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.

14 results for “disallowance”+ Section 40A(2)(b)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,231Delhi1,158Bangalore466Chennai461Kolkata447Ahmedabad189Hyderabad154Jaipur142Pune135Raipur120Surat82Indore76Chandigarh68Amritsar68Nagpur43Visakhapatnam41Lucknow32Cuttack29Rajkot23Allahabad23Agra21Karnataka20Jodhpur20Cochin14Guwahati13SC10Patna9Dehradun7Varanasi7Calcutta5Ranchi4Telangana3Punjab & Haryana2Panaji2Kerala2A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1

Key Topics

Section 40A(3)14Disallowance13Section 2639Section 407Section 40A(2)(b)7Addition to Income7Reassessment6Section 143(3)5Section 40A(2)4Deduction

KKR AGRO MILLS P. LTD,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 328/COCH/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2010-11 Kkr Agro Mills Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, Iii/678, Kkr Building, Okkal Kalady, Circle – 1(2), Ernakulam – 683 550. Kochi. Pan : Aabck 6542 K Assessee Respondent

For Appellant: Smt. Parvathy Ammal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR
Section 40A(2)Section 40A(2)(a)

section 40A(2) 4. Addition for under reporting of production on account of Mismatch between electricity consumption & Rice Production (Production and unaccounted sales Estimated) a) The Assessing Officer as well as the CIT (Appeals) was not justified in rejecting the book results only on the ground of irregular pattern of consumption of electricity. b) It is submitted that there

M/S SULAIKHA CLAY MINES,TRIVANDRUM vs. DCIT ,CIRCLE 1(2), TRIVANDRUM

3
Section 40A(7)2
Section 40A2

In the result, the appeals for all the years are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 937/COCH/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Muhammad Shafeeq A., CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 40Section 40A(2)(b)

b) Sales - 46.00 - - - - 5.3 We are appalled at the manner in which the AO has gone about making the disallowance, i.e., in complete disregard of the mandate of law and the established principles of adjudication. To begin with, the very fact of invocation of section 40A(2

SULAIKHA CLAY MINES,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeals for all the years are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 624/COCH/2022[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Aug 2023AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Muhammad Shafeeq A., CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 40Section 40A(2)(b)

b) Sales - 46.00 - - - - 5.3 We are appalled at the manner in which the AO has gone about making the disallowance, i.e., in complete disregard of the mandate of law and the established principles of adjudication. To begin with, the very fact of invocation of section 40A(2

SULAIKHA CLAY MINES,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeals for all the years are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 625/COCH/2022[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Aug 2023AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Muhammad Shafeeq A., CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 40Section 40A(2)(b)

b) Sales - 46.00 - - - - 5.3 We are appalled at the manner in which the AO has gone about making the disallowance, i.e., in complete disregard of the mandate of law and the established principles of adjudication. To begin with, the very fact of invocation of section 40A(2

SULAIKHA CLAY MINES,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeals for all the years are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 627/COCH/2022[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Aug 2023AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Muhammad Shafeeq A., CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 40Section 40A(2)(b)

b) Sales - 46.00 - - - - 5.3 We are appalled at the manner in which the AO has gone about making the disallowance, i.e., in complete disregard of the mandate of law and the established principles of adjudication. To begin with, the very fact of invocation of section 40A(2

SULAIKHA CLAY MINES,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeals for all the years are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 626/COCH/2022[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Aug 2023AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Muhammad Shafeeq A., CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 40Section 40A(2)(b)

b) Sales - 46.00 - - - - 5.3 We are appalled at the manner in which the AO has gone about making the disallowance, i.e., in complete disregard of the mandate of law and the established principles of adjudication. To begin with, the very fact of invocation of section 40A(2

SULAIKHA CLAY MINES,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeals for all the years are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 623/COCH/2022[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Aug 2023AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Muhammad Shafeeq A., CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 40Section 40A(2)(b)

b) Sales - 46.00 - - - - 5.3 We are appalled at the manner in which the AO has gone about making the disallowance, i.e., in complete disregard of the mandate of law and the established principles of adjudication. To begin with, the very fact of invocation of section 40A(2

