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.

1,502 results for “disallowance”+ Section 40A(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,530Mumbai1,502Chennai670Kolkata658Bangalore547Ahmedabad230Pune196Hyderabad173Jaipur148Raipur125Surat119Indore97Amritsar82Chandigarh75Nagpur57Cuttack54Visakhapatnam50Rajkot47Cochin43Lucknow41Karnataka31Agra28Jodhpur22Allahabad22Patna19Dehradun16Guwahati16SC12Varanasi9Calcutta8Ranchi5Telangana4Jabalpur3Kerala2Panaji2Punjab & Haryana2Rajasthan1J&K1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)72Addition to Income63Disallowance62Section 4048Section 26335Deduction26Section 40A(2)(b)25Section 6821Section 40A(2)20Section 40A(3)

M/S RENUKAMATA MULTI STATE CO-OP. URBAN CREDITN SOC. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSTT. CIT, CC-4(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed, while the\nappeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1726/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2024AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Dharmendra KansaraFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair
Section 142Section 153DSection 250Section 68

section 40A(3) of the Act.\nThe AO has made the disallowance under section 40A(3) of the Act also

SHRI RENUKAMATA MULTI-STATE CO-OPERATIVE URBAN SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(4), MUMBAI

Showing 1–20 of 1,502 · Page 1 of 76

...
18
Section 14817
Penalty14
ITA 1727/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: Disposed
ITAT Mumbai
30 Jul 2024
AY 2018-2019
For Appellant: Shri Dharmendra KansaraFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair
Section 142Section 153DSection 250Section 68

section 40A(3) of the Act.\nThe AO has made the disallowance under section 40A(3) of the Act also

JCIT (OSD), CC-4(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. SHRI RENUKAMATA MULTI-STATE COOPERATIVE URBAN CREDIT SOCIETY LTD., AHAMEDNAGAR

ITA 2078/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2024AY 2018-2019
For Appellant: Shri Dharmendra KansaraFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair
Section 142Section 153DSection 250Section 68

section 40A(3) of the Act.\nThe AO has made the disallowance under section 40A(3) of the Act also

M/S RENUKAMATA MULTI STATE CO-OP. URBAN CREDITN SOC. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSTT. CIT, CC-4(4), MUMBAI

ITA 1725/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2024AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Dharmendra KansaraFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair
Section 142Section 153DSection 250Section 68

section 40A(3) of the Act.\nThe AO has made the disallowance under section 40A(3) of the Act also

IQBAL AHMAED KHALIL AHMED SUBEDAR,MUMBAI vs. ITO 22(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the A

ITA 2135/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2135/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 ) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4896/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09)

For Appellant: Shri. S.C. Tiwari & RutejaFor Respondent: Shri B.C.S. Naik(CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 253(3)Section 40A(3)

disallowance has been confined to section 69C for AY 2008-09 instead of Section 40A(3) / 40A(3) as was earlier

IQBAL AHMED KHALILAMED SUBEDAR,MUMBAI vs. ITO 22(1)(2), NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the A

ITA 4896/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2135/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 ) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4896/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09)

For Appellant: Shri. S.C. Tiwari & RutejaFor Respondent: Shri B.C.S. Naik(CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 253(3)Section 40A(3)

disallowance has been confined to section 69C for AY 2008-09 instead of Section 40A(3) / 40A(3) as was earlier

INTERNATIONAL SHIPS STORES SUPPLIERES,MUMBAI vs. JCIT RG 13(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2502/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu() & Shri Ravish Sood () Assessment Year: 2009-10 International Ships Stores Suppliers Vs. Jcit, Range 13(2) 101, Navratan, 69 P.D. Mello Road Mumbai 1St Floor, Carnac Bunder, Mumbai Pan No. Aaafi0135Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Mr. Deepak Traslhawala Assessee By : Mr. Javed Akhtar Date Of Hearing : 25/07/2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/10/2016

For Appellant: Mr. Javed AkhtarFor Respondent: Mr. Deepak Traslhawala
Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

Disallowance under section 40A(3) of the Act Rs. 13,11,455/- 2 Disallowance of loss on sale of fenders

