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.

10 results for “disallowance”+ Section 111Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai121Delhi29Kolkata17Chennai10Bangalore10Nagpur4Hyderabad4Jaipur3Surat3Ahmedabad2Indore2Pune2Karnataka1Agra1Lucknow1Rajkot1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)22Section 87A22Section 26318Section 111A17Section 14A12Capital Gains10Section 115B9Short Term Capital Gains7Disallowance7Section 143(1)

VENKEDAPATHY VENUGOPAL,COIMBATORE vs. ITO, NON CORP WE 2(1) COIMBATORE, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2064/CHNY/2025[2024-2025]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2025AY 2024-2025

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. Sanketh S. Nayak, C.A. (by Virtual)For Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl.C.I.T
Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 87A

disallowance of the rebate under Section 87A of the Act, amounting to Rs.25,000. 2. The Learned CIT(A) has incorrectly interpreted the proviso to Section 87A. The provision entities an assessee to a rebate if their “total income” does not exceed Rs.7,00,000. The law does not provide for excluding any part of the total income, such

SESHANK MAHADEV,CHENNAI vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC BENGALURU

6
Revision u/s 2635
Section 10(34)2

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2274/CHNY/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2274/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2024-25 Seshank Mahadev, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ak 27, Tas Enclave, E2, Golden King Corporate Ward 3(1), Villa Apartments, Anna Nagar, Chennai. Chennai 600 040. [Pan:Olwps5532Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Varadharajan, F/O Of Assessee ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C.P. Solomon, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 02.06.2025 Passed By The Addl./Jcit(A), Indore For The Assessment Year 2024-25. 2. At The Outset, We Note That The Cpc Denied The Rebate Claimed By The Assessee Under Section 87A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Vide Intimation Order Under Section 143(1) Of The Act Dated 12.11.2024. Against The Intimation Order, The Assessee Preferred An 2

For Appellant: Shri Varadharajan, F/o of assesseeFor Respondent: Shri C.P. Solomon, JCIT
Section 111ASection 112ASection 115BSection 143(1)Section 250Section 3Section 87A

disallowance made by the CPC by holding that income under section 111A and 112A of the Act are chargeable at special

GOPAL SRINIVASAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for 16

ITA 948/CHNY/2016[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jan 2018AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathan

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Adv
Section 111A

111A of the Act. Though the ld. Assessing Officer has stated in the assessment order that assessee could not prove the actual delivery of shares to it, how he came to such a conclusion is not clear. We are therefore of the opinion that the issue requires a fresh look by the ld. Assessing Officer. We set ITA No.948 & 1423/Mds/2016

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. GOPAL SRINIVASAN, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for 16

ITA 1423/CHNY/2016[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jan 2018AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathan

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Adv
Section 111A

111A of the Act. Though the ld. Assessing Officer has stated in the assessment order that assessee could not prove the actual delivery of shares to it, how he came to such a conclusion is not clear. We are therefore of the opinion that the issue requires a fresh look by the ld. Assessing Officer. We set ITA No.948 & 1423/Mds/2016

INTEGRATED INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT SERVICES LLP,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NON COP. WARD1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 366/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Guru Bashyam, CIT(DR)
Section 111ASection 115BSection 14Section 142(2)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

disallowance of expenses by invoking provisions of section 14A r.w.r. 8D2(iii) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (herein after referred to as ‘the Rules’). On the issue of Rule 8D2(iii) i.e., average value of investment and in view of clause (b) of Explanation to section 115BBDA of the Act, can PCIT revise the assessment order? For this assessee

SALZER ELECTRONICS LIMITED ,COIMBATORE vs. PCIT , TAX - 1 , COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1102/CHNY/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Sept 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1102/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Salzer Electronics Limited, Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of First Floor, Samichettipalayam, Income Tax-1, Jothipuram S.O., Coimbatore North, Coimbatore. Coimbatore 641 047. [Pan:Aaecs3411L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate [Erode] ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.08.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.09.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Coimbatore-1, Coimbatore Dated 18.11.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2018-19 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate [Erode]For Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 111ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 2ASection 35

