT. LTD.),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed

ITA 2104/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Jul 2019AY 2010-11
Section 143(3)Section 192Section 195Section 40

disallowance of Rs. 15,43,768/- sustained by the CIT(A), the Assessing Officer is aggrieved of the relief of Rs.3,41,33,948/- granted by him. Both the parties are in appeal before us. ITA Nos. 1954 & 2104/Ahd/2015 DCIT Vs. Burt Hill Design P Ltd & vice versa Assessment year: 2010-11 Page 3 of 9 6. We have heard

BURT HILL DESIGN PVT. LTD. ( NOW KNOWN AS STANTEC CONSULTING PVT. LTD. ),AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed

ITA 1954/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Jul 2019AY 2010-11
Section 143(3)Section 192Section 195Section 40

disallowance of Rs. 15,43,768/- sustained by the CIT(A), the Assessing Officer is aggrieved of the relief of Rs.3,41,33,948/- granted by him. Both the parties are in appeal before us. ITA Nos. 1954 & 2104/Ahd/2015 DCIT Vs. Burt Hill Design P Ltd & vice versa Assessment year: 2010-11 Page 3 of 9 6. We have heard

ELECTRONIC INSTRUMENTATION & CONTROL PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, these grounds of assessee’s appeal are partly allowed

ITA 2837/AHD/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Oct 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: RespondentbyFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Dev, Sr.D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80I

3:- The assessee has challenged the disallowance of Rs. 7,65,700/- of drawing charges and Rs. 2,48,050/- of PLC Programming Charges on account of non-deduction of TDS under section 194J of the Act. The assessee claimed Rs. 7,65,700/- under head drawing charges. Such charges were paid for job work to different persons which according

THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. BAJAJ HERBALS PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal preferred by the Revenue is, thus, allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1088/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Nov 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Mohd. Usman, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 194A(1)Section 194A(3)Section 40

3:- 15. Deletion of addition of Rs. 37,73,063/- made under Section 40(a)(ia) on ocean freight payment without deducting tax at source is the subject matter before us. 16. We have heard the respective parties, we have also perused the relevant materials available on record. 17. The CIT(A) deleted such impugned disallowance following his predecessor

THE DCITANAND CIRCLE,, ANAND vs. ELECON ENGINEERING CO.LTD.,, ANAND

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1316/AHD/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Apr 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Ms. Madhumita Roysr.No.

Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 147Section 148

section 194C of the Act. 27. At the outset, we note that we have already adjudicated the identical issue in the ground no. 2 of the ITA 2641/AHD/2010 in favor of the assessee and against the revenue vide paragraph no. 15 of this order. Respectfully following the same, we dismiss the ground of appeal of the Revenue. In the result

THE DCITANAND CIRCLE,, ANAND vs. ELECON ENGINEERING CO.LTD.,, ANAND

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1656/AHD/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Ms. Madhumita Roysr.No.

Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 147Section 148

section 194C of the Act. 27. At the outset, we note that we have already adjudicated the identical issue in the ground no. 2 of the ITA 2641/AHD/2010 in favor of the assessee and against the revenue vide paragraph no. 15 of this order. Respectfully following the same, we dismiss the ground of appeal of the Revenue. In the result

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), AHMEDABAD vs. MAHALAXMI INFRACONTRACT PVT. LTD., AHMEDABAD

ITA 485/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 484, 485 & 486/Ahd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19) बनाम/ Assistant Commissioner Mahalaxmi Infracontract Of Income Tax Private Limited Vs. Central Circle-1(4), B-21, Corporate House, Ahmedabad Opp-Pakwan-Ii, S. G. Highway, Bodakdev, Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagcm4615E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S. N. Divatia & Shri B. K. Patel, A.Rs. Shri Sudhendu Das, Cit. Dr Revenue By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 22/01/2024 & Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 31/05/2024 Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Divatia & Shri B. K. Patel
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

3 - excavated earth or minerals which belongs to Principal and not to the assessee. Thus, the same are used for transportation of goods of third party for hire. On this aspect, the assessee further relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Gupta Global Exim (P.) Ltd., reported