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.

639 results for “section 68”+ Section 40A(7)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi639Mumbai550Chennai237Bangalore166Kolkata159Ahmedabad153Pune117Jaipur111Hyderabad97Chandigarh53Raipur50Surat49Indore48Visakhapatnam42Rajkot38Cuttack29Cochin26Nagpur22Allahabad20Agra19Amritsar17Lucknow14Patna12Guwahati10Karnataka8Jodhpur7Ranchi6Varanasi5Dehradun5Calcutta2SC2Panaji1Rajasthan1Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Addition to Income81Section 143(3)79Section 6862Disallowance54Section 153A47Section 40A(3)37Section 14732Section 26322Deduction21Section 271

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL LTD.,, DELHI

ITA 3883/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri R. S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay I Bara, CIT DR
Section 142Section 147Section 153Section 153ASection 201(1)Section 36Section 40Section 40A(3)

40A (3) is unwarranted. Revenue has not pointed out that any of such expenditure and payment both exceeds specified limit. In view of this, ground number 2 of appeal of assessee is partly allowed. 14. Assessee did not press ground number 3 of appeal being disallowance of INR 25,000 on ground of non-deduction of tax at source. Accordingly

Showing 1–20 of 639 · Page 1 of 32

...
18
Section 143(2)16
Natural Justice10

SURYA MERCHANTS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the above appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 179/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 132Section 143Section 153Section 153ASection 263Section 40Section 40A(3)

section 40A(3). Rule 6DD is not exhaustive but illustrative. 4 6. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jute Corporation of India Limited Vs. CIT reported in 187 ITR 688 and NTPC Vs. CIT reported in 229 ITR 383 submitted that the above additional grounds being

SURYA MERCHANTS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the above appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 178/DEL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 132Section 143Section 153Section 153ASection 263Section 40Section 40A(3)

section 40A(3). Rule 6DD is not exhaustive but illustrative. 4 6. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jute Corporation of India Limited Vs. CIT reported in 187 ITR 688 and NTPC Vs. CIT reported in 229 ITR 383 submitted that the above additional grounds being

SURYA MERCHANTS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the above appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 180/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 132Section 143Section 153Section 153ASection 263Section 40Section 40A(3)

section 40A(3). Rule 6DD is not exhaustive but illustrative. 4 6. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jute Corporation of India Limited Vs. CIT reported in 187 ITR 688 and NTPC Vs. CIT reported in 229 ITR 383 submitted that the above additional grounds being

SHIV SHAKTI CONSTRUCTIONS,GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-11, NOIDA

In the result, all the Revenue’s Appeals are dismissed

ITA 2557/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Harish Choudhary CAFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-DR

68 18 + 24 9,15,19,864 (28.68%) + 3,85,454 + 1.47,75,588 From the above table it can be seen that in a case of the appellant if the disallowances are made on account of alleged Bogus expenses and expenses incurred in cash above prescribed limit as per provisions of section 40A

SHIV SHAKTI CONSTRUCTION,GAUTAM BUDH NAGER vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 , NOIDA

In the result, all the Revenue’s Appeals are dismissed

ITA 2556/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Harish Choudhary CAFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-DR

68 18 + 24 9,15,19,864 (28.68%) + 3,85,454 + 1.47,75,588 From the above table it can be seen that in a case of the appellant if the disallowances are made on account of alleged Bogus expenses and expenses incurred in cash above prescribed limit as per provisions of section 40A

SHIV SHAKTI CONSTRUCTIONS ,GAUTAM BUDH NAGER vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, NOIDA

In the result, all the Revenue’s Appeals are dismissed

ITA 2554/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Harish Choudhary CAFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-DR

68 18 + 24 9,15,19,864 (28.68%) + 3,85,454 + 1.47,75,588 From the above table it can be seen that in a case of the appellant if the disallowances are made on account of alleged Bogus expenses and expenses incurred in cash above prescribed limit as per provisions of section 40A

SHIV SHAKTI CONSTRUCTONS ,GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR vs. ACIT CENTAL CIRCLE-2, NOIDA

In the result, all the Revenue’s Appeals are dismissed

ITA 2555/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Harish Choudhary CAFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-DR

68 18 + 24 9,15,19,864 (28.68%) + 3,85,454 + 1.47,75,588 From the above table it can be seen that in a case of the appellant if the disallowances are made on account of alleged Bogus expenses and expenses incurred in cash above prescribed limit as per provisions of section 40A

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, NOIDA vs. SHIV SHAKTI CONSTRUCTION, GREATER NOIDA

In the result, all the Revenue’s Appeals are dismissed

ITA 2835/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Harish Choudhary CAFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-DR

68 18 + 24 9,15,19,864 (28.68%) + 3,85,454 + 1.47,75,588 From the above table it can be seen that in a case of the appellant if the disallowances are made on account of alleged Bogus expenses and expenses incurred in cash above prescribed limit as per provisions of section 40A

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, NOIDA vs. SHIV SHAKTI CONSTRUCTION, GREATER NOIDA

In the result, all the Revenue’s Appeals are dismissed

ITA 2839/DEL/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Harish Choudhary CAFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-DR

68 18 + 24 9,15,19,864 (28.68%) + 3,85,454 + 1.47,75,588 From the above table it can be seen that in a case of the appellant if the disallowances are made on account of alleged Bogus expenses and expenses incurred in cash above prescribed limit as per provisions of section 40A

