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.

53 results for “disallowance”+ Section 40A(7)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,452Mumbai1,378Chennai621Pune584Kolkata561Bangalore521Ahmedabad381Hyderabad235Jaipur229Raipur144Surat133Indore124Chandigarh115Visakhapatnam114Amritsar113Cuttack103Cochin88Rajkot66Nagpur53Lucknow44Agra33Allahabad27Karnataka26Jodhpur25Dehradun18Guwahati17Patna16Ranchi13SC12Varanasi9Jabalpur6Calcutta6Panaji3Punjab & Haryana2Kerala2Rajasthan1Telangana1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1

Key Topics

Section 40A(3)58Addition to Income46Section 69A44Section 143(3)39Section 4033Section 44A30Disallowance30Section 25029Section 26322Section 115B

ITO WARD-1(1) NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. ASHWAMI SALES AND MARKETING PVT.LTD, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 294/NAG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh P. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya
Section 143(1)Section 194(7)Section 194CSection 194C(6)Section 194C(7)Section 40Section 40A(2)(b)

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act to the tune of ` 6,37,77,092, was made. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred the appeal before the first appellate authority. 4. The learned CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee by observing as follows:– ―4.3. The submissions made by the appellant

Showing 1–20 of 53 · Page 1 of 3

21
Deduction16
Search & Seizure14

M/S PYRAMID DEVELOPERS,NAGPUR vs. JOINT CIT RANGE 1, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 343/NAG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri Ajay SinghFor Respondent: Shri U.U. Kasar
Section 131Section 133ASection 40A(3)

disallowance of cash payments of ` 43 lakh under section 40A(3) of the Act. The learned Counsel for assessee submitted that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in not appreciating the fact in right perspective even though the assessee has filed necessary evidences to prove necessity of making cash payment for purchase of lands and also the business exigencies. The learned

ITO, WARD-1(5), NAGPUR vs. M/S. SHREE GANNAYAK BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS, NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for

ITA 164/NAG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur08 Mar 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. G.D.Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Sh. Mahavir Singhvs Shree Gannayak Builders & Developers, Ito, Ward–1(5), Room No.502, Plot No.2, Near Global India International School, 5Th Floor, Mecl Bldg., Kalmana Basti, Nagpur–440008. Seminary Hills, Pan–Abrfs9402L Nagpur–440006. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. R.K.Baral, Sr.Dr Respondent By Sh. Manoj Moryani, Adv. Date Of Hearing 07.03.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 07.03.2018

Section 143(3)Section 30Section 40A(3)

disallowance required to be made under Section 40A(3). In our opinion, the direction of the CIT(A) is fully justified. We, 4 ITA - 3303 & 3304/D/2013 therefore, do not find any justification to interfere with the same. The order of learned CIT(A) is sustained.” 7

KHALID NADEEM ALLARAKHA,NAGPUR vs. I.T.O. WARD 3(4), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 9/NAG/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur27 Jun 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Manoj MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri A.R. Ninawe
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 43A(3)

Section 40A(3) and hence no disallowance is called for. 7. It is seen that the payment is made for purchase

ASSTT. CIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR vs. SMT. JOTI SURESH BAJORIA , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 151/NAG/2018[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur31 Aug 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.151/Nag/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Assistant Smt. Jyoti Suresh Bajoria, Commissioner Of Income V 402/403, Jagat Plaza, Law Tax, Circle-1(1), S College Square, Amravati Nagpur. Road, Nagpur – 440010. Pan: Abrpb2740G Appellant / Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee By Shri Kapil Sharma– Ar Revenue By Shri Kailash Kanojiya – Dr Date Of Hearing 28/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31/08/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue I.E.Acit, Circle-1(1), Nagpur Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Nagpur Dated 26.03.2018 Emanating From The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 153A Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). The Revenue Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Smt. Jyoti Suresh Bajoria [R]

Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

disallowance under section 5 Smt. Jyoti Suresh Bajoria [R] 40A(3) of the Act. Accordingly, the Revenue’s Ground No.1, 2 & 3 are dismissed. 7

ACIT,CIR-8,, NAGPUR vs. SHRI ROSHANLAL RAMDEO JAISWAL,, GONDIA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is ordered to be dismissed