MINA WOOD INDUSTRIES,MATTANNUR vs. ITO, W-3, KANNUR

The appeals are allowed

ITA 168/COCH/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Sept 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhmina Wood Industries The Income Tax Officer Iii/656 B, Kallur Ward - 3, Kannur Mattannur Vs. Kannur 670702 [Pan: Aagfm2716D] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Aruj Raj S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Section 250Section 40A(3)

2 The Appellant humbly submits that the payments under reference, are made to Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) in cash in excess of Rs. 10000 could not be treated as in violation of Section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, as the KSEB is a Government Department under Kerala Government headed by a Minister. The appellant humbly submit that

ASIANET SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 475/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Raghunathan S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. DR
Section 40A(7)

2. Since identical facts and issues involve in these appeals, these appeals heard together and disposed of vide this common order. Asianet Satellite Communications Ltd.. 3. For the sake of convenience and clarity, facts relevant to the A.Y. 2017-18 in ITA No. 474/Coch/2025 are stated herein. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant

ASIANET SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 474/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Raghunathan S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. DR
Section 40A(7)

2. Since identical facts and issues involve in these appeals, these appeals heard together and disposed of vide this common order. Asianet Satellite Communications Ltd.. 3. For the sake of convenience and clarity, facts relevant to the A.Y. 2017-18 in ITA No. 474/Coch/2025 are stated herein. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant

M/S.KERALA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPN,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ACIT, KOCHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 389/COCH/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahum/S. Kerala State Warehousing Vs Acit, Corporate Circle 1(2) Corporation Is Press Road Kochi 682018 Pb No. 1727, Warehousing Corporation Road Ernakulam 682016 Pan – Aabck1583G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K. Gopi, Ca Revenue By: Shri Shantam Bose, Cit Dr

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shantam Bose, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 42

40A(2)(b) reported in audit report and ITR - High Ratio of refund of TDS - Large other expenses claimed in the Profit and Loss Account. n) The Assessing officer after examining reasons for selecting the return for limited scrutiny based on the records and submissions made by the assessee accepted the return and completed the Limited scrutiny by order dated

CANON GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-1(1), THRISSUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 547/COCH/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Respondent: Shri Ramesh John Cherian
Section 40ASection 40A(3)

B. The CIT (A) has merely reproduced the order of the assessing authority mechanically and without application of mind. The CIT (A) was duty bound to apply his mind independently and record reasons substantiating his Page 2 of 7 order. Hence the order of the CIT (A) impugned herein is unsustainable and liable to be set aside

MINA WOOD INDUSTRIES,MATTANNUR vs. ITO , WARD-3, KANNUR

In the result, appeal of the appellant stands allowed

ITA 833/COCH/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Keshav Dubey, Jm Assessment Year: 2015-16 Mina Wood Industries .......... Appellant Iii/656 B, Kallur, Matannur Kannur 670702 [Pan: Aagmf2716D] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward -3, Kannur Appellant By: ------- None ------- Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 30.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.02.2025

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 40Section 40A(3)

section 40A(3). Clause (b) of rule 6DD provides that where the payment is made to the government no disallowance u/s. 40A(3) is to be made. In the present case, the payment is made to state government undertaking, i.e. KSEB, which is considered to be a ‘state’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India

JJ CONFECTIONERY PRIVATE LIMITED ,ERNAKULAM vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIR 1(1), KOCHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stand allowed

ITA 1018/COCH/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Jun 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm Assessment Year: 2007-08 Jj Confectionery Pvt. Ltd. .......... Appellant Viii/469-474, Kolenchery-Poothrikka Kinginimaattom, Ernakulam 682311 [Pan: Aaagj8268L] Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle - 1(1), Kochi .......... Respondent Appellant By: Smt. Remya S. Menon, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 21.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.06.2025

For Appellant: Smt. Remya S. Menon, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 198Section 37(1)Section 40A(2)(b)

section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dismissed the ground relating to disallowance