SHIV SHAKTI CONSTRUCTIONS,GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-11, NOIDA

In the result, all the Revenue’s Appeals are dismissed

ITA 2558/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Harish Choudhary CAFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-DR

68 18 + 24 9,15,19,864 (28.68%) + 3,85,454 + 1.47,75,588 From the above table it can be seen that in a case of the appellant if the disallowances are made on account of alleged Bogus expenses and expenses incurred in cash above prescribed limit as per provisions of section 40A

SHIV SHAKTI CONSTRUCTIONS,GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-11, NOIDA

In the result, all the Revenue’s Appeals are dismissed

ITA 2559/DEL/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Harish Choudhary CAFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-DR

68 18 + 24 9,15,19,864 (28.68%) + 3,85,454 + 1.47,75,588 From the above table it can be seen that in a case of the appellant if the disallowances are made on account of alleged Bogus expenses and expenses incurred in cash above prescribed limit as per provisions of section 40A

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, NOIDA vs. SHIV SHAKTI CONSTRUCTION, GREATER NOIDA

In the result, all the Revenue’s Appeals are dismissed

ITA 2834/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Harish Choudhary CAFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-DR

68 18 + 24 9,15,19,864 (28.68%) + 3,85,454 + 1.47,75,588 From the above table it can be seen that in a case of the appellant if the disallowances are made on account of alleged Bogus expenses and expenses incurred in cash above prescribed limit as per provisions of section 40A

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, NOIDA vs. SHIV SHAKTI CONSTRUCTION, GREATER NOIDA

In the result, all the Revenue’s Appeals are dismissed

ITA 2837/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Harish Choudhary CAFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-DR

68 18 + 24 9,15,19,864 (28.68%) + 3,85,454 + 1.47,75,588 From the above table it can be seen that in a case of the appellant if the disallowances are made on account of alleged Bogus expenses and expenses incurred in cash above prescribed limit as per provisions of section 40A

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, NOIDA vs. SHIV SHAKTI CONSTRUCTION, GREATER NOIDA

In the result, all the Revenue’s Appeals are dismissed

ITA 2838/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Harish Choudhary CAFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-DR

68 18 + 24 9,15,19,864 (28.68%) + 3,85,454 + 1.47,75,588 From the above table it can be seen that in a case of the appellant if the disallowances are made on account of alleged Bogus expenses and expenses incurred in cash above prescribed limit as per provisions of section 40A

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, NOIDA vs. SHIV SHAKTI CONSTRUCTION, GREATER NOIDA

In the result, all the Revenue’s Appeals are dismissed

ITA 2836/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Harish Choudhary CAFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-DR

68 18 + 24 9,15,19,864 (28.68%) + 3,85,454 + 1.47,75,588 From the above table it can be seen that in a case of the appellant if the disallowances are made on account of alleged Bogus expenses and expenses incurred in cash above prescribed limit as per provisions of section 40A

HERO MOTOCORP LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, RANGE-11, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No

ITA 6990/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A. No. 6990/Del/2017 (A.Y 2013-14)

Section 143(3)Section 144C

7 2.40 crores made from the parties who are related parties in terms of accounting standard 18 issued by the section 40A (2) of the income tax act. In the result ground No. 11 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed.” The purchase prices of components which are purchased from various suppliers are based upon negotiations with such

HERO MOTOCORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal No. 2424/Del/ 2015 filed by the revenue in assessment year 2010-11 is partly allowed

ITA 1616/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

40a(ia) for alleged failure to deduct TDS u/s 194C of the Act amounting to Rs. 5063.08 crores, it can be seen that in the course of business of manufacturing two wheelers, the assessee places purchase orders on vendors of certain customized intermediary products like wheel assembly, seat assembly, etc. While placing the aforesaid purchase orders to the vendors

M/S. RELIGARE CAPITAL MARKETS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 753/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 68Section 92Section 92B

7 | P a g e compulsorily convertible preference shares of Rs 10 each allotted at a premium of Rs 40 per share; b. Form FCGPRS filed by the assessee vide its letter dated September 28, 2010 with HDFC Bank informing it of the inward remittance of Rs 1,860,000,000; c. The valuation report of the preference shares having

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S CORNELL OVERSEAS PRIVATE LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the CO filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2395/DEL/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2004-05 Dcit, Vs Cornell Overseas Private Ltd., Circle-3(1), B-235, Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi,. Phase-I, New Delhi. Pan: Aaacc0034F Co No.217/Del/2011 (Ita No.2395/Del/2011) Assessment Year: 2004-05 Cornell Overseas Private Ltd., Vs Dcit, B-235, Okhla Industrial Area, . Circle-3(1), Phase-I, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaacc0034F (Appellant/Cross Objector) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms Vandana Bhandari, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sandeep Kumar Mishra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 22.05.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: The Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)- 20, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2004-05. The Assessee Has Also Filed Co No.217/Del/2011 Cross Objections Against The Appeal Filed By The Revenue. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common

For Appellant: Ms Vandana Bhandari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Kumar Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 28Section 80HSection 90C

7 CO No.217/Del/2011 agreement, the assessee is under obligation to prepare and submit to the associated enterprise designs for prior written approval in the form of products to be manufactured, sold or distributed which shall include approval of workmanship material, fabric and colours. The TPO noted that the design of the product manufactured is provided by the AE, the details