111A of the Act, (ii) claim of any other amount allowable as deduction in Schedule BP, (iii) duty drawback, (iv) investment in intangible assets and (v) deduction on account of donation for Scientific Research. After examining the details furnished by the assessee, the Assessing Officer has completed the assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated

DCIT, NCC 4(1), CHENNAI vs. SOHAN RAJ KHANTED GUVANTH RAJ, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1652/CHNY/2023[2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Aug 2024

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1652/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 V. The Dcit, Shri Sohan Raj Khanted Ncc-4(1), Gunvanth Raj, Chennai. 17, Krishna Iyer Street, Sowcarpet, Chennai-600 079. [Pan: Aafpk 9519 F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 111ASection 136Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

disallowed as part of cost of acquisition. Thereafter, the AO after referring to the CBDT Circular No.6 of 2016 was of the opinion that the assessee’s transaction of buying and selling of share of M/s. United Spirits by taking huge loan and paying interest @24% tantamounts to adventure in the nature of trade and needs to be taxed

DR. AGARWALS HEALTH CARE LIMITED ,CHENNAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX -1, CHENNAI

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

ITA 1408/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Chennai01 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1407 & 1408/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2017-18 & 2018-19 Dr. Agarwals Health Care The Principal Commissioner Limited, Vs. Of Income Tax-1, 3Rd Floor, Buhari Towers, Chennai. No.4, Moores Road Off Greams Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 006. Pan: Aadcd 4418M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri R. Sivaraman, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01.08.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 01.08.2024

For Appellant: Shri R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 10(34)Section 111ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

111A iv. Income from house property v. Reduction in profit due to ICDS vi. International transaction(s) vii. Cash deposit during demonetisation period The AO completed assessment and passed order u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Act vide order dated 05.04.2021. Subsequently, the PCIT issued show-cause notice for revising the assessment u/s.263 of the Act vide

DR. AGARWALS HEALTH CARE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX -1, CHENNAI

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

ITA 1407/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Chennai01 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1407 & 1408/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2017-18 & 2018-19 Dr. Agarwals Health Care The Principal Commissioner Limited, Vs. Of Income Tax-1, 3Rd Floor, Buhari Towers, Chennai. No.4, Moores Road Off Greams Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 006. Pan: Aadcd 4418M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri R. Sivaraman, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01.08.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 01.08.2024

For Appellant: Shri R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 10(34)Section 111ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

111A iv. Income from house property v. Reduction in profit due to ICDS vi. International transaction(s) vii. Cash deposit during demonetisation period The AO completed assessment and passed order u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Act vide order dated 05.04.2021. Subsequently, the PCIT issued show-cause notice for revising the assessment u/s.263 of the Act vide

MUKHUNDHAN GOPALAN,TRICHY vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), TRICHY

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 504/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 504/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mukhundhan Gopalan, The Asst. Commissioner Of B-901, Trichy Rich 104, Vs. Income Tax, Salai Road, Woraiyur Bazaar, Circle 1(1), Trichy – 620 003. Trichy. Pan: Aagpm 1974P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Murali, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.06.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Revision Order Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Madurai – 1 In Order No. Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2022-23/1050429409 (1) Dated 06.03.2023. The Assessment Was Framed By The Additional/ Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax/Income-Tax Officer, National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19 U/S.143(3) R.W.S.143(3A) & 143(3B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Order Dated 19.10.2020. 2. The Only Issue In This Appeal Of Assessee Is Against The Revision Order Passed By The Pcit U/S.263 Of The Act Revising The Assessment Completed By Ao U/S.143(3) Of The Act Dated 19.10.2020 Without Making Enquiry In Regard To Expenses Relatable To Exempt Income U/S.14A R.W.Rule 8D(2)(Ii) Of The Income Tax Rules, 1962 (Hereinafter The ‘Rules’). For This, Assessee Has Raised Many Grounds Which Are Argumentative & Exhaustive & Hence, Need Not Be Reproduced.

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, CIT
Section 111ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

111A. Subsequently, the PCIT issued show-cause notice dated 14.02.2023 requiring the assessee as to why the expenses relatable to exempt income be not disallowed u/s.14A of the Act, for the reasons that the assessment was completed u/s.143(3) of the Act is erroneous insofar as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue u/s.263 of the Act. The assessee before