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.

44 results for “disallowance”+ Section 40A(9)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,342Mumbai1,275Chennai553Pune533Kolkata489Bangalore487Ahmedabad353Hyderabad228Jaipur214Raipur142Surat133Indore118Chandigarh111Amritsar108Visakhapatnam103Cuttack96Cochin81Rajkot62Nagpur44Lucknow33Agra32Allahabad27Karnataka24Jodhpur23Guwahati16Dehradun12Patna12Ranchi12SC10Varanasi8Calcutta5Jabalpur5Punjab & Haryana2Telangana2Kerala1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Panaji1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 69A44Section 40A(3)43Addition to Income37Section 4030Section 44A29Section 26322Section 115B21Section 13121Disallowance21Section 143(3)

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

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

Showing 1–20 of 44 · Page 1 of 3

19
Deduction16
Search & Seizure14

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)

section 40A(3). Submission of ld.AR : 4. The ld.Authorised Representative(ld.AR) for the Assessee submitted that ld.CIT(A) has followed the decision of various Hon'ble High Courts that no disallowance under seduction 40A(3) can be made once profit is estimated. The ld.AR relied on following case laws : 3 Smt. Jyoti Suresh Bajoria [R] S.No. Particulars 1. J.K. Construction

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)

40A(3) r/w rule 6DD(c)(v). Therefore, in view of the aforesaid circumstances, the finding of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) is wrong against law and facts and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Accordingly, we set aside the findings of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) on this ground and delete the addition to the tune

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) and also disallowed rent expenditure to the tune of ` 9,60,000 and assessed the total income

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)

disallowance can be made by applying Section 40A(3) irrespective of the mode of payment. The A.O. in para 12.9 of his order has made comments regarding of principal and agent between BSNL and franchisee in short which goes against the above verdicts .It seems that the A.O. has not given proper congnizance to the verdict of Honourable High Court

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)

40A(2)(b) of the Act. On the other hand, the appellant submits that, it had rightly informed time and again that none of the transporters were related parties nor appellant had entered into any agreement. On this issue there was nothing had been evidenced from the AO's side in the scrutiny order in order to prove that

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

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 O R D E R PER BENCH This appeal by Revenue is arising out of the order of Ld.CIT(A)-II, Nagpur vide Order No.CIT(A)-II/517/2010-11 dated 02.07.2014. The assessment was framed by ACIT

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

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)

9,84,733, even if the disallowances are made, the said disallowance shall form part of business income of the assesse society, which stands eligible to be claimed as deduction under section 80P of the Act. 18 Durgapur Rayatwari Colliery Kamgar Sahakari Pat Sanstha A.Y. 2018–19 and 2020–21 17. Fact which needs attention is that while assessing income

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)

9,84,733, even if the disallowances are made, the said disallowance shall form part of business income of the assesse society, which stands eligible to be claimed as deduction under section 80P of the Act. 18 Durgapur Rayatwari Colliery Kamgar Sahakari Pat Sanstha A.Y. 2018–19 and 2020–21 17. Fact which needs attention is that while assessing income

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 u/s 40a(ia) of the Act, as discussed above.” 17 Latitude Infraventures ITA no.349 & 350/Nag./2024 A.Y. 2016–17 & 2017–18 18. The issues sought to be revised under section 263, are different than issues on which assessment proceedings under section 147, were re–opened. We find that the very premise assumed by learned PCIT does not hold good

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 u/s 40a(ia) of the Act, as discussed above.” 17 Latitude Infraventures ITA no.349 & 350/Nag./2024 A.Y. 2016–17 & 2017–18 18. The issues sought to be revised under section 263, are different than issues on which assessment proceedings under section 147, were re–opened. We find that the very premise assumed by learned PCIT does not hold good

SUNIL NARAYANDAS KHATOD ,AKOLA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Partly Allowed

ITA 134/NAG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.134/Nag/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Sunil Narayndas Khatod, The Commissioner Of Nagpuri Gin Compound, Vs Income Tax-1, Behind Old Cotton Market, Nagpur. Nagpur – 444001. Pan: Adepk3087C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/Revenue Assessee By Shri Rajesh V.Loya – Ca Revenue By Shri Kailash G. Kanojiya – Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 21/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21/11/2023

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 92B

disallowed out of Brokerage Expenses. The Ld.Pr.CIT invoked jurisdiction u/s 263 on the ground that the AO had not referred the case to the Transfer Pricing Officer though one of the reasons for selection of the case for scrutiny was ‘Large Specifies Domestic Transactions’, which according the Ld.Pr.CIT was mandatory as per the provisions of the Act and CBDT instruction

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

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 following ground Nos.5

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

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 following ground Nos.5

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

9 Shrigopal Rameshkumar Sales Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.135/Nag./2018 clear that the amounts added as unexplained expenditure by the Assessing Officer amounting to ` 20,74,674 (` 14,88,174 + ` 5,86,500) are reflecting in the books of accounts of the assessee and which has further been duly considered by the learned CIT(A). On a conspectus of the facts

HARSHA SANTOSH TANWANI,CHHINDWARA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 160/NAG/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur07 Jun 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Harsha Santosh Tanwani Vs. The Acit Near Shankar Mandir, Shankar Central Circle 2(1) Nagar,Pandhuna, Nagpur Pandhurna 480334 (M.P.) Pan No.:Bobpt 5794 Q 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 Aforesaid Appeal 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 2018-19. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed On The Following Grounds:- 2. “1. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Nagpur Erred In Confirming Addition, Therefore Order 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

9 lakhs, in absence of any evidence furnished by assessee, the same deserves rejection. The said case law is clearly distinguishable from the Appellant’s since, the Appellant has filed return of income under section 44AD whereas in the caselaw relied upon by departmental representative the assessee has filed normal return of Income wherein it was mandatory for the assessee

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

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 155/NAG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur08 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2018-19 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 /62022 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 2018-19. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed On The Following Grounds:- 2. “1. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Nagpur Erred In Confirming Addition, Therefore Order 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 68Section 69A

9 lakhs, in absence of any evidence furnished by assessee, the same deserves rejection. The said case law is clearly distinguishable from the Appellant’s since, the Appellant has filed return of income under section 44AD whereas in the caselaw relied upon by departmental representative the assessee has filed normal return of Income wherein it was mandatory for the assessee

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