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.

31,196 results for “disallowance”+ Section 40clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai7,609Delhi6,536Chennai2,422Bangalore2,324Kolkata2,221Ahmedabad1,673Pune1,156Hyderabad1,088Jaipur992Indore597Chandigarh543Surat503Visakhapatnam383Cochin382Raipur308Cuttack298Rajkot281Nagpur266Karnataka240Amritsar237Lucknow155Guwahati122Ranchi100Allahabad97Panaji95Telangana68Patna68Agra67Calcutta65Jodhpur63SC57Dehradun53Jabalpur46Kerala30Varanasi28Punjab & Haryana5Orissa5Rajasthan4Gauhati2J&K1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1ANIL R. DAVE AMITAVA ROY L. NAGESWARA RAO1Himachal Pradesh1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1Tripura1Uttarakhand1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)77Section 14A69Addition to Income69Disallowance57Section 4056Deduction38Section 153A26Section 143(1)23Section 25022Section 36(1)(va)

M/S. BHARTI AIRTEL LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee with respect to ground No

ITA 5816/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishibharti Airtel Ltd, Addl Cit, Bharti Crescent, 1, Vs. Range-2, Cr Building, Ip Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Estate, New Delhi Kunj, New Delhi Pan:Aaacb2894G (Appellant) (Respondent) Bharti Airtel Ltd, Addl Cit, Bharti Crescent, 1, Vs. Range-2, Cr Building, Ip Nelson Mandela Road, Vaxant Estate, New Delhi Kunj, New Delhi Pan:Aaacb2894G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, SrFor Respondent: Sh. NC Swain, CIT DR (OSD)
Section 201Section 254Section 40

disallowance under that section. Default under Chapter XVII-B is, on the other hand, determined by way of an order passed under section 201 of the Act vii. As a necessary corollary, unless there is an order under section 201 holding the assessee to be in default under Chapter XVII-B, the provisions of section 40

Showing 1–20 of 31,196 · Page 1 of 1,560

...
20
Section 14720
TDS12

PAHILAJRAI JAIKISHAN,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 19(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 994/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1562/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

Section 14Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37(1)Section 40

section 40 but in the present case, the disallowance is under section 14A and not under section 40(b) and therefore

ASST CIT 19(3), MUMBAI vs. PAHILAJRAI JAIKISHIN, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1562/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1562/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

Section 14Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37(1)Section 40

section 40 but in the present case, the disallowance is under section 14A and not under section 40(b) and therefore

M/S. FUTURE DISTRIBUTORS,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT, KOLKATA - 9, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 277/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jul 2016AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 263Section 40

disallowed under section 40(a)(ia). Since no such disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) was made by the Assessing

SHREE CHOUDHARY TRANSPORT CO. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

Section 40

disallowed a lump sum of Rs. 20,000/- from various expenses debited to the Profit and Loss Account and finalised the assessment, accordingly, as under:- “Therefore, considering the provisions of Section 194C, Section 40

M/S. BALASORE CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD.,BALASORE vs. ACIT, BALASORE CIRCLE, BALASORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 467/CTK/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack07 Oct 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.467/Ctk/2017 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) M/S Balasore Cooperative Bank Vs. Acit, Balasore Circle, Limited, Balasore Bibekananda Marg, Balasore-756001 Pan No. : Aaccb 7823 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.N.Sahu/Somnath Sahoo,Advs राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 13/08/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12/10/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A), Cuttack, Dated 04.08.2017, For The Assessment Year 2012-2013, On The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- 1) That The Order Of The Id. Cit(Appeals) Confirming The Additions & Disallowances Made By The A.O. Is Illegal, Arbitrary, Unjustified & Not In Accordance With Law. 2) That The Addition Of Rs. 36,79,148/- U/S. 40(A)(Ia) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Confirmed By Cit(Appeals) To The Extent Of Rs. 36,30,998/- Is Illegal, Arbitrary, Uncalled For & Not In Accordance With Law & The Same Should Have Been Deleted By The Learned Cit(Appeals). 3) That The Disallowance U/S 40(A)(Ia) Of Rs. 36,79,148/- As Detailed Below Is Illegal, Arbitrary & Unjustified & Hence Should Have Been Deleted By The Learned Cit(A) As The Genuineness Is Not In Doubt. Non-Deduction Of Tds Is A Separate Issue. A) Commission Payment To Dlds Collection Agents Rs. 33,45,248/- B) Legal Expenses Rs. 2,52,000/- C) Audit Fees Rs. 81,900/-

For Appellant: Shri S.N.Sahu/Somnath Sahoo,AdvsFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 36Section 40Section 43B

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act is confined/limited to the amount "payable" and not to the amount

DCIT, CIR 16(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S KPMG ASSURANCE AND CONSULTING SERVICES LLP, MUMBAI

ITA 2276/MUM/2023[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2024

disallowed the deduction for the same by\ninvoking provisions contained in Section 40(a)(i) of the Act.\nFurther, the Assessing

