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.

7 results for “disallowance”+ Section 43Dclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai123Chennai66Delhi63Hyderabad38Pune34Ahmedabad29Bangalore28Kolkata24Cochin11Surat11Visakhapatnam10Chandigarh8Amritsar7Rajkot6SC6Jaipur5Telangana4Karnataka4Jabalpur3Cuttack3Patna2Nagpur2Allahabad2Himachal Pradesh2Dehradun2Calcutta1Guwahati1Punjab & Haryana1Kerala1

Key Topics

Section 40A(3)7Disallowance7Section 406Section 43B6Addition to Income6Section 250(6)4Section 32(1)4Section 684Deduction4Section 143(3)

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-IV,, PATHANKOT vs. THE GURDASPUR CENTRAL CO. OPBANK LTD, GURDASPUR

In the result, the ground no

ITA 542/ASR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar31 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meenaandsh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 40Section 43D

section 43D. iv. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) has wrongly deleted the addition of Rs.2,00,00,000/- on account of Provision for Gratuity and Leave Salary without appreciating the fact that these were not ascertainable liabilities during the year under consideration.” 2. The assessee has taken the following additional ground: “ADDITIONAL

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, JAMMU vs. M/S. CONTINENTAL CONSTRUCTION CO,, JAMMU ( J&K)

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as well as the appeal filed the Revenue Department is dismissed and Cross Objection also stands disposed off

3
Section 43D3
Depreciation2
ITA 27/ASR/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhryita No.38(Asr)/2013 Assessment Year:2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. R.L. Gupta (Ld. Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (Ld. DR)
Section 142(1)Section 250(6)Section 32(1)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 68

43D. Section 40 provides for certain disallowances in certain cases notwithstanding that those amounts are allowed generally under other sections

M/S. CONTINENTAL CONSTRUCTION CO.,,JAMMU vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (HQRS), JAMMU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as well as the appeal filed the Revenue Department is dismissed and Cross Objection also stands disposed off

ITA 38/ASR/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhryita No.38(Asr)/2013 Assessment Year:2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. R.L. Gupta (Ld. Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (Ld. DR)
Section 142(1)Section 250(6)Section 32(1)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 68

43D. Section 40 provides for certain disallowances in certain cases notwithstanding that those amounts are allowed generally under other sections

SHRI VIJAY KUMAR AGGARWAL,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFICER,WARD II(4), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 119/ASR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryita No. 38/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 77/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. J. S. Bhasin, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Shivani Bansal, DR
Section 43B

disallow the claim did not arise. On appeal, the Hon'ble High Court held that "(ii) That by plain language of the provisions of section 43B and given the factual and admitted position, the Tribunal had not erred in the view that that it had taken. The view taken was neither perverse nor vitiated by any error of law apparent

SH. VIJAY KUMAR AGGARWAL, PROP.,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 38/ASR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryita No. 38/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 77/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. J. S. Bhasin, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Shivani Bansal, DR
Section 43B

disallow the claim did not arise. On appeal, the Hon'ble High Court held that "(ii) That by plain language of the provisions of section 43B and given the factual and admitted position, the Tribunal had not erred in the view that that it had taken. The view taken was neither perverse nor vitiated by any error of law apparent

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)

43D (sec. 29). In fact, the Hon’ble Courts have, as in the case of CIT v. Hynoup Food and Oil Industries Pvt. Ltd. [2007] 290 ITR 702 (Guj), held that section 40A(3) shall apply even in respect of undisclosed income. Now, without doubt, the assessee is assessable to tax in respect of income, if any, of his business

DEPUTY COMMSSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - IV,, JALANDHAR vs. M/S THE KAPURTHALA CENTRAL CO. OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, KAPURTHALA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department is dismissed

ITA 543/ASR/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar16 Aug 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhryita No.543(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year:2014-15

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Deb (Ld. DR)For Respondent: Salil Gupta (Ld. CA)
Section 250(6)Section 36Section 45Q

disallowance of provision for Standard Assets. We realized that the Co- ordinate Bench at Amritsar in ITA Nos.98 & 99 (Asr)/2017, case titled as Asst. CIT, Circle-Iv, Jalandhar vs. M/s. Kapurthala Central Co-op. Bank Ltd. Kapurthala, order dated 14.07.2017 dealt with the similar and identical issue qua ‘Non Performing Assets’. The Relevant part of this order is reproduced