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.

13 results for “disallowance”+ Section 40A(5)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,513Mumbai1,462Chennai654Kolkata645Pune595Bangalore536Ahmedabad409Hyderabad245Jaipur239Raipur145Surat137Chandigarh134Indore129Amritsar117Visakhapatnam116Cuttack106Cochin98Rajkot66Nagpur60Lucknow41Agra36Jodhpur27Allahabad27Karnataka26Guwahati20Dehradun19Patna19Ranchi13SC11Varanasi9Calcutta7Jabalpur6Telangana4Panaji3Punjab & Haryana2Rajasthan1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1J&K1Kerala1

Key Topics

Section 40A(3)14Section 143(3)10Section 6810Addition to Income9Section 2638Disallowance7Section 271(1)(c)4Section 404Revision u/s 2634Section 133A

SHRI BIRENDRA PRASAD,BOKARO vs. ITO WARD-3(1), BOKARO

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 365/RAN/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi05 Apr 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.)

For Appellant: Shri Devesh Poddar Advocates, ld.ARsFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mondal, JCIT, ld. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 263Section 68

section 40A(3) of the Act. For that, we rely on the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Attar Singh Gurmukh Singh 191 ITR 667(SC). We note that where books of accounts are rejected and profit has been estimated, it is deemed that all the expenses and disallowances have been considered, Hence, no further disallowance

3
Section 40A(2)(b)3
Business Income3

M/S S.P ENTERPRISES,JAMSHEDPUR vs. DCIT, JAMSHEDPUR

ITA 34/RAN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi15 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2010-11

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

5. Coming to assessee’s third appeal ITA No. 34/Ran/2016, its first substantive ground challenging sec. 40A(3) disallowance of ₹ 1 lac is accepted as per our foregoing detailed discussion. 6. The assessee’s second substantive ground seeks to delete 20% disallowance on various expenses in the nature of freight charges, job contract expenses and site expenses to the tune

M/S S.P.ENTERPRISES,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ITO WARD-1(5), JAMSHEDPUR

ITA 310/RAN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi15 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2010-11

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

5. Coming to assessee’s third appeal ITA No. 34/Ran/2016, its first substantive ground challenging sec. 40A(3) disallowance of ₹ 1 lac is accepted as per our foregoing detailed discussion. 6. The assessee’s second substantive ground seeks to delete 20% disallowance on various expenses in the nature of freight charges, job contract expenses and site expenses to the tune

M/S S.P.ENTERPRISES,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ITO WARD-1(5), JAMSHEDPUR

ITA 309/RAN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi15 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2010-11

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

5. Coming to assessee’s third appeal ITA No. 34/Ran/2016, its first substantive ground challenging sec. 40A(3) disallowance of ₹ 1 lac is accepted as per our foregoing detailed discussion. 6. The assessee’s second substantive ground seeks to delete 20% disallowance on various expenses in the nature of freight charges, job contract expenses and site expenses to the tune

M/S STEEL CITY FOOD PRODUCTS PVT LTD.,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 183/RAN/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi28 Feb 2018AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mondal, JCIT, ld.DR
Section 133A

disallowance u/s. 40A(3) of the Act raised by the revenue in the appeal is dismissed. 22. Ground no.3 is relating to deletion of addition on account of unexplained cash. 23. For non reconciliation of cash transaction by the assessee the AO made this addition. During the survey operation u/s. 133A, the Managing Director of the assessee, in his statement

SHRI NAVNEET MODI,RANCHI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2, RANCHI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 106/RAN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi30 Oct 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.106/Ran/2019 & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.53/Ran/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2015-2016 & 2013-2014) Shri Navneet Modi, Vs. Dcit, Circle-2, Ranchi Modi House, Kanke Dam Side Road, Kanke, Ranchi स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan No. : Actpm 1511 F (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Inderjeet Singh, Cit(Dr)

For Appellant: Shri Devesh Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Inderjeet Singh, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

5. Ld. AR before us submitted that it is a settled preposition of law that where the purchases made have been accepted by the AO and the same is not disputed, then no disallowance of creditors is called for resulting the same. It was also contended by the ld. AR that moreover the authorities below failed to consider and accept

DEVPRABHA CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LTD.,,DHANBAD vs. PCIT, DHANBAD

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 27/RAN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi30 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay(Virtual Hearing) Devprabha Construction Private Ltd., P.C.I.T., Dev Villa, Behind Radha Swamy Arcade, Dhanbad, Vs. Saraidhela, Dhanbad-828127. Aayakar Bhawan, Luby Pan No. Aaecb 2652 A Circular Road, Dhanbad-826001 (Jharkhand) Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263

disallowed under Section 37 read with section 40A(2b) of the Act on estimate basis being 20% of the expenditure claimed. The Ld. AR, then placed reliance on the decision made by Hon'ble ITAT Cuttack Bench in the case of M/s Ravi Metallics Ltd Vs PCIT Sambalpur in ITA No. 34/CTK/2021 dated 30/05/2022, wherein it was held as under

ACIT CIR-2(1), JSR vs. KESHAVJI CHHAGANLAL JEWELLERS PVT LTD , JSR

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 195/RAN/2018[15-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi20 Mar 2019

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.)

