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.

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

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,530Mumbai1,502Chennai670Kolkata658Bangalore547Ahmedabad230Pune196Hyderabad173Jaipur148Raipur125Surat119Indore97Amritsar82Chandigarh75Nagpur57Cuttack54Visakhapatnam50Rajkot47Cochin43Lucknow41Karnataka31Agra28Jodhpur22Allahabad22Patna19Dehradun16Guwahati16SC12Varanasi9Calcutta8Ranchi5Telangana4Jabalpur3Kerala2Panaji2Punjab & Haryana2Rajasthan1J&K1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1

Key Topics

Section 40A(3)57Disallowance36Section 143(3)29Section 4024Addition to Income22Section 25016Deduction16Section 26315Section 80P10TDS

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)

disallowance under section 40A(3)of the Act is called for. It is settled view that the provisions of section

M/S THE REGIONAL AGRO INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT COOPERATIVE OF KERALA LTD,KANNUR vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KANNUR RANGE

ITA 563/COCH/2025[2010-11]Status: Disposed

Showing 1–20 of 43 · Page 1 of 3

8
Section 40A7
Section 40A(2)(b)7
ITAT Cochin
18 Nov 2025
AY 2010-11

Bench: The Tribunal Within The Time Prescribed. Accordingly, The Delay Of 69 Days In Filing The Present Appeal Is Condoned.

For Appellant: Shri Suresh KumarFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 40A(3)

3. The lower authorities erred in upholding the disallowance under section 40A(3) of the Act in respect of payments

THOMSON GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,KOMBODINJAMAKKAL vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1), THRISSUR

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

ITA 253/COCH/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Mar 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm Assessment Year: 2014-15 Thomson Granites Pvt. Ltd. .......... Appellant X/616, Kambodinjamakkal Thazhekkad P.O., Thrissur 680697 [Pan: Aacct0876E] Vs. Acit, Circle - 1(1) .......... Respondent Aayakar Bhavan, Municipal Office Road Sakthan Thampuran Nagar Thrissur 680001 Appellant By: Shri Aneesh Vishwanathan, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 09.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.03.2025

For Appellant: Shri Aneesh Vishwanathan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 40Section 40A(3)

disallowed the expenditure incurred in cash on fuel or Rs. 4,44,47,632/- u/s. 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) and remuneration to the Directors of Rs. 72,00,000/- invoking provisions of section

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)

section 40A(3) of the Act for disallowing the deduction it should be expenditure made to a person in a day and not the total

JULIUS RUBEN,KOCHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), KOCHI

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

ITA 219/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Sri.A.Gopalakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR
Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 40A(3)

Disallowance of depreciation under section 32 and capital expenditure under section 35AD on cash payment 7 ITA No.219/Coch/2025. Sri.Julius Ruben. Under the existing provisions of the Act, revenue expenditure incurred in cash exceeding certain monetary threshold is not allowable as per sub-section (3) of section 40A

THE KALAKKODU SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,KOLLAM vs. THE ITO, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the stay petition filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 164/COCH/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shrigeorge George K.And Shrilaxmi Prasad Sahu(Assessment Year:2018-19

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 32Section 36Section 61Section 80P

disallowances made under section 32, 40(a)(ia), 40A(3), 438 etc. of the Act and other specific disallowances. relatedto

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)

3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) at a total income of Rs. 15,00,360/-. While doing so, the AO made disallowance of Rs. 13,06,452/- invoking the provisions of section 40A

P. SURENDRAN,TRIVANDRUM vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(2), TRIVANDRUM

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

ITA 978/COCH/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm P. Surendran Sukanya Bhavan Asst. Cit-1(2) Vadayakkadu, Kunnukuzhy, P.O., Thiruvananthapuram Vs. Thiruvananthapuram-695 035

For Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 40A(3)Section 40a

disallowance u/s. 40A(3) made by the Assessing Officer in respect of the capital expenditure incurred by the appellant. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate the fact that section