ITA 11/NAG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 Jun 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri M.K.M. AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri A.R. Ninawe
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 40ASection 40A(3)Section 44A

disallowance u/s 40A(3) on identical facts was dealt by my predecessor. The relevant portion of the order of CIT(A) is reproduced as under:- 4 Shri Roshanlal Ramdeo Jaiswal "However, appellant has claimed that there is relationship of principal and agents and between appellant and BSNL and hence appellant can give cash collected on behalf of principal and section

ASSTT.CIT,CIR-8, NAGPUR vs. PRAKASH RAMDEO JAISWAL, GONDIA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross

ITA 229/NAG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 Jun 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri M.K.M. AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri A.R. Ninawe
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 40A(3)

7,99,520. The return of income was proposed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) on 24th September 2009. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. Notice under section 143(2) was issued on 29th May 2009 and served upon the assessee on 4th June 2009. Subsequently, notice under section

ITO, WARD- 4 (1), NAGPUR vs. SHRI SWAPNIL ANIL AHIRKAR, NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 70/NAG/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur30 Jun 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Manoj MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri A.R. Ninawe
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 40A(3)

section 40A(3) in respect of cash payment made by the assessee. However, any expenditure can be disallowed only when the deduction in respect of expenditure is claimed by the assessee. In this case admittedly, the asaessee has not claimed the expenditure on purchase of land by debiting the same to the Profit & Loss account but he expenditure for purchase

ASTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,AMRAVATI CIR.AMRAVATI, AMRAVATI vs. SHRI AKASH RAMESHWAR PANPALIA,

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

ITA 446/NAG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur08 Mar 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. G.D.Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Sh. Mahavir Singhacit, Vs Akash Rameshwar Panpalia, Amravati Circle, Ward No.14, Dhamangaon Amravati, Aayakar Railway, Distt.-Amravati–4447–9. Bhawan, Ambapeth, Pan–Aiopp8687J Amravati–444601. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh.R.K.Baral, Sr.Dr Respondent By Sh.K.P.Dewani, Adv. Date Of Hearing 08.03.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 08.03.2018

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 40Section 40A(3)Section 44A

disallowed a sum of Rs.1,19,18,353/–. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A). 5. Ld.CIT(A) deleted the addition by observing that the assessee has made payment to the labourers which was below prescribed limit as prescribed by the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act i.e. less than Rs.20,000/–. Ld. CIT(A dealt this

AJAZ AHMAD,AKOLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, AKOLA

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 132/NAG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir AtalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 40A(3)

disallowed the sum of Rs. 21,72,200/- as cash payment to these two parties are in violation to provision of section 40A(3) of the IT Act Hence, the addition made by AO is sustained and grounds of appeal are dismissed.” 6. Before me, the learned Authorised Representative vehemently submitted that the payments are covered under rule

LATITUDE INFRAVENTURES,NAGPUR vs. PCIT,NAGPUR-1, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2017–18

ITA 350/NAG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(2)

disallowance under section 40a(ia) is not warranted. 8 Latitude Infraventures ITA no.349 & 350/Nag./2024 A.Y. 2016–17 & 2017–18 3.5 Therefore, the issues sought to be revised by the learned CIT does not result into any prejudice to the Revenue. Therefore, the twin condition of order being erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue is not satisfied. Reliance

LATITUDE INFRAVENTURES,NAGPUR vs. PCIT,NAGPUR-1, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2017–18

ITA 349/NAG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(2)

disallowance under section 40a(ia) is not warranted. 8 Latitude Infraventures ITA no.349 & 350/Nag./2024 A.Y. 2016–17 & 2017–18 3.5 Therefore, the issues sought to be revised by the learned CIT does not result into any prejudice to the Revenue. Therefore, the twin condition of order being erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue is not satisfied. Reliance

AHSAAN QURESHI,NAGPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE-2, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 323/NAG/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Sept 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep JainFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 194HSection 201(1)Section 40Section 40A(2)(b)Section 40a

disallowed the amount of ` 1 lakh, under section 40a(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") as assessee failed to deduct the TDS as per provisions of section 194H of the Act. The learned CIT(A) held that the in view of the amendment made in section 40a(ia) of the Act and in section