For Respondent: Shri P.K. Mondal, JCIT/ld.DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 40Section 40A(2)(a)Section 40A(2)(b)

disallowed by AO on the ground of excess payment of interest over 12% of Rs.35,98,695/- u/s. 40A(2)(b) of the I.T Act 1961 given on the unsecured loans by the assessee? As per Section 40(b)(iv) payment of interest to partners is restricted to 12% which was forming basis of fair market rate”. 4. Brief facts

ITO WARD-1(40, JSR vs. M/S ANAND VIHAR CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD, JSR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross

ITA 335/RAN/2017[14-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi28 Nov 2018

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2014-2015 Ito, Ward-1(4), Jamshedpur Vs M/S Anand Vihar Construction Pvt. Ltd., 12A, Rajendra Nagar, Near Durga Puja Maidan, Sakchi, Jamshedpur- 831001 Pan No. : Aaacc 7476 R Respondent (Appellant) .. & Co No.02/Ran/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-2015 M/S Anand Vihar Construction Vs Ito, Ward-1(4), Pvt. Ltd., Jamshedpur 12A, Rajendra Nagar, Near Durga Puja Maidan, Sakchi, Jamshedpur-831001 Pan No. : Aaacc 7476 R Respondent (Appellant) .. Revenue By Shri A.K.Mohanty,Jcit(Jr. Dr) Assessee By Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv. Date Of Hearing : 27.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2018

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40

40a(ia), disallowance out of material purchased and estimated disallowance out of expenses claimed. 2. For that Ld. CIT(A) was not justify in confirming addition of s. 5,98,282/- correct figure 5,39,282/- being payment to MNAC for Map approval which is fully verifiable. There is mistake for the figures referred in assessment order to the extent

SHRI NAVNEET MODI,RANCHI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2, RANCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 53/RAN/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi28 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No.53/Ran/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Navneet Modi….…..…………..…...…......................……...…..….. Appellant Modi House, Kanke Dam Side Road, Kanke, Ranchi-834008. [Pan: Actpm1511F] Vs. Dcit, Circle-2, Ranchi.………………………….……….…………….. Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Pranob Kumar Koley, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 28, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 28, 2023 Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 03.10.2018 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Ranchi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40A(3)

40A(3) of the Act. The Assessing Officer also disallowed certain expenditure on ad hoc basis out of the total expenses on account of transport and freight. The Assessing Officer further made ad hoc disallowances out of certain expenditure on diesel and petrol, fuel and gas etc. totalling to Rs.1,36,234/- and assessed the total income by the assessee

M/S. HIMACHAL CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(5), JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 49/RAN/2020[2015-16]Status: PendingITAT Ranchi21 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Sonjoy Sarma

Section 133ASection 40A(3)Section 69

5), Jamshedpur.................................Respondent Appearances by: Sh. Devesh Poddar, Adv., appeared on behalf of the Assessee. Sh. Pranob Kumar Koley, Sr. D/R, appeared on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding the hearing : July 7th, 2023 Date of pronouncing the order : August 21st, 2023 ORDER Per Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order

ACIT CIR-1 , DHANBAD vs. M/S BHARAT COKING COAL LTD, DHANBAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and appeal by the assessee is partly allowed as well as cross-objection by the assessee is allowed

ITA 298/RAN/2017[08-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi31 Mar 2023

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 31(1)Section 32(1)Section 32(2)

5. Aggrieved by the above order passed by the ld. AO, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) where the appeal of the assessee was partly allowed. 6. Dissatisfied with the above order assessee as well as revenue both have filed their appeal before the Tribunal raising various grounds of appeal. 7. Now for the sake of convenience

M/S BHARAT COOKING COAL LIMITED ,DHANBAD vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1 , DHANBAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and appeal by the assessee is partly allowed as well as cross-objection by the assessee is allowed

ITA 290/RAN/2017[08-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi31 Mar 2023

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 31(1)Section 32(1)Section 32(2)

5. Aggrieved by the above order passed by the ld. AO, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) where the appeal of the assessee was partly allowed. 6. Dissatisfied with the above order assessee as well as revenue both have filed their appeal before the Tribunal raising various grounds of appeal. 7. Now for the sake of convenience