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.

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

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,528Mumbai1,469Chennai654Kolkata648Pune596Bangalore537Ahmedabad410Hyderabad245Jaipur240Raipur145Chandigarh137Surat137Indore129Visakhapatnam117Amritsar117Cuttack106Cochin98Rajkot66Nagpur60Lucknow46Agra36Karnataka31Jodhpur27Allahabad27Dehradun21Guwahati20Patna19Ranchi13SC12Varanasi9Calcutta8Jabalpur6Telangana4Panaji3Punjab & Haryana2Kerala2A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1J&K1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 40A(3)32Section 153C27Addition to Income18Disallowance16Section 25014Section 143(3)9Section 689Section 369Depreciation9Section 40A

M/S. G.D. MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUWAHATI`

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 425/GTY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati28 Apr 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg

Section 2Section 2ASection 40ASection 40A(2)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 92B

Section 40A(2) is concerned, the relevant part of the said amended provision is reproduced as under: “Provided that for an assessment year commencing on or before the 1st day of April, 2016 no disallowance

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

5
Section 80I5
Deduction4

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

disallowance could be made under section 40A(3) - Held, yes [ Para 23] [In favour of the assessee]" CIT vs Smt. Shelly Passi reported in (2013) 350 ITR 227 (P&H) In this case the court upheld the view of the tribunal in not applying section 40A(3) of the Act to the cash payments when 11 Jyoti Prakash

DEY'S PHARMACY,GUWAHATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD2(1), GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 63/GTY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati04 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Hon’Ble Vice-(Kz)] [Through Virtual Court] Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dey’S Pharmacy ...................................……………………………………………………………Appellant S.S. Road, Lakhtokia, Guwahati – 781001. [Pan : Aadfd 4403 B] Vs Ito, Ward – 2(1), Guwahati…………………………………………..………………………Respondent Appearances By: Shri Ramesh Goenka, Sr. Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Subhrajyoti Bhattacharya, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 04, 2021 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 04, 2021 O R D E R Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- Guwahati - 2 Dated 23.11.2018 & The Solitary Issue Involved Therein Relates To The Disallowance Of Rs. 36,96,707/- Made By The Ao & Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A) U/S 40A(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Assessee In The Present Case Is A Partnership Firm Which Is Engaged In The Business Of Retail Trading Of Medicines. The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration Was Filed

Section 143(3)Section 40ASection 40A(3)

disallowance of Rs. 36,96,707/- made by the AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The assessee in the present case is a partnership firm which is engaged in the business of retail trading of medicines. The return of income for the year under consideration was filed 2

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4(2), GUWAHATI vs. M/S. KISHLAY FOOD (P) LTD, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 232/GTY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Sainiassessment Year :2011-12

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250(6)Section 43BSection 80Section 80ISection 80l

2), Guwa Vs. M/s Kishlay Foods Pvt. Ltd. Page 3 The above ground is directed towards not allowing deduction under section 80IC of the Act, wrt disallowance made under section 43B of the Act. During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant had contended that the disallowances made under the head profits and gains from business and profession duly qualify

GREENWOOD RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUWAHATI

In the result, ITA No. 114/GTY/2024 for AY 2017-18 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 114/GTY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati29 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 153CSection 250Section 36Section 40A(3)Section 68

Section 40A(3) of the IT Act. The said disallowance is a statutory disallowance and the AO has no discretion in this regard. The Appellant also did not elaborate whether the payments fall under any exceptions. Hence, it can be concluded that the AO has rightfully disallowed the payments. Thus, the disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the IT Act amounting

GREENWOOD RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, ITA No. 114/GTY/2024 for AY 2017-18 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 112/GTY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati29 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 153CSection 250Section 36Section 40A(3)Section 68

Section 40A(3) of the IT Act. The said disallowance is a statutory disallowance and the AO has no discretion in this regard. The Appellant also did not elaborate whether the payments fall under any exceptions. Hence, it can be concluded that the AO has rightfully disallowed the payments. Thus, the disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the IT Act amounting

GREENWOOD RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUWAHATI

In the result, ITA No. 114/GTY/2024 for AY 2017-18 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 115/GTY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati29 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 153CSection 250Section 36Section 40A(3)Section 68

Section 40A(3) of the IT Act. The said disallowance is a statutory disallowance and the AO has no discretion in this regard. The Appellant also did not elaborate whether the payments fall under any exceptions. Hence, it can be concluded that the AO has rightfully disallowed the payments. Thus, the disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the IT Act amounting

