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.

172 results for “disallowance”+ Section 40Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,532Mumbai1,503Chennai670Kolkata661Bangalore547Ahmedabad350Pune214Hyderabad191Jaipur172Raipur134Surat128Indore113Amritsar92Cochin80Chandigarh76Cuttack71Rajkot58Nagpur57Visakhapatnam55Lucknow41Agra33Karnataka31Jodhpur27Allahabad27Dehradun22Patna19Guwahati18SC12Varanasi9Calcutta8Ranchi6Telangana4Jabalpur3Panaji3Kerala2Punjab & Haryana2Rajasthan1J&K1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)88Addition to Income87Disallowance60Section 40A(3)46Section 26340Section 145(3)30Section 143(1)29Section 35A26Section 153A24Section 40

M/S VIJAYETA BUILDCON PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 980/JPR/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Oct 2020AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Sh. S. R. Sharma (CA) &For Respondent: Sh. B. K. Gupta (CIT)
Section 153ASection 253(5)Section 40A(3)

40A(3) has been amended to provide for disallowance of 20% of the expenditure incurred in cash and Rule 6DD(j) was omitted. Thereafter, by virtue of another amendment, disallowance under section

SMT. MANJU GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of the assessee's appeal is allowed

Showing 1–20 of 172 · Page 1 of 9

...
23
Deduction22
TDS14
ITA 251/JPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jun 2021AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Vedant Agarwal (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Ambrish Bedi (CIT-DR)
Section 2(22)(e)Section 40A(3)

40A(3) has been amended to provide for disallowance of 20% of the expenditure incurred in cash and Rule 6DD(j) was omitted. Thereafter, by virtue of another amendment, disallowance under section

M/S SKYWAYS TOWNSHIP PVT LTD. 1/2 LIC FLATS, VIDYADHAR NAGAR, SECTOR-6, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of the assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 250/JPR/2019[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jun 2021AY 2015-2016
For Appellant: Shri Vedant Agarwal (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Ambrish Bedi (CIT-DR)
Section 2(22)(e)Section 40A(3)

40A(3) has been amended to provide for disallowance of 20% of the expenditure incurred in cash and Rule 6DD(j) was omitted. Thereafter, by virtue of another amendment, disallowance under section

M/S SKYWAYS TOWNSHIP PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of the assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 824/JPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jun 2021AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Vedant Agarwal (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Ambrish Bedi (CIT-DR)
Section 2(22)(e)Section 40A(3)

40A(3) has been amended to provide for disallowance of 20% of the expenditure incurred in cash and Rule 6DD(j) was omitted. Thereafter, by virtue of another amendment, disallowance under section

AMIT COLONIZERS LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 253/JPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Vedant Agarwal (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

Section 40A(3) attracted on these payment and same is disallowed. S. No.3:- The assessee company purchased agricultural land of Rs. 9089000/- from

WORSHIP INFRAPROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CEIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 394/JPR/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA &For Respondent: Shri A.K. Bhardwaj, CIT &
Section 92C

disallowance can be made by applying the provisions of Section 40A(2)(b) as there is no question of diversion

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. M/S WORSHIP INFRAPROJECTS PVT LTD(PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS OM METALS SPML INFRAPROJECTS PVT LTD), JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 431/JPR/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA &For Respondent: Shri A.K. Bhardwaj, CIT &
Section 92C

disallowance can be made by applying the provisions of Section 40A(2)(b) as there is no question of diversion

ASHOK SHARMA,KOTA vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2 - KOTA, KOTA

ITA 359/JPR/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Nov 2024AY 2014-2015
For Appellant: Shri Priyank Kabra (C.A.) (V.C.)For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 40A(3)

disallowance in contravention\nof section 40A(3) of the Act. Here, no estimation theory was applied by the AO.\n5.5

MOTHERS EDUCATION HUB,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

ITA 618/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl.CIT
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 4Section 40A(2)(b)Section 68

section 40A(2)(b), we noticed that for making any disallowance under this section, the AO is under obligation to determine

M/S AMRAPALI EXPORTS,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground No

ITA 454/JPR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Jan 2021AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Bafna (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

40A(3), 43B etc., of the Act." The use of the word 'etc.' clearly denotes that it will apply to similarly placed disallowances and disallowance u/s. 40(a)(i) of the Act is also disallowance due to non-deduction of withholding tax as is contemplated by Section

CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA vs. DCIT, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 201/JPR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 May 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwallaFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT)
Section 40A(2)(b)

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 20.4. Further, the assessee has made investment in the mutual funds from the cash credit account maintained with HDFC Bank. HDFC bank has charged a total interest of Rs. 78,56,936/- for the year under consideration. Hence, the disallowance cannot be Rs. 90,14,795/- which exceeds the amount of interest itself

M/S. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 744/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 May 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwallaFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT)
Section 40A(2)(b)

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 20.4. Further, the assessee has made investment in the mutual funds from the cash credit account maintained with HDFC Bank. HDFC bank has charged a total interest of Rs. 78,56,936/- for the year under consideration. Hence, the disallowance cannot be Rs. 90,14,795/- which exceeds the amount of interest itself

CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA vs. ACIT, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 291/JPR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 May 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwallaFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT)
Section 40A(2)(b)

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 20.4. Further, the assessee has made investment in the mutual funds from the cash credit account maintained with HDFC Bank. HDFC bank has charged a total interest of Rs. 78,56,936/- for the year under consideration. Hence, the disallowance cannot be Rs. 90,14,795/- which exceeds the amount of interest itself

MURLI DHAR UPADHYAY,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(3), JPR, JAIPUR

In the result, stands allowed

ITA 252/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT a
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 270A(1)Section 40A(3)

section 40A(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The AO further noted that assessee made payments of Rs. 55,34,000/-on bank holidays which are excluding the purview of sec 40A(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The AO thus disallowed

MS SURBHI AGRAWAL ,JAIPUR vs. PCIT-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 649/JPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Sept 2019AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Kumar Jain (CA)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(3)Section 80C

disallowance under section 40A(3) of the Act. Ground No. 3 is regarding disallowance of deduction under section 80C of the Act. 9. The ld. A/R of the assessee

LALITA KUMARI,ANTA DISTRICT BARAN vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NFAC, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 217/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Priyank Kabra (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Chaudhary (Addl. CIT) a
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40A(2)(a)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 44A

section the disallowance of interest has been made. In his submission the assessee has presumed that this disallowance has been made u/s 40A

SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR GUPTA,BHARATPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, BHARATPUR

In the result, the appeals for the assessment year 2011-12 is dismissed and for the assessment year 2012-13 is allowed

ITA 946/JPR/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Or During The Course Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (ACIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 40A(3)

disallow while reopening the assessment by invoking the provisions of Section 40A(3) of the Act. 3. On the other

SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR GUPTA,BHARATPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, BHARATPUR

In the result, the appeals for the assessment year 2011-12 is dismissed and for the assessment year 2012-13 is allowed

ITA 947/JPR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Or During The Course Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (ACIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 40A(3)

disallow while reopening the assessment by invoking the provisions of Section 40A(3) of the Act. 3. On the other

AMAN EXPORTS INTERNATIONAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 147/JPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Tatiwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) &
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40A(3)

Section 40A(3) only empowers the assessing officer to disallow the deduction claimed as expenditure in respect of which payment

PRAKASH CHAND VARINDANI,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CERTAL CIRLCE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1146/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Apr 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Sh. Abhishek Soni, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT-DR
Section 144Section 68

disallowance under Section 40A(3) is unjustified and should be\nreversed.\n3.\nThe salary disallowance is without merit and should