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.

2 results for “disallowance”+ Section 199(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai939Delhi877Bangalore281Kolkata234Chennai224Ahmedabad207Jaipur115Hyderabad111Chandigarh65Pune62Rajkot60Indore55Raipur51Lucknow43Cuttack40Calcutta38Jodhpur29Allahabad24Nagpur22Karnataka21Cochin19Visakhapatnam18Surat18Telangana7Agra7Amritsar6Rajasthan4SC4Ranchi3Punjab & Haryana3Guwahati2Orissa1Patna1Jabalpur1Varanasi1Panaji1

Key Topics

Section 404Section 194J4Section 40A(3)2Disallowance2

JYOTI PRAKASH DAS,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 102/GTY/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati31 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2017-18 Jyoti Prakash Das Dcit, Circle-3, Guwahati Kumud Enclave, Nawaram Vs. Kakati Path, Rehabari, Guwahati-781008. Pan: Ajipd 5193 Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Ramesh Goenka, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Arun Bhowmick, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 31.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.08.2023 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 07.02.2020 Of Ld. Cit(A), Guwahati-2 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’]. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1(A). That Neither The Learned Assessing Officer Was Justified In Making Disallowance Of Rs. 1,43,73,603/- On Account Of Proportionate Direct Expenses & Adding The Same In The Closing Stock Of The Appellant Nor The Learned Cit(A) Was Justified In Confirming The Aforesaid Disallowance/Addition.

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh Goenka, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arun Bhowmick, JCIT
Section 143(2)Section 250Section 40A(3)Section 69C

199 (Guj): "Section 40A( 3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with rule 6DD of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 - Business disallowance - Cash payment exceeding prescribed limits (Rule 6DD(j)-Assessment year 2006- 07 - Assessee was working as an agent of Tata Tele Services Limited for distributing mobile cards and recharge vouchers - Principal company Tata insisted that cheque payment

GOLDEN ARROW TRAVELS PRIVATE LIMITED,SHILLONG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SHILLONG

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 233/GTY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati17 Jun 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 194JSection 40

section 194J/194C of the Act. Since the assessee could not explain before him the expenditure incurred of Rs.48,000/- he resorted to disallowance, which action has been confirmed by Ld. CIT(A). Before us, it was 3 Golden Arrow Travels P.Ltd demonstrated with the help of paper book pages 2 & 3 that assessee had two offices functioning at Shillong