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.

3,126 results for “disallowance”+ Section 14(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai13,091Delhi10,970Bangalore3,716Chennai3,551Kolkata3,126Ahmedabad2,243Hyderabad1,432Jaipur1,353Pune1,287Surat865Indore764Chandigarh708Raipur545Cochin495Karnataka413Rajkot402Amritsar364Nagpur332Visakhapatnam326Cuttack304Lucknow258Jodhpur170Panaji165Agra162Telangana120Allahabad111SC109Guwahati109Ranchi108Patna87Dehradun86Calcutta78Kerala42Varanasi38Jabalpur38Punjab & Haryana12Orissa10Rajasthan8Himachal Pradesh6A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN5Gauhati2A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1ANIL R. DAVE AMITAVA ROY L. NAGESWARA RAO1Tripura1Uttarakhand1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1RANJAN GOGOI PRAFULLA C. PANT1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)63Section 1058Addition to Income57Section 25050Disallowance50Section 14A37Section 6836Section 4035Deduction32Section 263

KRISHNA PRASAD POTNURI,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 40(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 450/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Aug 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Krishna Prasad Potnuri...............................................................…………………………………….…..Appellant (Prop. Calcutta South Transport Co.) 20, Phears Lance Bowbazar Kolkata – 700 012 [Pan : Afqpp 3888 Q] Income Tax Officer, Ward-40(1), Kolkata....................................................…………………..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manish Tiwari, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri S.M. Das, Addl. Cit, D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 6Th , 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 3Rd, 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

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

disallowed u/s 40A(3) of the Act. The Hon'ble High Court held that rule 6DD(j) is not exhaustive of the circumstances in which the proviso to section 40A(3) is applicable and it only illustrative. The Hon'ble High Court refers to the decision of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in case of Smt. Harshila Chordia

Showing 1–20 of 3,126 · Page 1 of 157

...
30
Section 37(1)26
Limitation/Time-bar19

SHRI DINESH KUMAR GHOSH ,PASCHIM MEDINIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 38, , MIDNAPORE

In the result, this ground and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2015/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara] I.T.A. No. 2015/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Dinesh Kumar Ghosh.......………………………………....…………………………………………Appellant Garhbeta-Iii,Karamsole P.O. Kiaboni P.S. Garhbeta Paschim Medinipur – 721 253 [Pan : Arkpg 5318 G] Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-38, Midnapore…….........…..…......Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri C.J. Singh, Jcit D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 3Rd, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 26Th, 2019 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 11, Kolkata, (Ld. Cit(A)) Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, (The ‘Act’), Dt. 27/06/2018, For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Is An Individual & Is In The Business Of Trading In Wood & Timber. He Filed His Return Of Income On 29/10/2013, Disclosing Total Income Of Rs.10,29,280/-. The Assessing Officer Completed Assessment U/S 144 Of The Act, Vide His Order Dt. 10/03/2016, Determining The Total Income At Rs.1,22,27,660/- Interalia Making A Disallowance Of Rs.1,11,97,683/- U/S 40A(3) Of The Act, On The Ground That The Assessee Had Made Cash Payments In Excess Of Rs.20,000/- For Supply Of Timber To Various Local Merchants. Aggrieved The Assessee Carried The Matter In Appeal. Before The Ld. First Appellate Authority, The Assessee Submitted That None Of The Cash Payments In Question Exceeded The Limit Prescribed U/S 40A(3) Of The Act. He Produced A Cash Book & Ledger Account To Demonstrate The Fact That The 2

Section 144Section 250Section 40A(3)

disallowed u/s 40A(3) of the Act. The Hon'ble High Court held that rule 6DD(j) is not exhaustive of the circumstances in which the proviso to section 40A(3) is applicable and it only illustrative. The Hon'ble High Court refers to the decision of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in case of Smt. Harshila Chordia

AWAS DEVCON PVT. LTD. ,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD-13(1), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1216/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Bansal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Dutta, DR
Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

disallowing the payments in excess of Rs. 20,000/- aggregating to ₹3,14,43,700/- under the provisions of Section

AWAS DEVCON PVT. LTD. ,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD-14(4), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1217/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Bansal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Dutta, DR
Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

disallowing the payments in excess of Rs. 20,000/- aggregating to ₹3,14,43,700/- under the provisions of Section