PRAMOD RATAN PATIL,THANE vs. ASST CIT CIR 3, KALYAN

In the result, Appeal of Ld AO is dismissed, appeal of assessee is allowed partly

ITA 7329/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Shri Pramod Ratan Patil Acit A–1, Chandresh Oasis, Lodha Circle–3, Kalyan, 2 Nd Floor, Heaven, Vs. Kalyan Shil Road, Dombivali (East), Rani Mansion, Murbad Road, Thane–421201 Kalyan West–421301 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadpp6274F Acit Shri Pramod Ratan Patil Circle–3, A–1, Chandresh Oasis, Lodha Kalyan, 2 Nd Floor, Heaven, Vs. Rani Mansion, Murbad Road, Kalyan Shil Road, Dombivali (East), Kalyan West–421301 Thane–421201 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Mr. Satyaprakash Singh, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Nihar Ranjan Samal, Dr

For Appellant: Mr. Satyaprakash Singh, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Nihar Ranjan Samal, DR
Section 143(3)Section 37Section 40ASection 40A(3)Section 68

Disallowance charges under by invoking section 37 the provisions of section 40 A (3) of Rs. 2,91,330/– 2 Hiring charges ₹ 6,302,742 Nil Enhancement under section 37 on account of cash payment under section 40A

ASST CIT 3, MUMBAI vs. PRAMOD RATAN PATIL, MUMBAI

In the result, Appeal of Ld AO is dismissed, appeal of assessee is allowed partly

ITA 3851/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Shri Pramod Ratan Patil Acit A–1, Chandresh Oasis, Lodha Circle–3, Kalyan, 2 Nd Floor, Heaven, Vs. Kalyan Shil Road, Dombivali (East), Rani Mansion, Murbad Road, Thane–421201 Kalyan West–421301 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadpp6274F Acit Shri Pramod Ratan Patil Circle–3, A–1, Chandresh Oasis, Lodha Kalyan, 2 Nd Floor, Heaven, Vs. Rani Mansion, Murbad Road, Kalyan Shil Road, Dombivali (East), Kalyan West–421301 Thane–421201 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Mr. Satyaprakash Singh, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Nihar Ranjan Samal, Dr

For Appellant: Mr. Satyaprakash Singh, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Nihar Ranjan Samal, DR
Section 143(3)Section 37Section 40ASection 40A(3)Section 68

Disallowance charges under by invoking section 37 the provisions of section 40 A (3) of Rs. 2,91,330/– 2 Hiring charges ₹ 6,302,742 Nil Enhancement under section 37 on account of cash payment under section 40A

VILAS TRANSPORT COMPANY,MUMBAI vs. ITO 13(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 6717/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainm/S. Vilas Transport Company Income Tax Officer-13(2)(1) 103/104, Vyapar Bhavan Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. 49, P. D’Mello Road, Carnac Mumbai 400020 Bunder, Mumbai 400009 Pan - Aaafv0760G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 40Section 40ASection 40A(3)

section 40A(3) of I.T. Act, 1961 and since payments in cash exceeded Rs. 20,000/-, disallowance u/s 40A(3

JCIT (OSD), CC-4(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. SHRI RENUKAMATA MULTI-STATE COOPERATIVE URBAN CREDIT SOCIETY LTD., AHAMEDNAGAR

ITA 2076/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Dharmendra KansaraFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair
Section 142Section 153DSection 250Section 68

section 40A(3) of the Act. The AO has made the disallowance under section 40A(3) of the Act also

JCIT (OSD), CC-4(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. SHRI RENUKAMATA MULTI-STATE COOPERATIVE URBAN CREDIT SOCIETY LTD., AHAMEDNAGAR

ITA 2077/MUM/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Dharmendra KansaraFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair
Section 142Section 153DSection 250Section 68

section 40A(3) of the Act. The AO has made the disallowance under section 40A(3) of the Act also

M/S. RATILAL & SONS,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-17(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5276/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra singhFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Vijay, CIT–DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40Section 40A(3)

