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.

1,389 results for “disallowance”+ Section 40A(7)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,451Mumbai1,389Chennai637Kolkata572Bangalore530Ahmedabad216Pune185Hyderabad160Jaipur145Raipur126Surat115Indore93Amritsar86Chandigarh70Visakhapatnam51Cuttack50Nagpur49Rajkot46Lucknow37Cochin34Karnataka26Agra24Allahabad24Jodhpur21Guwahati16Patna15Dehradun13SC12Varanasi9Calcutta6Ranchi5Jabalpur3Panaji2Punjab & Haryana2Kerala2Telangana1Rajasthan1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)76Disallowance66Addition to Income61Section 4038Section 26335Deduction29Section 40A(2)(b)24Section 25020Section 143(1)19Section 40A(2)

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

40A(2)(b) of the Act to disallow a portion of the expenditure is an altogether different dimension than invoking the expenditure is an altogether different dimension than invoking the expenditure is an altogether different dimension than invoking section 37(1) of the Act to say that the expenditure is not laid out section

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

Showing 1–20 of 1,389 · Page 1 of 70

...
18
Section 40A(3)17
TDS13
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).\n7.2. It is submitted that in the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in\nlaw, the CIT(A) erred in making the impugned disallowance without\nappreciating the facts of the case and hence, pray that impugned disallowance\nof Rs 7

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

ITA 1727/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).\n7.2. It is submitted that in the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in\nlaw, the CIT(A) erred in making the impugned disallowance without\nappreciating the facts of the case and hence, pray that impugned disallowance\nof Rs 7

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).\n7.2. It is submitted that in the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in\nlaw, the CIT(A) erred in making the impugned disallowance without\nappreciating the facts of the case and hence, pray that impugned disallowance\nof Rs 7

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).\n\n7.2. It is submitted that in the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in\nlaw, the CIT(A) erred in making the impugned disallowance without\nappreciating the facts of the case and hence, pray that impugned disallowance\nof Rs 7

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 u/s. 40A(3)/40A(3A) which was later being rectified by an order passed by learned CIT(A) dated 16-02-2017 u/s 154 wherein additions have been affirmed u/s 69C. It was submitted that the books of accounts were rightly rejected u/s 145(3). It was further submitted that Section 145(3) does not allow the A.O power

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 u/s. 40A(3)/40A(3A) which was later being rectified by an order passed by learned CIT(A) dated 16-02-2017 u/s 154 wherein additions have been affirmed u/s 69C. It was submitted that the books of accounts were rightly rejected u/s 145(3). It was further submitted that Section 145(3) does not allow the A.O power

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

7. Shri Farookh V. Irani, learned Sr. Counsel for the assessee submitted, the NHAI had entered into a concession agreement with the assessee for developing, operating and maintaining the 4–lane carriage way from kms. 200 to kms. 250 on between Vijayawada and Vishakhapatnam section on National Highway no.5, otherwise known as Rajahmundry Dharmabharam Tuni Toll Road

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, as indicated above

ITA 3644/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri G Manjunatha, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 3644/Mum/2016 (ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2008-09) State Bank Of India The Dy. Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Corporate Centre Income Tax, Circle -2(2)(1) बनाम/ Madam Cama Road Mumbai Vs. Nariman Point Mumbai-400021 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaacs8577K

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwalla &For Respondent: Shri Anadi Varma, CIT-DR&
Section 143(3)Section 147

disallowance only on the above noted 4 items. He particularly stated the following: - (i) The liability is not for the relevant year rather it relates to earlier year. (ii) If at all it is allowable it falls under Section 40A (4/5) and 40A(7

STRIDES PHARMA SCIENCE LTD.,NAVI MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT -5(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result ITA number 1004/M/2021 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2016 – 17 is allowed

ITA 1004/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Strides Pharma Science Ltd. Dcit 15(1)(2) 201, Devavrata, Sector-17, Aayakar Bhavan, M K Road, Vs. Vashi, Navi Mumbai, 400703 Mumbai 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcs8104P

