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.

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

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,157Delhi1,117Bangalore443Pune431Chennai426Kolkata399Ahmedabad328Hyderabad210Jaipur198Raipur136Chandigarh103Surat97Indore96Amritsar86Visakhapatnam84Cuttack55Cochin52Nagpur40Rajkot39Lucknow35Allahabad26Jodhpur23Agra23Karnataka16Guwahati13SC10Patna8Varanasi7Ranchi7Calcutta5Dehradun5Punjab & Haryana2Kerala2Panaji2Jabalpur2A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Telangana1

Key Topics

Addition to Income6Section 2635Section 685Section 143(3)4Section 271(1)(c)3Section 40A(2)(b)3Depreciation3Section 2742Section 32(2)2Section 31(1)

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)

section 40A(2)(b) will came into play subject to the condition that there is still no major difference in the conditions Page3 of both lenders. In this case no such comparison has been made. 3 A.Y 2015-16 3.5. As mentioned above in the submission, the appellant had contended before AO the basic differences between the situation

2
Business Income2
Set Off of Losses2

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

7. Aggrieved, by the order of CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 8. We have given a careful consideration to the rival submissions and perused material available on record. We note that the AO has failed to point out that the gift received from Shri Dilip Prasad Burnwal is bogus. We also note that the giver

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

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)

7,41,75,000/-. Ld. CIT(A) enhanced disallowance made by ld. AO to Rs. 22,53,48,000/- on the grounds that TDS was not deducted in violation of provision of section 40(a)(ia). The disallowance made is unjustified and illegal. Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in making the enhancement of the disallowance. 1.1 For that

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)

7,41,75,000/-. Ld. CIT(A) enhanced disallowance made by ld. AO to Rs. 22,53,48,000/- on the grounds that TDS was not deducted in violation of provision of section 40(a)(ia). The disallowance made is unjustified and illegal. Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in making the enhancement of the disallowance. 1.1 For that

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

b) Moreover, with respect to the issue of depreciation, we would like to submit that in the consequent assessment proceedings, no adverse findings or addition has been made on this issue and as such, the order passed u/s 263 to this extent is erroneous. The copy of the consequential assessment order is attached herewith at Page 61-74. Reliance

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