3) was wrongly invoked by the Revenue for disallowing remuneration paid to the Working Partner, which is within the permissible limits as per section 40(b) of the Act. 22. Therefore, in view of our aforesaid findings, the order passed by the learned CIT(A), affirming the disallowance made under section 40A

IINCOME TAX OFFICER -30(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. VILAS TRANSPORT COMPANY, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1272/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri G.J. Ninawe, Sr. DR
Section 40A(3)

disallowance under section 40A(3) is warranted in assessee's case. Accordingly, the AO is directed the delete the disallowance

LATE SUNIL D GULATI,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -CENTRAL CIRCLE-39 , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year

ITA 2092/MUM/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Late Sunil D Gulati, Cit-Central Circle 39, 603, Elco Residency, Almeda Room No. 1924, 19Th Floor, Vs. Park Behind Elco Market, Air India Building, Nariman Bandra (West), Point, Churchgate, Mumbai-400050. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aehpg 8703 R Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Assessee by Mr. Hitesh Shah, AR
Section 143(3)Section 68

section 40A(3) of the I.T.Act and has disallowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/ of the I.T.Act and has disallowed

LATE SUNIL D GULATI,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -CENTRAL CIRCLE-39, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year

ITA 2091/MUM/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Feb 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Late Sunil D Gulati, Cit-Central Circle 39, 603, Elco Residency, Almeda Room No. 1924, 19Th Floor, Vs. Park Behind Elco Market, Air India Building, Nariman Bandra (West), Point, Churchgate, Mumbai-400050. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aehpg 8703 R Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Assessee by Mr. Hitesh Shah, AR
Section 143(3)Section 68

section 40A(3) of the I.T.Act and has disallowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/ of the I.T.Act and has disallowed

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MUMBAI vs. QUANTUM ADVISORS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 2438/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit-1(3)(1), M/S Quantum Advisors Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 535, 5Th Floor, 503, Regent Chambers, Nariman Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Point, Mumbai-400021. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacq 0281 C Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Niraj SethFor Respondent: Mr. Rajendra Chandekar, DR

3) of the Act for the assessment year 2012-13, wherein a portion of the marketing support fee paid to 13, wherein a portion of the marketing support fee paid to 13, wherein a portion of the marketing support fee paid to QIEF was disallowed by QIEF was disallowed by invoking section 40A

PRATAP UTTAM PUROHIT,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 41(1)(1), MUMBAI FORMALLY KNOWN AS ACIT 32(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

The appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2043/MUM/2025[A Y 2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2025

Bench: Hon‟Ble Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Hon‟Ble Shri Sandeep Gosainpratap Uttam Purohit Vs. Dcit, Circle 42(1)(1) 307, Jalaram Business Formerly Known As Centre, Ganjawala Lane Acit 32(3) Borivali (W), S.O Kautilya Bhawan Mumbai – 400092. Avenue 3, Near Videsh Bhavan,G Block Bkc Bandra East Mumbai – 400051. Pan/Gir No. Ahcpp6451F (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Bharat Kumar, Ca Revenue By Shri Chetan M. Kacha, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing 23.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16.06.2025 आदेश / Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order 29.01.2025 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 („The Act‟), By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2 Pratap Uttam Purohit., Mumbai

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 44

disallowance made by AO by invoking section 40A(3) r.w.r 6DD of the Act. 3. In this regard, Ld. AR appearing

DCIT-CC 5(2), MUMBAI vs. AXIOM CORDAGES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2415/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri N.K. Choudhary (Jm)

Section 148Section 40A(3)

disallowance under section 40A(3) of the Act, since the disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the Act could be made

D.C.I.T. CENT. CIR. - 7(2), MUMBAI vs. RAJAHMUNDHRY EXPRESSWAY LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals are dismissed

ITA 6487/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri G. Manjunatha

3) accepting the disallowance made under section 14A of the Act. In the return of income filed in pursuance to the notice issued under section 154A of the Act, the assessee withdrew the disallowance made under section 14A of the Act. In our view, since the issue relating to assessee‟s claim of deduction under section