ROBERT BOSCH ENGINEERING AND BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PRIAVTE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) /OSD LTU , BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1690/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri Percy Padiwala, Sr
Section 201Section 201(1)Section 40

disallowed under section 40(a)(ia) and section 40(a)(i). Once the amount has been disallowed under the provisions

ROBERT BOSCH ENGINEERING AND BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) /OSD , BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1689/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri Percy Padiwala, Sr
Section 201Section 201(1)Section 40

disallowed under section 40(a)(ia) and section 40(a)(i). Once the amount has been disallowed under the provisions

DCIT, CIR 16(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S KPMG ASSURANCE AND CONSULTING SERVICES LLP, MUMBAI

ITA 2272/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

disallowed the deduction for the same by\ninvoking provisions contained in Section 40(a)(i) of the Act.\nFurther, the Assessing

DCIT, CIR 16(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S KPMG ASSURANCE AND CONSULTING SERVICES LLP, MUMBAI

ITA 2275/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

disallowed the deduction for the same by\ninvoking provisions contained in Section 40(a)(i) of the Act.\nFurther, the Assessing

KPMG ASSURANCE AND CONSULTING SERVICES LLP,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CIRCLE-16(2), MUMBAI

ITA 2412/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

disallowed the deduction for the same by\ninvoking provisions contained in Section 40(a)(i) of the Act.\nFurther, the Assessing

KPMG ASSURANCE AND CONSULTING SERVICES LLP,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -16(2), MUMBAI

ITA 2410/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

disallowed the deduction for the same by\ninvoking provisions contained in Section 40(a)(i) of the Act.\nFurther, the Assessing

M/S DELL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTPU , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2846/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92C(3)

disallowed under section 40(a)(ia) and section 40(a)(i). Once the amount has been disallowed under the provisions

ACIT, CIRCLE, BHARATPUR vs. M/S. JAGDAMBE STONE COMPANY, BHARATPUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1171/JPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Mar 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Gupta (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Rooni Paul (Addl.CIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 143(2)Section 194C(6)Section 194C(7)Section 40

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) read with section 194C of the Act. IN this regard, he placed reliance on the judgement

DELL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result the appeals filed by assessee and revenue for A

ITA 1151/BANG/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 201

disallowed under section 40(a)(ia) and section 40(a)(i). Once the amount has been disallowed under the provisions

DELL INDIA P LTD,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS), LTU, BANGALORE

In the result the appeals filed by assessee and revenue for A

ITA 1644/BANG/2014[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 201

disallowed under section 40(a)(ia) and section 40(a)(i). Once the amount has been disallowed under the provisions

INCOME TAX OFFICER, BANGALORE vs. M/S.DELL INDIA PVT.LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result the appeals filed by assessee and revenue for A

ITA 2035/BANG/2016[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 201

disallowed under section 40(a)(ia) and section 40(a)(i). Once the amount has been disallowed under the provisions

UTTAR PRADESH RAJKIYA NIRMAN NIGAM LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 317/LKW/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow17 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2010-11 Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman V. Dcit Nigam Limited Range Vi Vishweshariya Bhawan Lucknow Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaacu5701F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit V. Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Range Vi Limited Lucknow Vishweshariya Bhawan Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaacu5701F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K. R. Rastogi, Fca Department By: Shri A. K. Bar, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 30 04 2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 17 05 2019 O R D E R Per A. D. Jain, V.P.: These Cross-Appeals Are Preferred By The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-Ii, Lucknow, Dated 10/3/2017 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Sole Ground Of Appeal, Taken By The Assessee In Its Appeal In Ita No.314/Lkw/2017 Is, As Follows:-

For Appellant: Shri K. R. Rastogi, FCAFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Bar, CIT (DR)
Section 194CSection 198Section 40

40(a)(ia) are applicable only to items covered by section 30 to section 38 and not to section 28 and all the direct cost/expenditure covered by section 28 are beyond the scope of disallowance

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P RAJKIYA NIRMAN NIGAM LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 314/LKW/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow17 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2010-11 Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman V. Dcit Nigam Limited Range Vi Vishweshariya Bhawan Lucknow Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaacu5701F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit V. Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Range Vi Limited Lucknow Vishweshariya Bhawan Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaacu5701F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K. R. Rastogi, Fca Department By: Shri A. K. Bar, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 30 04 2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 17 05 2019 O R D E R Per A. D. Jain, V.P.: These Cross-Appeals Are Preferred By The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-Ii, Lucknow, Dated 10/3/2017 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Sole Ground Of Appeal, Taken By The Assessee In Its Appeal In Ita No.314/Lkw/2017 Is, As Follows:-

For Appellant: Shri K. R. Rastogi, FCAFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Bar, CIT (DR)
Section 194CSection 198Section 40

40(a)(ia) are applicable only to items covered by section 30 to section 38 and not to section 28 and all the direct cost/expenditure covered by section 28 are beyond the scope of disallowance