S. N. CONSTRUCTION,BANKURA vs. ACIT, CIR-2, DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1117/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm] I.T.A No. 1117/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2011-12 S.N. Construction -Vs- Acit, Circle-2, Durgapur [Pan: Abafs 9119 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 1205/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Acit, Circle-2, Durgapur -Vs- S.N. Construction [Pan: Abafs 9119 B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Saikat Maulik, FCAFor Respondent: Gautam Kumar Mondal, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40A(3)

14 S.N. Construction A.Yrs.2011-12 and has computed the payments falling under provisions to Section 40A(3) for Rs.78, 45, 580/- and disallowed

ACIT, CIR-2, DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR vs. S. N. CONSTRUCTION, BANKURA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1205/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm] I.T.A No. 1117/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2011-12 S.N. Construction -Vs- Acit, Circle-2, Durgapur [Pan: Abafs 9119 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 1205/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Acit, Circle-2, Durgapur -Vs- S.N. Construction [Pan: Abafs 9119 B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Saikat Maulik, FCAFor Respondent: Gautam Kumar Mondal, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40A(3)

14 S.N. Construction A.Yrs.2011-12 and has computed the payments falling under provisions to Section 40A(3) for Rs.78, 45, 580/- and disallowed

M/S. FUTURE DISTRIBUTORS,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT, KOLKATA - 9, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 277/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jul 2016AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 263Section 40

disallow the said sum of Rs.551,30,41,569/-, while passing the assessment order in our case on March, 2013 under section 143(3)/144 of the said Act in respect of the assessment year 2010-11, the said Assessment Order, according to you, was allegedly erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue within the meaning

INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S STANDARD LEATHER PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 2620/KOL/2013[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Sept 2016AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Years:2010-11

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

disallowance for purchase was made only by applying section 40A(3) wherever the payment were in excess of Rs. 20,000/. Therefore sundry creditors cannot be said to be bogus and no addition can be made as bogus creditors. It is further submitted that even if it is presumed that there were unconfirmed creditors, then whether the provision of section

M/S EXCEL ENGINEERS,KOLKATA vs. J.C.I.T (OSD) CIR - 51,KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1588/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Nov 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri Subhas Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Debnath Lahiri, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 40

3) of the Act and ultimately upheld the disallowance of Rs. 68,49,395/- made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 2.3. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us on the following ground:- “1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A)-XXXII, confirming the addition of Rs.68

D.C.I.T CIR - 10,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S PHILLIPS CARBON BLACK LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA 2123/Kol/13 and ITA

ITA 2123/KOL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Aug 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: : Shri P.M.Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri D.S.Damle, FCA, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Kalyan Nath, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 10Section 14Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

3) can be made under clause (f) to the Explanation to section 115JB. The appellant therefore submits that the addition of Rs.80,27,500/- made in the computation of book profit for the purposes of section 115JB be deleted. 43. The CIT-A after considering the above submissions of the assessee has disposed of the appeal by observing as under

HARIDAS SOM,HOOGHLY vs. ITO, WARD - 22(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Appeal is allowed

ITA 14/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy., Am & Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm] I.T. A No. 14/Kol/2018 A.Y 2013-14 Haridas Som V/S. I.T.O. Ward 22(3), Kolkata Pan: Ajhps8867K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.Banerjee, Adovate, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Halder, JCIT, ld.Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the Act could be made in the facts and circumstances of the case amounting to Rs. 1,14,52,363/- (60,50,890 + 54,01,473). 4. The brief facts of this case is that the assessee is a distributor of Hutch Sim Cards and derives income from trading of wholesale and retail sale

LEBONG INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 2652/KOL/2013[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Jan 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2009-10

Section 143(3)Section 14A

section 14A of the Act are not applicable in the instant case and no expenditure to be disallowed in relation to earning of dividend income. I am of the view that since the appellant has earned ITA No.2652/Kol/2013 A.Y. 2009-10 Lebong Investments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Cir-11, Kol. Page 3 exempted dividend income, proportionate disallowance of expenditure relating

RANJAN DEBNATH ,KOLKATA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT - 9, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 1372/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S. Godara]

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(3)

disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the Act could be made in the facts and circumstances of the case amounting to Rs. 1,14,52,363/- (60,50,890 + 54,01,473). 4. The brief facts of this case is that the assessee is a distributor of Hutch Sim Cards and derives income from trading of wholesale and retail sale

