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.

59 results for “disallowance”+ Section 40Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi565 Mumbai502 Chennai232 Bangalore158 Kolkata140 Ahmedabad135 Raipur112 Jaipur109 Hyderabad105 Pune82 Indore79 Surat70 Amritsar68 Chandigarh59 Visakhapatnam47 Cuttack40 Nagpur40 Cochin38 Lucknow38 Rajkot37 Agra28 Jodhpur21 Allahabad19 Patna16 SC14 Dehradun14 Guwahati13 Varanasi5 Ranchi5 Jabalpur3 Panaji1 A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1

Key Topics

Section 40A(3)75 Addition to Income37 Section 26335 Disallowance33 Deduction23 Section 143(3)18 Section 143(2)15 TDS15 Section 19512 Section 271(1)(c)

M/S APEX BUILDERS, LUDHIANA vs. ITO, W-2(1), LUDHIANA

The appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1284/CHANDI/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vinamar Gupta, CA (Virtual Mode)For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 194ASection 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40Section 40A(3)

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under Section 40A(3) of the Act. 17. Accordingly, the disallowance under Section 40A

Showing 1–20 of 59 · Page 1 of 3

12

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

ITA 147/CHANDI/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

section 40A(3) against cash purchase" is based on fundamental misconception of facts and provisions of law and thus not in accordance with law and, therefore untenable. 2.1 That the finding that "purchases from M/s Gaja Nand Pardeep Kumar of Rs.58,42,492/- should have been disallowed

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

ITA 146/CHANDI/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

section 40A(3) against cash purchase" is based on fundamental misconception of facts and provisions of law and thus not in accordance with law and, therefore untenable. 2.1 That the finding that "purchases from M/s Gaja Nand Pardeep Kumar of Rs.58,42,492/- should have been disallowed

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

ITA 148/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

section 40A(3) against cash purchase" is based on fundamental misconception of facts and provisions of law and thus not in accordance with law and, therefore untenable. 2.1 That the finding that "purchases from M/s Gaja Nand Pardeep Kumar of Rs.58,42,492/- should have been disallowed

AMAN THUKRAL,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1), LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA

Accordingly, Additional Ground No. 1 is allowed for statistical

ITA 886/CHANDI/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Pankaj Bhalla, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Manav Mangal, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250(6)Section 69C

section 40A(3) are not applicable in the case of appellant. 7. That the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has failed to appreciate that the Ld. AO has wrongly disallowed

INCOME TAX OFFICER, KURUKSHETRA vs. JASVIR SINGH, VILLAGE DIWANA TEHSIL PEHOWA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 665/CHANDI/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 665/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Ito, Jasvir Singh, Kurukshetra बनाम Village Diwana Tehsil Pehowa, Vs. Distt. Kurukshetra 136128 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Cnqps4895G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 26.06.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.08.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am: Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 12.09.2023 Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT DR

disallowance of expenditure in cash in violation of section 40A(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 by ignoring the fact

SHRI SUBHASH SHARMA,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, W-2(3), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1586/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh31 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: This Tribunal, As Pointed Out By The Registry. The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Alongwith Affidavit Of The Assessee. On Perusing The Application For Condonation Of Delay & Affidavit Of The Assessee, The Delay Of 15 Days In Filing The Appeal Before This Tribunal Is Condoned.

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

Section 40A(3) of the Act and therefore, he made a disallowance of Rs. 11,70,750/- invoking provisions of Section

SH. GURMAL SINGH H NO R-18 NEW GRAIN MARKET NEAR JAIN HOSPITAL, JALANDHAR BYEPASS ROAD, LUDHIANA,PUNJAB vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-3 LUDHIANA, PUNJAB

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 209/CHANDI/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Jan 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assessee Is Aggrieved

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shakti Singh, JCIT, Sr.DR

Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 253Section 40A(3)Section 69C

disallowance u/s 40A(3) can be made because section 40A (3) states that where the assessee incurs an expenditure more

SH. GURINDER MAKKAR,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-3, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

ITA 20/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 32Section 37Section 40A(3)Section 43(1)Section 68Section 69

section 43(1) in the instant case and thus, the depreciation so claimed is directed to be allowed. 8.17 Now coming to the issue of surrender of Rs 8,00,000/- on account of disallowance u/s 40A

PUNJAB SMALL INDUSTRIES AND EXPORT CORPORATION LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 627/CHANDI/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vineet Krishan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40Section 40aSection 43B

