Search: disallowance | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

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

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,528 Mumbai1,496 Chennai670 Kolkata658 Bangalore547 Pune191 Ahmedabad189 Jaipur142 Hyderabad138 Raipur125 Surat96 Indore92 Amritsar82 Chandigarh64 Nagpur56 Cuttack50 Visakhapatnam50 Rajkot45 Cochin43 Lucknow40 Karnataka31 Agra27 Allahabad22 Jodhpur21 Patna19 Dehradun16 Guwahati14 SC12 Varanasi9 Calcutta8 Ranchi5 Telangana4 Jabalpur3 Kerala2 Punjab & Haryana2 Rajasthan1 J&K1 Panaji1 A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1

Key Topics

Addition to Income86 Section 143(3)75 Disallowance60 Section 26339 Section 143(1)32 Section 36(1)(va)26 Section 35A26 Section 6825 Section 40A(3)25 Section 142(1)

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 &

2) of Income Tax Act, the difference should be ignored. 4.2 No disallowance can be made by applying the provisions of Section 40A

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: Disposed

Showing 1–20 of 142 · Page 1 of 8

...

25

ITAT Jaipur

22 May 2023

AY 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

2) of Income Tax Act, the difference should be ignored. 4.2 No disallowance can be made by applying the provisions of Section 40A

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

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

disallowance u/s 40A(2)(a) is not applicable to persons not covered u/s 40A(2)(b). The persons covered,when the assessee is an individual as in the present case, 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)

2 Ors. M/s Skyways Township Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT which section 40A(3) has been brought on the statute books has been clearly satisfied in the instant case. Therefore, being a case of genuine business transaction, no disallowance

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

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)

2 Ors. M/s Skyways Township Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT which section 40A(3) has been brought on the statute books has been clearly satisfied in the instant case. Therefore, being a case of genuine business transaction, no disallowance

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)

2 Ors. M/s Skyways Township Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT which section 40A(3) has been brought on the statute books has been clearly satisfied in the instant case. Therefore, being a case of genuine business transaction, no disallowance

M/S MORANI CARS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WARD-6, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 184/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Suhani Maharwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehara (Addl.CIT)

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40ASection 40aSection 68

2. The assessee has marched this appeal on following grounds of appeal; “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case Ld. ACIT erred in disallowing and Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the disallowances of the entire payment of rent by invoking of section 40A

DCIT, C-4, JAIPUR vs. M/S. JLC ELECTROMET PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 166/JPR/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra GargieyaFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

2) to section 9(1) (vil) so as to deemed to accrue or arise in India Revenue's Appeal dismissed." 8.7 NEC HCL System Technologies Ltd. vs. ACIT (2016) 46 CCH 0396 DelTrib "TDS-Non-deduction-Disallowance u/s 40a

OCEAN EXIM INDIA PRIVATE LTD,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 37/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Prabha Rana (Adv.)For Respondent: Ms Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(A)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

disallowances. In terms of this scheme, Section 40 (which too starts with a non obstante clause overriding Sections 30-38), deals with what cannot be deducted in computing income under the head “Profits and Gains of Business and Profession”. Likewise, Section 40A(2

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)

2:- The assessee company has entered into a development agreement with Mr. Jitendra Kumar Yadav on 22.03.2012 for development of Plot No. E-97, Subhash Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur. During F.Y 2011-12 the assessee paid Rs. 11,00,000/- in cash. Since payments are above Rs. 20,000/- therefore, Section 40A(3) attracted on these payment and same

NIMBUS PIPES LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 384/JPR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Feb 2023AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Badaya (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri R.S. Meel (JCIT)

Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

disallowances. In terms of this scheme, Section 40 (which too starts with a non obstante clause overriding Sections 30-38), deals with what cannot be deducted in computing income under the head “Profits and Gains of Business and Profession”. Likewise, Section 40A(2

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)

section 40A(3) of the Act and therefore disallowance made by\nthe AO is confirmed. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed.\n6. In the result, appeal is dismissed.\"\nAs the assessee did not find any favour from the appeal filed before ld.\nCIT(A) who filed the present appeal against the said order of the ld. CIT(A) before\nthis tribunal

APM INDUSTRIES LTD,BHIWADI, ALWAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1, ALWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 203/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 203/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2018-19 APM Industries Ltd. SP-147, Industrial Area Bhiwadi, Alwar cuke Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-01, Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AACCA 5114 G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. S. L. Poddar jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT) a l

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. PoddarFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT) a

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 263Section 40Section 40A(7)

2) ICDS compliance adjustment (3) Disallowance u/s. 40A(7) (Gratuity provision) and the assessment was completed by National e-Assessment Centre, Delhi, (NeAC) u/s. 143(3) read with sections

VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 96/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani, CA &For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl.CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

2(24)(x). The right to increase in income u/s 143(1)(a)(iv) has been conferred only w.e.f. 1.4.2021. Thus, invoking this clause for making adjustment in the returned income is without jurisdiction. iii. In the case of assessee company the Auditor in Clause 20(b) provided details of contribution received from Employees for various funds as referred

SANJIV PRAKASHAN,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 9/JPR/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Sept 2024AY 2020-2021

For Appellant: Sh. Anil Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh (Addl.CIT)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

40A(9) etc.\nHowever, in the case of the assessee, the auditor has not reported any\namount of disallowance.\n8. Reliance is placed on the following decisions in favour of the\nassesssee:\nS.No.\nName of case\nFindings\n1\nParis Elysees India\nPrivate Limited,\nJaipur v/s Deputy\nCommissioner of\nIncome Tax, Circle 7,\nJaipur (ITAT Jaipur)\nITA No.\n357/JPR/2022\nCase

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)

disallowance is warranted and we uphold the findings of the CIT(A) and reject the ground of the Department. Ground No. 7 relates to allowing rent of Rs. 7,13,862/- paid to a person specified u/s 40A(2)(b). 23. This ground of the Revenue is covered by the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal

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)

disallowance is warranted and we uphold the findings of the CIT(A) and reject the ground of the Department. Ground No. 7 relates to allowing rent of Rs. 7,13,862/- paid to a person specified u/s 40A(2)(b). 23. This ground of the Revenue is covered by the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal

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)

disallowance is warranted and we uphold the findings of the CIT(A) and reject the ground of the Department. Ground No. 7 relates to allowing rent of Rs. 7,13,862/- paid to a person specified u/s 40A(2)(b). 23. This ground of the Revenue is covered by the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal

M/S READY ROTI INDIA PVT. LTD.,F-28, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, SARE KHURD, ALWAR vs. CPC, BANGALORE/ ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR , JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 437/JPR/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 May 2023AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) a

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

disallowances. In terms of this scheme, Section 40 (which too starts with a non obstante clause overriding Sections 30-38), deals with what cannot be deducted in computing income under the head “Profits and Gains of Business and Profession”. Likewise, Section 40A(2