Search: disallowance | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

117 results for “disallowance”+ Section 40A(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,523 Mumbai1,471 Chennai654 Kolkata645 Pune598 Bangalore537 Ahmedabad412 Hyderabad245 Jaipur240 Raipur145 Chandigarh137 Surat137 Indore129 Visakhapatnam117 Amritsar117 Cuttack107 Cochin98 Rajkot66 Nagpur60 Lucknow46 Agra35 Karnataka31 Jodhpur27 Allahabad27 Dehradun21 Guwahati20 Patna19 Ranchi13 SC12 Varanasi9 Calcutta8 Jabalpur6 Telangana4 Panaji3 Punjab & Haryana2 Kerala2 A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1 J&K1 Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 40A(3)96 Addition to Income79 Disallowance71 Section 14462 Section 1155 Section 13(3)55 Section 143(3)54 Section 250(6)41 Depreciation36 Natural Justice

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, AMRITSAR. vs. SH. SHIV RAJ SINGH BAWA, AMRITSAR.

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed and the assessee’s CO, dismissed

ITA 407/ASR/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 407/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)For Respondent: Sh. Tarun Bansal (Adv.)

Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

section 40A(3). The goods remain unsold as at the year-end (Yr. 1). A disallowance u/s. 40A(3) is attracted

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU vs. SH. DARSHAN KUMAR MAHAJAN, PATHANKOT

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

Showing 1–20 of 117 · Page 1 of 6

35

ITA 566/ASR/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Apr 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 566(Asr)/2016 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Pan: Adjpm7623B

For Appellant: Sh. A. N. Mishra (D. R.)For Respondent: Sh. J. S. Bhasin (Adv.)

Section 143(3)Section 28Section 40A(3)

disallowed under the relevant section granting deduction itself, as section 37(1) in the instant case, so that there is no occasion to travel to the non obstante provision of section 40A(3

THE AZAD NAKODAR BUS SERVICE PRIVATE LIMITED,NAKODAR vs. DEPUTY COMMSSIONER OF INCOME TAC CIRCL-4E, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 107/ASR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 40(3)Section 40A(3)

section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Disallowance under section 40A(3) could not be made as identity

SH. PUNEET SEHDEV PROP;,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER,, JAMMU

ITA 5/ASR/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Jun 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri P.N Arora, A.R)For Respondent: Shri M.P Singh, CIT D.R

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the IT Act, 1961. The AO has failed to appreciate that there was no violation of provisions of section

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAMMU vs. SH. PUNEET SEHDEV, PROP., JAMMU

ITA 547/ASR/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Jun 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri P.N Arora, A.R)For Respondent: Shri M.P Singh, CIT D.R

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the IT Act, 1961. The AO has failed to appreciate that there was no violation of provisions of section

PUNEET SAHDEV,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

ITA 579/ASR/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Jun 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri P.N Arora, A.R)For Respondent: Shri M.P Singh, CIT D.R

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the IT Act, 1961. The AO has failed to appreciate that there was no violation of provisions of section

SH. PUNEET SEHDEV PROP,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

ITA 305/ASR/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Jun 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri P.N Arora, A.R)For Respondent: Shri M.P Singh, CIT D.R

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the IT Act, 1961. The AO has failed to appreciate that there was no violation of provisions of section

DUPTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BATHINDA vs. SH. VINOD ARORA, , BATHINDA

ITA 489/ASR/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Ravish Sood & Dr. M. L. Meena

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Trilochan Singh PS Khalsa, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 40A(3)

disallowance under sub-section (3) of section 40A shall be made and no payment shall be deemed to be the profits

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,JALANDHAR vs. M/S. SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST, JALANDHAR

ITA 272/ASR/2004[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Dec 2023AY 1997-98

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Gunjeet Singh Syal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. D. R

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 13Section 13(1)Section 13(3)Section 13(3)(c)Section 2(15)

disallow the expenditure under Section 40A(2). 12. Burden of proof lies on the Revenue to prove that the salary/rental payments made were excessive/unreasonable and that provisions of section 13 apply: Section 13 starts with a non-obstante clause and hence by virtue of the said provisions, exception to the exemption provided by section 11, is carved

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S. SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST,, JALANDHAR

ITA 344/ASR/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Dec 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Gunjeet Singh Syal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. D. R

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 13Section 13(1)Section 13(3)Section 13(3)(c)Section 2(15)

disallow the expenditure under Section 40A(2). 12. Burden of proof lies on the Revenue to prove that the salary/rental payments made were excessive/unreasonable and that provisions of section 13 apply: Section 13 starts with a non-obstante clause and hence by virtue of the said provisions, exception to the exemption provided by section 11, is carved

THE DCIT, JALANDHAR vs. M/S. SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST, JALANDHAR

ITA 39/ASR/2007[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Dec 2023AY 2003-04

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Gunjeet Singh Syal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. D. R