ROSHAN RAMDEO JAISWAL,GONDIA vs. ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXCIRCLE-8, NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and the assessee and the cross-objection of the assessee are disposed of in terms indicated above

ITA 313/NAG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Mahavir Singh

For Appellant: Shri M.K.M. Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gitesh Kumar, Senior DR
Section 133A

7 ITA-225/Nag/2012 & Others 9. The next common issue in this appeal of Revenue and cross- objection of the assessee is as regards to application of provisions of Section 40A(3) of the Act in respect to purchase of sim cards, recharge coupons in contravention of provisions of Section 40A(3) of the Act. For this, Revenue has raised

ACIT, CIR-8, NAGPUR vs. ROSHANLAL RAMDEO JAISWAL,, GONDIA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and the assessee and the cross-objection of the assessee are disposed of in terms indicated above

ITA 225/NAG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Mahavir Singh

For Appellant: Shri M.K.M. Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gitesh Kumar, Senior DR
Section 133A

7 ITA-225/Nag/2012 & Others 9. The next common issue in this appeal of Revenue and cross- objection of the assessee is as regards to application of provisions of Section 40A(3) of the Act in respect to purchase of sim cards, recharge coupons in contravention of provisions of Section 40A(3) of the Act. For this, Revenue has raised

DURGAPUR RAYATWARI COLLIERY KAMGAR SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA,CHANDRAPUR vs. ITO WARD 2, CHANDRAPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 211/NAG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Ms. Alfiya RozieFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

7 of this order. The assessee being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), filed further appeal before the Tribunal. 14. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments made by the rival parties and perused the material available on record. We find that the issue pertaining to interest received form Co-Operative Banks is being

DURGAPUR RAYATWARI COLLIERY KAMGAR SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA,CHANDRAPUR vs. ITO WARD-2, CHANDRAPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 212/NAG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Ms. Alfiya RozieFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

7 of this order. The assessee being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), filed further appeal before the Tribunal. 14. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments made by the rival parties and perused the material available on record. We find that the issue pertaining to interest received form Co-Operative Banks is being

NIKITA SHANKARLAL TANWANI,CHHINDWARA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 156/NAG/2021[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur08 Jun 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2019-20 Ms. Nikita Shankar Lal Tanwani Vs. The Acit Near Shankar Mandir, Shankar Central Circle 2(1) Nagar, Pandhuna Pandhurna Nagpur Chhindwara – 480 334 (M.P.) Pan No.:Borpt 4644 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Manoj G. Moryani, Adv. & Shri Bhavesh Moryani, Adv Revenue By :Shri Piyush Kolhe (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 8 /6 /2022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order Dated 8Th October 2021, Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–3, Nagpur, [In Short “The Learned Cit(A)”] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short "The Act") For The Assessment Year 2019-20. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed On The Following Grounds:- 2. “1. The Passed Is Illegal, Invalid & Bad In Law.

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. Moryani, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe (CIT-DR)
Section 115BSection 131Section 132ASection 139(1)Section 234ASection 250Section 44ASection 69A

40A(3) required to be made. Thereafter, AO did not allow deduction under section 80HHC. On appeal, CIT(A) deleted said addition. Tribunal deleted the addition made by AO solely on the basis of statement of 'CP', the ostensible proprietor of 'ST' and 'RC' keeping in view that no evidence was found in course of search proceedings to held purchase

ASSISTANT COMISSIONER CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), NAGPUR vs. M/S SHRIGOPAL RAMESHKUMAR SALES PVT. LTD , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 135/NAG/2018[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Jan 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Kapil HiraniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 139Section 69C

40A(3) so as to warrant any disallowance under those heads as per law. 18. That with respect to the addition of ` 16,42,713, it is the submission of the assessee that the said amount pertains to payments made by farmers/agriculturist to the labourers directly for unloading charges without any recourse to the Assessee and as such the addition

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. M/S SHREE AGRAWAL FINANCE INDIA P. LTD.,, NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 176/NAG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur15 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Sachin V. LuthraFor Respondent: Harshad S. Vengurlekar
Section 10(34)Section 10(35)Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 24

40A (2) (b) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee has complied with the provisions of TDS on the interest payments as stated by the AO in the Remand Report. On facts, it is held that the addition made by the AO was not justified. The addition of Rs. 7,86,217/- made by the AO due to disallowance