For Respondent: Ms Samruddhi Hande SR DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 92C

7. Disallowance of weighted deduction amounting to INR 17,54,78,992 claimed under Section 35(2AB) of the Act (Page 25 & 26 of the Assessment Order] The Hon'ble DRP and the learned AO erred in facts and in law in making disallowance of weighted deduction claimed under Section 35(2AB) of the Act, and in doing so have

DY..C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S STATE BANK OF MYSORE, BANGALORE

ITA 684/BANG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved & Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Shri P.C. Chhotaray, Spl. Counsel
Section 2Section 250Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 41(1)

7. In plain terms, sub-section (9) of section 40A disallows deduction of any sum paid by an assessee as an employer

STATE BANK OF MYSORE,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

ITA 661/BANG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved & Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Shri P.C. Chhotaray, Spl. Counsel
Section 2Section 250Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 41(1)

7. In plain terms, sub-section (9) of section 40A disallows deduction of any sum paid by an assessee as an employer

DENTSU AEGIS NETWORK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED(ERSTWHILE VIZEUM MEDIA SERVICE INDIA MERGED IN DAN INDIA),MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE 8(3)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6122/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokardentsu Aegis Network Dcit Central India Private Limited Circle-1(1), (Erstwhile Vizeum Media Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Service India Merged Maharashi Karve With Dentsu Aegis Marg, Mumbai-400 Network India Private 020 Limited W.E.F. 1St April 2017) 2Nd Floor, Devchand House, Dr. A. B. Road, Shiv Sagar Estate Mumbai, Worli So, Mumbai-400 018 Pan/Gir No. Aahca3058N (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ketan Ved & Shri Abdul Kadir Jawadwala, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 02.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 20.02.2026

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37(1)Section 40Section 40A(2)(b)

disallowed the entire amount of Rs. 62,50,720/- comprising Rs. 46,23,220/- paid to M/s. Aegis Media India Pvt. Ltd. and Rs. 16,27,500/- paid to M/s. Carat Media Services Pvt. Ltd. under section 37(1) read with section 40A(2)(b) of the Act and added the same to the total income of the assessee. 7

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

7. Disallowance under section 40A(3) of Rs 1,39,81,267 7.1. The CIT(A) erred in sustaining the disallowance

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

7. Disallowance under section 40A(3) of Rs 1,39,81,267 7.1. The CIT(A) erred in sustaining the disallowance

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) are applicable. he has disallowed 20% of the total withdrawals from the bank. On this ground also we submit that the addition made is not justified and be deleted. 2.2. I have considered the submission of the Ld. Counsel and on the basis of facts and details brought on record and the submissions made above

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

40A (3) 5,433,800 on account of cash payment and further disallowance of 25% of expenses of ₹ 4,164,720 on account of unverified purchases 5 Cash deposit ₹ 1,050,000 ₹ Nil under section 68 525,000/– 6 Undisclosed ₹ 14,476,200 ₹ Nil income from 13,387,820 Lodha dwellers private limited 7

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

40A (3) 5,433,800 on account of cash payment and further disallowance of 25% of expenses of ₹ 4,164,720 on account of unverified purchases 5 Cash deposit ₹ 1,050,000 ₹ Nil under section 68 525,000/– 6 Undisclosed ₹ 14,476,200 ₹ Nil income from 13,387,820 Lodha dwellers private limited 7

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)

disallowed under section 40A(3) M/s. Ratilal & Sons ITA No.5276/Mum./2019 of the Act. In reply, assessee submitted that remuneration paid to Partner within the limit of section 40(b) of the Act is fully allowable expense. The Assessing Officer, vide order dated 31.10.2017, passed under section 143(3) of the Act held that remuneration paid to Shri Prakash Desai

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)

section 40A(3) of the Act Rs. 13,11,455/- 2 Disallowance of loss on sale of fenders Rs. 14,74,982/- However, before adverting further it may be clarified that though the assessee vide its ground of appeal no. 1 had challenged the disallowance under Sec. 40A(3) which amounts to Rs. 13,11,455/-, however it had wrongly