GREENWOOD RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUWAHATI

In the result, ITA No. 114/GTY/2024 for AY 2017-18 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 117/GTY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati29 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 153CSection 250Section 36Section 40A(3)Section 68

Section 40A(3) of the IT Act. The said disallowance is a statutory disallowance and the AO has no discretion in this regard. The Appellant also did not elaborate whether the payments fall under any exceptions. Hence, it can be concluded that the AO has rightfully disallowed the payments. Thus, the disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the IT Act amounting

GREENWOOD RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUWAHATI

In the result, ITA No. 114/GTY/2024 for AY 2017-18 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 113/GTY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati29 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 153CSection 250Section 36Section 40A(3)Section 68

Section 40A(3) of the IT Act. The said disallowance is a statutory disallowance and the AO has no discretion in this regard. The Appellant also did not elaborate whether the payments fall under any exceptions. Hence, it can be concluded that the AO has rightfully disallowed the payments. Thus, the disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the IT Act amounting

GREENWOOD RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUWAHATI

In the result, ITA No. 114/GTY/2024 for AY 2017-18 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 118/GTY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati29 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 153CSection 250Section 36Section 40A(3)Section 68

Section 40A(3) of the IT Act. The said disallowance is a statutory disallowance and the AO has no discretion in this regard. The Appellant also did not elaborate whether the payments fall under any exceptions. Hence, it can be concluded that the AO has rightfully disallowed the payments. Thus, the disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the IT Act amounting

GREENWOOD RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUWAHATI

In the result, ITA No. 114/GTY/2024 for AY 2017-18 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 110/GTY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati29 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 153CSection 250Section 36Section 40A(3)Section 68

Section 40A(3) of the IT Act. The said disallowance is a statutory disallowance and the AO has no discretion in this regard. The Appellant also did not elaborate whether the payments fall under any exceptions. Hence, it can be concluded that the AO has rightfully disallowed the payments. Thus, the disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the IT Act amounting

GREENWOOD RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUWAHATI

In the result, ITA No. 114/GTY/2024 for AY 2017-18 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 111/GTY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati29 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 153CSection 250Section 36Section 40A(3)Section 68

Section 40A(3) of the IT Act. The said disallowance is a statutory disallowance and the AO has no discretion in this regard. The Appellant also did not elaborate whether the payments fall under any exceptions. Hence, it can be concluded that the AO has rightfully disallowed the payments. Thus, the disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the IT Act amounting

GREENWOOD RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUWAHATI

In the result, ITA No. 114/GTY/2024 for AY 2017-18 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 116/GTY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati29 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 153CSection 250Section 36Section 40A(3)Section 68

Section 40A(3) of the IT Act. The said disallowance is a statutory disallowance and the AO has no discretion in this regard. The Appellant also did not elaborate whether the payments fall under any exceptions. Hence, it can be concluded that the AO has rightfully disallowed the payments. Thus, the disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the IT Act amounting

ASHOK MOTORS,TEZPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-TEZPUR, TEZPUR

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

ITA 189/GTY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati31 Jul 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.189/Gau/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2015-16)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Bothra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jayanta Mridha, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

2 Ashok Motors Assessment Year:2015-16 account of cash payment exceeding Rs. 20,000/- (threshold limit u/s 40A(3) of the Act). The Ld Counsel submits before the Bench that cash payment of Rs.58,65,244/- are on account of adjustments of customers` accounts who come for purchase of new Vehicles/automobiles in the assessee`s show room. He submits

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(4), GUWAHATI vs. M/S. S.R.K.M. STEELS (P) LTD, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 274/GTY/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati18 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(4) M/S S.R.K.M Steels (P) Ltd. Room No.707, 7Th Floor, Aayakar M/S Srkm Steels (P) Ltd. Lokhra Bhawan Poorva, G.S. Road, Road, P.O. Sawkuchi, Guwahati- Vs. Guwahati-781005, Assam 781034, Assam (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aalcs5046E Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Ar Revenue By : Shri Santosh Kumar Karnani, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.12.2025

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Santosh Kumar karnani, DR
Section 133(6)

Section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. The ld. AO noted that during the year the assessee made payment of the above amount to M/s Shri Sriram Keshrimal against the purchase of ₹98,11,275/- which is not reasonable. Accordingly, the ld. AO noted that the assessee failed to provide the interest receivable by him from M/s Shri Sriram Keshrimal

RAM CHANDRA AGARWALA,BONGAIGAON vs. ITO, WARD -1, BONGAIGAON, BONGAIGAON

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

ITA 171/GTY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati03 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40A(3)

disallowing Rs 6,40,000/- u/s 40A(3) & CIT(A) is not justified in upholding the same. 2. The Appellant craves the leave to take Additional Grounds and/or amend the above grounds of appeal at the time of hearing of appeal.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and during the year under consideration

