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.

5 results for “disallowance”+ Section 40A(7)(b)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,157Delhi1,117Bangalore443Pune431Chennai426Kolkata399Ahmedabad328Hyderabad210Jaipur198Raipur136Chandigarh103Surat97Indore96Amritsar86Visakhapatnam84Cuttack55Cochin52Nagpur40Rajkot39Lucknow35Allahabad26Jodhpur23Agra23Karnataka16Guwahati13SC10Patna8Varanasi7Ranchi7Calcutta5Dehradun5Punjab & Haryana2Kerala2Panaji2Jabalpur2A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Telangana1

Key Topics

Section 44B5Section 134Section 40A(2)4Section 143(3)4Section 40A(3)4Section 271(1)(c)4Disallowance4Addition to Income4Section 2743

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE), DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN vs. STONEFIELD CONSTRUCTION, DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 215/DDN/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun08 Apr 2026AY 2023-24
Section 115BSection 133ASection 139Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(2)Section 40A(3)Section 40aSection 69ASection 69C

b) Disallowance u/s 40a(ia) of INR 16,18,500/-; (c) Disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the Act INR 30,000/- 3. Besides this, AO treated the income declared in the return of income filed at INR 3.89 crores on account of difference in survey during the course of search as unexplained investment u/s 69A of the Act as against

Section 36(1)(iii)2
Unexplained Cash Credit2
Exemption2

DCIT, DEHRADUN vs. M/S INSTITUTE OF CLINICAL RESEARCH (INDIA) SOCIETY,, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3927/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun15 Jan 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Rana, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 13Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(2)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 68

7. Ground No. 2 pertains to the deletion of disallowance u/s 40A(2) of the Act. 8. Briefs facts relating to this issue are that during the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has made payment of Rs. 21,22,99,500/- to ICRI Research P Ltd, a party covered u/s 40A(2)(b

INSTITUTE OF CLINICAL RESEARCH (INDIA) SOCIETY,DEHRADUN vs. ACIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4207/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun15 Jan 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Rana, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 13Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(2)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 68

7. Ground No. 2 pertains to the deletion of disallowance u/s 40A(2) of the Act. 8. Briefs facts relating to this issue are that during the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has made payment of Rs. 21,22,99,500/- to ICRI Research P Ltd, a party covered u/s 40A(2)(b

EKSHAD AHAMAD PATODI,U S NAGAR vs. ACIT(OSD), WARD-2(3)(5), KHATIMA

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

ITA 76/DDN/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun15 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40A(3)

disallowed u/s 40A(3) of the Act. 4. The Ld. CIT-A) has sustained penalty contrary to facts and against law. 5. That the impugned order is bad in law and not in consonance with facts, and against the principles of natural justice.” 3. None appeared for the assessee even after the registry issued notices to the assessee. 4. Considering

M.B. PETROLEUM SERVICES LLC,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6608/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun05 Oct 2023AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Smt. Shashi M Kapila, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mayank Kumar, Addl.CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 271GSection 40aSection 44BSection 44D

40a(ia) of the Act for non deduction of TDS. 7. Without prejudice to above and in law and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO has erred in denying the claim of depreciation and amortization of Rs. 49,75,184/-. 8. Without prejudice to above and in law and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO erred in disallowing