DCIT, CIR-4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S MARUTI FREIGHT MOVERS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 482/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Apr 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganesh, I.T.A. No. 482/Kol/2014 Assessment Years: 2009-10

Section 250Section 40A(3)Section 43B

section 40A(3) of the Act and has got no escape route. Hence the genuineness of transactions and other business considerations resulting in abnormal increase in net profits etc would have no relevance for adjudicating the impugned issue. He argued that from the relevant pages of the paper book filed by the assessee, it could be seen that the assessee

SOMA RANI GHOSH,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-49, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1420/KOL/2015[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Sept 2016AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

Section 194CSection 194C(6)Section 194C(7)Section 40

14 of 19 is being replaced by the Permanent Account Number under present Sections 194C(6) and (7) respectively. 194C prior to Amendment by Finance Act, 194C as Amended by Finance Act, (N0.2) (N0.2) 2009 ) 2009 194C(3) No deduction shall be made under sub- section (1) or sub-section (2) from— … … … … … … Provided that …. … Provided further that no deduction shall

ACIT, CIRCLE - 13(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. PADMA LOGISTICS & KHANIJ PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

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

ITA 606/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 May 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 2

disallowance of rent upto Rs.2,16,000/- as against Rs. 11,82,000/- without appreciating the observation of the A.O. 5) That the appellant craves leave to add modify or alter any of the grounds of appeal and/ or adduce additional evidence at the time of hearing of the case.” 2 Padma Logistics & Khanij

SRI MALAY MONDAL,BURDWAN vs. I.T.O WD - 2(2),ASANSOL, ASANSOL

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 903/KOL/2013[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Sept 2016AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 40A(3)

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 ultimately, such amounts were deposited

ITO, WD-2(3), DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR vs. M/S KAJORA PACHAI & C. S. SHOP, BURDWAN

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 502/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Oct 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 502/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Ito, Ward-2(3), Durgapur -Vs- M/S Kajora Pachai & C.S. Shop [Pan: Aagfk 2341 E] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri K.K. Khemka, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

disallowance was deleted by the ld CITA in first appeal. Aggrieved, the revenue is in appeal before us on the following grounds:- 1. Whether the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), Durgapur has erred on fact and law by holding that cash payment to M/s IFB Agro Industries Ltd., Panagarh is not a violation of Section 40A(3

SHRI PRABIR KUMAR MULLICK,BURDWAN vs. ITO, WARD - 3(1), ASANSOL, ASANSOL

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 1603/KOL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year :2008-09 Prabir Kumar Mullick V/S. Income Tax Officer, Searsol C.S.Shop, Ward-3(1), G.T. Road Shisubagan (Kalali Gali) (West), Asansol Ranigunj (Burdwan) [Pan No.Ajepm 7142 G] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 255(3)Section 260ASection 40A(3)

Section 40A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with rule 6DD of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 – Business disallowance – Cash payment ITA No.1603.Kol/2011 A.Y. 2008-09 Prabir Kr. Mullick v. ITO Wd-3(1), ASL. Page 14

SARDA MINES PVT. LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-05(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 867/KOL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Dec 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. No. 867/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Sarda Mines Pvt. Ltd...............................………………………………………………Appellant 6Th Floor, Circular Court, 8, Ajc Bose Road, Kolkata – 700017. [Pan : Aahcs 2419 R] D.C.I.T., Cir 5(2) Kolkata………………………………………………......................Respondent Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata - 69 Appearances By: Shri A.K. Gupta, Fca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Md. Usman, Cit Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 21, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 14, 2017 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Principal Cit – 2, Kolkata Dated 28.03.2017 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Therein Read As Under: “1. For That The Order Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax -2, Kolkata (In Short ‘Cit’) Dated 28.03.2017 Is Without Jurisdiction & Illegal As None Of The Condition Precedent For Exercise Of The Power Under Section 263 Of The Act Exists And/Or Has Been Satisfied & As Such The Said Order Is Erroneous & Without Jurisdiction & Liable To Be Cancelled. 2. For That The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Was Not In Any Way Erroneous Or Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue & As Such The Cit Would Not Exercise Any Power Under Section 263 Of The Act. The Cit Erred In Holding That The Order Of Assessment Is Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue.

Section 263Section 35A

14, 2017 ORDER Per P.M. Jagtap, AM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. Principal CIT – 2, Kolkata dated 28.03.2017 passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the grounds raised by the assessee therein read as under: “1. For that the order passed under section 263 of the Income