40a(ia) were not applicable to the payment of salary/arrears of salary. 6.5 Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act as it stood during the relevant year reads as under:- “40. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in sections 30 to 38, the following amounts shall not be deducted in computing the income chargeable under the head "Profits and gains

M/S STYLAM INDUSTRIES LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Department’s appeal in for assessment year

ITA 960/CHANDI/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vineet Krishan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr.DR

Section 14ASection 195Section 40Section 40ASection 5(2)Section 6Section 9(1)

disallowed the payments under Section 40A(ia) of the Act. While doing so, the AO observed as follows : "2.6 The provisions

DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S STYLAM INDUSTRIES LTD., CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Department’s appeal in for assessment year

ITA 1033/CHANDI/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vineet Krishan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr.DR

Section 14ASection 195Section 40Section 40ASection 5(2)Section 6Section 9(1)

disallowed the payments under Section 40A(ia) of the Act. While doing so, the AO observed as follows : "2.6 The provisions

M/S STYLAM INDUSTRIES LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Department’s appeal in for assessment year

ITA 394/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vineet Krishan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr.DR

Section 14ASection 195Section 40Section 40ASection 5(2)Section 6Section 9(1)

disallowed the payments under Section 40A(ia) of the Act. While doing so, the AO observed as follows : "2.6 The provisions

DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S STYLAM INDUSTRIES LTD., CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Department’s appeal in for assessment year

ITA 389/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vineet Krishan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr.DR

Section 14ASection 195Section 40Section 40ASection 5(2)Section 6Section 9(1)

disallowed the payments under Section 40A(ia) of the Act. While doing so, the AO observed as follows : "2.6 The provisions

SHRI MUNISH ARORA,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CC-II, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeals filed for Assessee are disposed off as under:

ITA 157/CHANDI/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Oct 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 156/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 157/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 158/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 169/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 170/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 171/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Munish Arora, Vs. The Acit, बनाम Central Circle-Ii, 1136, Ist Floor, Chandigarh Sector 8-C, Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aexpa3762N अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.10.2024

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR

disallowed it because the amount was in excess of section 40A(3). The ld. Counsel for the Assessee has filed

SHRI MUNISH ARORA,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CC-II, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeals filed for Assessee are disposed off as under:

ITA 158/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 156/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 157/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 158/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 169/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 170/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 171/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Munish Arora, Vs. The Acit, बनाम Central Circle-Ii, 1136, Ist Floor, Chandigarh Sector 8-C, Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aexpa3762N अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.10.2024

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR

disallowed it because the amount was in excess of section 40A(3). The ld. Counsel for the Assessee has filed

SHRI MUNISH ARORA,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CC-II, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeals filed for Assessee are disposed off as under:

ITA 169/CHANDI/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 156/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 157/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 158/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 169/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 170/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 171/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Munish Arora, Vs. The Acit, बनाम Central Circle-Ii, 1136, Ist Floor, Chandigarh Sector 8-C, Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aexpa3762N अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.10.2024

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR

disallowed it because the amount was in excess of section 40A(3). The ld. Counsel for the Assessee has filed

SHRI MUNISH ARORA,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CC-II, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeals filed for Assessee are disposed off as under:

ITA 170/CHANDI/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 156/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 157/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 158/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 169/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 170/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 171/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Munish Arora, Vs. The Acit, बनाम Central Circle-Ii, 1136, Ist Floor, Chandigarh Sector 8-C, Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aexpa3762N अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.10.2024

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR

disallowed it because the amount was in excess of section 40A(3). The ld. Counsel for the Assessee has filed

SHRI MUNISH ARORA,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CC-II, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeals filed for Assessee are disposed off as under:

ITA 156/CHANDI/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Oct 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 156/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 157/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 158/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 169/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 170/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 171/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Munish Arora, Vs. The Acit, बनाम Central Circle-Ii, 1136, Ist Floor, Chandigarh Sector 8-C, Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aexpa3762N अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.10.2024

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR

disallowed it because the amount was in excess of section 40A(3). The ld. Counsel for the Assessee has filed

SHRI MUNISH ARORA,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CC-II, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeals filed for Assessee are disposed off as under:

ITA 171/CHANDI/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 156/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 157/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 158/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 169/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 170/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 171/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Munish Arora, Vs. The Acit, बनाम Central Circle-Ii, 1136, Ist Floor, Chandigarh Sector 8-C, Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aexpa3762N अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.10.2024

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR

disallowed it because the amount was in excess of section 40A(3). The ld. Counsel for the Assessee has filed