VICT PLY INDUSTRIES,KANNUR vs. ITO, WARD 4, KNNUR

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

ITA 399/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2015-16 Victply Industries .......... Appellant Ap Vii/585B, Industrial Development Park Andoor, Parassinikkadavu, Kannur, Kerala [Pan: Aagfv 5189 D] Vs. Ito, Ward-4, Kannur .......... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

section 40A(3) and it can be treated as a government and no disallowance attracted. Reliance in this regard can be placed

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) it is clear that to attract the disallowance, the expenditure incurred should be excessive and unreasonable. In the given it is factually established that the price paid is not unreasonably excessive and the transaction is not done with an intention to evade tax. Therefore in our considered view no disallowance is warranted in respect of the price

PANICHIKANDY MOHANDASAN,KASARGOD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1,KANNUR RANGE, KANNUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 605/COCH/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K., Vp & Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 40A(3)

3. The disallowances, inter alia, with which we are concerned include the disallowance of Rs. 16,40,710/- being the payment made to Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) invoking provisions of section 40A

JOY THOMAS,KURAVILANGADU vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, KOTTAYAM

In the result, appeal filed by the appellant stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 714/COCH/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Assessment Year: 2020-21 Joy Thomas .......... Appellant Chitra Kozha Kuravilangadu, Kottayam 686633 [Pan: Acxpt6745J] Vs. The Income Tax Officer - Ward -1 .......... Respondent Shastri Road, Kottayam 686001 Appellant By: Shri Venkitachalam, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 04.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.02.2025

For Appellant: Shri Venkitachalam, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

section 40A(3) of the Act. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. 5. The learned A.R. submitted that the lower authorities have failed to consider the cash withdrawals

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)

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 is a company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956. It is engaged in the business of service provider for digital cable TV and broadband internet services

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)

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 is a company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956. It is engaged in the business of service provider for digital cable TV and broadband internet services

M/S.KAIRALI JEWELLERS,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO, WD-1(4), TVM, TVM

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

ITA 51/COCH/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am M/S. Kairali Jewellers The Income Tax Officer Kairali Auditorium Ward 1(4) Vs. Maithanam, Varkala Thiruvananthapuram Trivandrum 695141 Pan – Aaefk6327N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri T.M. Sreedharan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shantham Bose, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 269SSection 40A(3)Section 68

disallowance under Section 40A(3) of the Act in respect of administrative expenses. Thus it was the submission that the issues

P V MERCY,THRISSUR vs. ITO, W-1, GURUVAYOOR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 824/COCH/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Feb 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14 P.V. Mercy .......... Appellant Aiswarya Traders, Nhamangad P.O. Vylathur, Thrissur 680307 [Pan: Acwpv0753D] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward - 1, Guruvayur Appellant By: Ms. Tesin Mathew, Advocate Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 23.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.02.2025

For Appellant: Ms. Tesin Mathew, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

disallowing an amount of Rs. 1,55,12,372/- under Section 40A(3) particularly when he admitted and accepted various

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)

40A(2)(a) of the Act. The AO’s order, nearly identically worded for all the years, is as under: ‘4. While examining the books of account it was seen that the assessee has made the following payment to partners or close relatives of the partners: (Figures being for AY 2004-05) (Amount (Rs.) Leave compensation 3,00,000/- Development

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)

40A(2)(a) of the Act. The AO’s order, nearly identically worded for all the years, is as under: ‘4. While examining the books of account it was seen that the assessee has made the following payment to partners or close relatives of the partners: (Figures being for AY 2004-05) (Amount (Rs.) Leave compensation 3,00,000/- Development

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)

40A(2)(a) of the Act. The AO’s order, nearly identically worded for all the years, is as under: ‘4. While examining the books of account it was seen that the assessee has made the following payment to partners or close relatives of the partners: (Figures being for AY 2004-05) (Amount (Rs.) Leave compensation 3,00,000/- Development

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)

40A(2)(a) of the Act. The AO’s order, nearly identically worded for all the years, is as under: ‘4. While examining the books of account it was seen that the assessee has made the following payment to partners or close relatives of the partners: (Figures being for AY 2004-05) (Amount (Rs.) Leave compensation 3,00,000/- Development