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 13Section 13(1)Section 13(3)Section 13(3)(c)Section 2(15)

disallow the expenditure under Section 40A(2). 12. Burden of proof lies on the Revenue to prove that the salary/rental payments made were excessive/unreasonable and that provisions of section 13 apply: Section 13 starts with a non-obstante clause and hence by virtue of the said provisions, exception to the exemption provided by section 11, is carved

M/S. SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST,JALANDHAR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

ITA 185/ASR/2001[1994-95]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Dec 2023AY 1994-95

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Gunjeet Singh Syal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. D. R

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 13Section 13(1)Section 13(3)Section 13(3)(c)Section 2(15)

disallow the expenditure under Section 40A(2). 12. Burden of proof lies on the Revenue to prove that the salary/rental payments made were excessive/unreasonable and that provisions of section 13 apply: Section 13 starts with a non-obstante clause and hence by virtue of the said provisions, exception to the exemption provided by section 11, is carved

DCIT, JALANDHAR vs. M/S. SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST, JALANDHAR

ITA 328/ASR/2007[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Dec 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Gunjeet Singh Syal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. D. R

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 13Section 13(1)Section 13(3)Section 13(3)(c)Section 2(15)

disallow the expenditure under Section 40A(2). 12. Burden of proof lies on the Revenue to prove that the salary/rental payments made were excessive/unreasonable and that provisions of section 13 apply: Section 13 starts with a non-obstante clause and hence by virtue of the said provisions, exception to the exemption provided by section 11, is carved

M/S. SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST,JALANDHAR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

ITA 184/ASR/2001[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Dec 2023AY 1993-94

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Gunjeet Singh Syal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. D. R

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 13Section 13(1)Section 13(3)Section 13(3)(c)Section 2(15)

disallow the expenditure under Section 40A(2). 12. Burden of proof lies on the Revenue to prove that the salary/rental payments made were excessive/unreasonable and that provisions of section 13 apply: Section 13 starts with a non-obstante clause and hence by virtue of the said provisions, exception to the exemption provided by section 11, is carved

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S. SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST, JALANDHAR

ITA 177/ASR/2006[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Dec 2023AY 2001-02

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Gunjeet Singh Syal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. D. R

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 13Section 13(1)Section 13(3)Section 13(3)(c)Section 2(15)

disallow the expenditure under Section 40A(2). 12. Burden of proof lies on the Revenue to prove that the salary/rental payments made were excessive/unreasonable and that provisions of section 13 apply: Section 13 starts with a non-obstante clause and hence by virtue of the said provisions, exception to the exemption provided by section 11, is carved

M/S. SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST,JALANDHAR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

ITA 186/ASR/2001[1994-95]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Dec 2023AY 1994-95

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Gunjeet Singh Syal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. D. R

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 13Section 13(1)Section 13(3)Section 13(3)(c)Section 2(15)

disallow the expenditure under Section 40A(2). 12. Burden of proof lies on the Revenue to prove that the salary/rental payments made were excessive/unreasonable and that provisions of section 13 apply: Section 13 starts with a non-obstante clause and hence by virtue of the said provisions, exception to the exemption provided by section 11, is carved

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S. SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST, JALANDHAR

ITA 421/ASR/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Dec 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Gunjeet Singh Syal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. D. R

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 13Section 13(1)Section 13(3)Section 13(3)(c)Section 2(15)

disallow the expenditure under Section 40A(2). 12. Burden of proof lies on the Revenue to prove that the salary/rental payments made were excessive/unreasonable and that provisions of section 13 apply: Section 13 starts with a non-obstante clause and hence by virtue of the said provisions, exception to the exemption provided by section 11, is carved

M/S SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST,JALANDHAR vs. THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

ITA 129/ASR/2002[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Dec 2023AY 1998-99

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Gunjeet Singh Syal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. D. R

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 13Section 13(1)Section 13(3)Section 13(3)(c)Section 2(15)

disallow the expenditure under Section 40A(2). 12. Burden of proof lies on the Revenue to prove that the salary/rental payments made were excessive/unreasonable and that provisions of section 13 apply: Section 13 starts with a non-obstante clause and hence by virtue of the said provisions, exception to the exemption provided by section 11, is carved

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,JALANDHAR vs. M/S. SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST, JALANDHAR

ITA 261/ASR/2004[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Dec 2023AY 1999-2000

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Gunjeet Singh Syal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. D. R

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 13Section 13(1)Section 13(3)Section 13(3)(c)Section 2(15)

disallow the expenditure under Section 40A(2). 12. Burden of proof lies on the Revenue to prove that the salary/rental payments made were excessive/unreasonable and that provisions of section 13 apply: Section 13 starts with a non-obstante clause and hence by virtue of the said provisions, exception to the exemption provided by section 11, is carved

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, FEROZEPUR vs. M/S REHMAT TRADERS, FEROZEPUR CANTT.

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

ITA 454/ASR/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar01 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 454/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Goyal, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40ASection 40A(3)

disallowance u/s. 40A(3) (read with section 40A(3A)) effected in assessment, i.e., in the facts and circumstances of the case