Search: disallowance | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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

Delhi554 Mumbai492 Chennai232 Bangalore155 Kolkata133 Ahmedabad130 Raipur112 Jaipur108 Hyderabad103 Pune82 Indore79 Surat70 Amritsar68 Chandigarh56 Visakhapatnam47 Cuttack40 Nagpur39 Cochin38 Rajkot37 Lucknow31 Agra28 Jodhpur21 Allahabad19 Patna16 SC13 Guwahati13 Dehradun12 Varanasi5 Ranchi5 Jabalpur3 Panaji1 A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1

Key Topics

Deduction13 Section 4010 Section 80H7 Section 35B5 Disallowance5 Section 36(1)(vii)4 Section 364 Section 40A(5)4 Section 35D3 Section 36(1)(va)

.M. SALGAOCAR & BORS. VS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Accordingly Civil Appeal No. 657 of 1994 is allowed and Civil Appeal Nos

C.A. No.-000657-000657 - 1994Supreme Court10 Apr 2000

For Respondent: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ETC

Section 17(2)Section 256(1)Section 256(2)Section 36Section 40ASection 40A(5)

disallowed. We do not think that the language of sub-section (5) of Section 40A of the Act provides for or permits

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MAHENDRA MILLS

The appeal is dismissed

3

Addition to Income3

C.A. No.-005394-005394 - 1994Supreme Court15 Mar 2000

For Respondent: MAHENDRA MILLS

Section 32Section 34Section 72Section 73

40A, such depreciation shall be excluded for the purposes of sub-rule (1)." This Rule 5AA prescribed the particulars for depreciation necessary to be furnished for allowance of depreciation. Prior to insertion of Rule 5AA return of income tax in the form prescribed itself required particulars to be furnished if the assessee claimed depreciation. Mr. Dastur said that the case

M/S. ROTORK CONTROLA INDIA (P) LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI

Appeals stand allowed in favour of the assessee with no order as to

C.A. No.-003506-003510 - 2009Supreme Court12 May 2009

5. On behalf of the Department Mr. V. Shekhar, learned senior counsel, submitted that provision for warranty is towards unforeseen liability, which is not certain nor it could be foreseen with precision in the relevant year, hence, claim of warranty as well as liability in respect thereof was contingent. Being contingent, deduction as expense(s) was not available. According

M/S.SHASUN CHEMICALS AND DRUGS LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI

The appeals are allowed

C.A. No.-009611-009611 - 2016Supreme Court16 Sept 2016

5 undertaking to justify the claim made by the assessee. 8. In furtherance to the aforesaid direction, the Assessing Officer after making due physical verification of the factory premises and on being satisfied with the expansion of the facilities to the industrial undertaking duly allowed the claim of share issue expenses. While doing so, the Assessing Officer, for the Assessment

M/S MUNJAL SALES CORPORATION vs. COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,LUDHIANA

C.A. No.-001378-001378 - 2008Supreme Court19 Feb 2008

For Respondent: Commissioner of Income Tax,Ludhiana & Anr

Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40

Disallowance. However, after FA 1992 the said Section 40(b) puts limitations on the http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6 deductions under Sections 30 to 38 from which it follows that Section 40 is not a stand-alone section. Section 40, before and after FA 1992, has remained the same in the sense that it begins

SHREE CHOUDHARY TRANSPORT CO. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

C.A. No.-007865-007865 - 2009Supreme Court29 Jul 2020

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

5 “Since the assessee failed to deduct the tax at source while making payment to truck owners/ operators exceeding Rs. 20,000/-, the assessee was asked to explain as to why deduction claimed on account of such payments from the income be not disallowed within the meaning of Section 40(a) (ia) of the Act. The learned counsel

CHECKMATE SERVICES P LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I

C.A. No.-002833-002833 - 2016Supreme Court12 Oct 2022

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 2Section 2(24)(x)Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

5.-For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the provisions of this section shall not apply and shall be deemed never to have been applied to a sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which the provisions of sub-clause (x) of clause (24) of section 2 applies.” 6. The time limit

M/S. SOUTHERN TECHNOLOGIES LTD. vs. JOINT COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, COIMBATORE

C.A. No.-001337-001337 - 2003Supreme Court11 Jan 2010

Section 145Section 2(24)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 37Section 37(1)

40A. Such disallowances alone could be added back to the taxable income. The IT Act does not disallow a provision for NPA; that, unless the “provision for NPA” is specifically disallowed under the IT Act, the same cannot be added back and, hence, such a provision for NPA cannot be added back in computing the taxable income. According

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COIMBATORE vs. M/S. LAKSHMI MACHINE WORKS

C.A. No.-004409-004409 - 2005Supreme Court25 Apr 2007

For Respondent: M/s. Lakshmi Machine Works

Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 80H

40A 10,30,000 51,600 Less: Excise duty of 1991-92, deductible by virtue of section 43B [see para 49.10] 10,81,600 (-) 86,920 Business income (under section 28) Capital gains 9,94,680 20,000 Gross total income 10,14,680 Less: Deduction Under section 80HHC [see Note] http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page

M/S GANAPATHY & CO.BANGALORE vs. COMMR.INCOME TAX,BANGALORE

The appeal is dismissed

C.A. No.-001964-001964 - 2008Supreme Court18 Jan 2016

Section 256(2)Section 35Section 40A(2)

40A(2)? ii. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the loss shown by the assessee in the film business amounting to Rs.31,48,670/- was allowable? iii. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in allowing the assessee's claim

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. STEPWELL INDUSTRIES LTD

The appeal is allowed to the above extent

- 0Supreme Court27 Aug 1997

For Respondent: STEPWELL INDUSTRIES LTD

Section 256Section 35Section 35BSection 35B(1)Section 35B(1)(b)

5 of 9 Appellate Tribunal was right in law in allowing weighted deduction to the assessee in respect of expenses such as:- (i) Establishment expenses, (ii) Rent paid for Karnal Office, (iii) Rent paid for Delhi Office, (iv) Car expenses, (v) Telephone Charges, (vi) Stationery expenses Which was disallowed by the ITO in toto and the disallowance was confirmed

COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, COIMBATORE vs. M/S. TEXTOOL CO. LTD

The appeal is dismissed with no order

C.A. No.-000447-000447 - 2003Supreme Court09 Sept 2009

Section 256(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(v)Section 40A(7)

40A(7) of the Act. However, deduction for the balance amount was disallowed on the ground that payment towards the gratuity fund was made by the assessee directly to the LIC and not to an approved gratuity fund and, therefore, it was not allowable under Section 36(1)(v) of the Act. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal

M/S. W. T. SUREN & CO. LTD. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. BOMBAY

- 0Supreme Court23 Feb 1998

For Respondent: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. BOMBAY

5 of 16 employees and could not, therefore, be held to be allowable deduction for the purpose of Section 10(2)(xv) of the 1922 Act. High Court referred to a number of judgments of other courts but it was the judgment of this Court which formed the base for the impugned decision and that was Commissioner of Income