LOTUS BROILER FARMING DIVISION,GUWAHATI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 102/GTY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati20 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.102/Gty/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Mody, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Sekhar Das, JCIT
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40A(3)

2)/142(1). Based on the details furnished by the assessee, the Assessing officer noticed that the assessee made payments of Rs.1.00 lakh to Dr. Khanjit Medhi and Rs.40,000/- to Mr. Niranjan Das. Ld.AO issued show cause notice requiring the assessee to explain as to why said payments made to the above parties should not be disallowed u/s.40A

MANOJ KUMAR DAS,GUWAHATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2), GUWAHATI

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 146/GTY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati10 Oct 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S, Godaraassessment Year:2011-12

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 40

section 194C of the Act. Hon’ble Calcutta high court’s judgment in ITA No.127 of 2009, CIT vs. M/s. Stumm India holds that the impugned disallowance does not apply in the absence of a payee having undertaken any such contractual liability. I therefore delete the impugned disallowance on this count alone. The assessee succeeds in his former substantive grievance

M/S. J.C. CONSTRUCTION (P) LTD.,NORTH LAKHIMPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-TEZPUR, TEZPUR

In the result, the stay application filed by the assessee is dismissed while the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 314/GTY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati08 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. J.C. Construction Pvt. Ltd.................................………………………………………….Appellant D.K. Road, North Lakhimpur -787 001, (Assam) [Pan : Aabct 3063 A] Dcit, Circle, Tezpur………………………………………………..........................................Respondent Aayakar Bhawan, Ex-Police Line, Tezpur, Assam – 784 001. S.A. No. 10/Gau/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 314/Gau/2018) Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. J.C. Construction Pvt. Ltd.................................………………………………………..Appellant D.K. Road, North Lakhimpur -787 001, (Assam) [Pan : Aabct 3063 A] Dcit, Circle, Tezpur………………………………………………........................................Respondent Aayakar Bhawan, Ex-Police Line, Tezpur, Assam – 784 001. Appearances By: Shri Deva Raj Sahu, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Pradip Sengupta, Jcit, Sr. Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 08, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 08, 2019 O R D E R Per P.M. Jagtapat The Time Of Hearing Of Stay Application Filed By The Assessee In This Case Being S.A. No. 10/Gau/2018, The Learned Representatives Of Both The Sides Have Agreed That The Corresponding Appeal Of The Assessee Being Ita

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40A(3)

2,53,54,659/- after making the additions of Rs. 91,11,425/- on account of disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the Act and disallowance of sundry creditors of Rs. 7,04,174/-. 3. Against the order passed by the AO u/s 143(3), an appeal was preferred by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) and since there

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - AGARTALA, AGARTALA vs. KALIKA JEWELLERS, AGARTALA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 85/GTY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati09 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 85/Gty/2016 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income M/S. Kalika Jewellers Tax, Circle-Agartala Vs H.G.B. Road Agartala Tripura (W) - 799001 [Pan: Aafj5678K] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanjay Modi, Fca Revenue By : Shri N.T. Sherpa, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/09/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/11/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - Shillong, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 03/06/2016, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act’) For The Assessment Year 2010-11, On The Following Grounds:- “1. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Made By A.O. Of Rs.8,81,708/- On Account Of Unexplained Expenditure. 2. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.4,02,36,806/- Made By A.O. On Account Of Undisclosed Stock. 3. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Disallowance Of Rs.16,20,750/- Made By A.O. On Account Of Making Charges U/S 40(A)(Ia). 4. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Disallowance Of Rs.1,34,640/- & Rs.83,385/- Made By A.O. On Account Of Advertisement Expense U/S 40(A)(Ia).” 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm Engaged In Jewellery Business. Income Of Rs.56,80,854/- Was Declared In The Return Filed On 23/09/2010. The Case Was Manually Selected For Scrutiny Followed By Service Of Notice U/S 143(2) & 143(1) Of The Act. The Ld. Assessing Officer Called For Various

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Modi, FCAFor Respondent: Shri N.T. Sherpa, JCIT
Section 131Section 143(2)Section 250Section 40

disallowance of Rs.51,255/- being hit by the provision of Section 40A(3) of the Act since it was paid in cash and this being not in dispute before us by the assessee, needs no adjudication. Now, remains I.T.A. No. 85/GTY/2016 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s. Kalika Jewellers 7 the sum of Rs.83,385/- for which the assessee had already