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.

463 results for “disallowance”+ Section 119clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,318Delhi1,296Chennai463Bangalore390Kolkata315Ahmedabad191Jaipur172Chandigarh140Hyderabad130Pune117Indore100Raipur96Cochin86Surat77Allahabad46Cuttack44Lucknow40Rajkot40Calcutta38Karnataka32Amritsar30Visakhapatnam30Guwahati27Agra22Telangana20Nagpur17SC12Jodhpur11Ranchi10Varanasi9Dehradun6Patna5Jabalpur4Panaji4Himachal Pradesh3Punjab & Haryana2Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 143(1)47Section 80P45Section 143(3)42Section 139(1)37Disallowance36Section 40A(3)29Addition to Income26Section 1125Deduction25Section 119(2)(b)

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU CIRCLE 1 CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. E I D PARRY INDIA LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3251/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathait(Tp)A. Nos.:105, 106, 107/Chny/2024 & Ita No.3113/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. E.I.D. Parry India Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 234, Dare House, Nsc Vs. Income Tax, Bose Road, Parrys Corner, Large Taxpayer Unit -1, Chennai 600 001. Chennai. [Pan: Aaace-0702-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 92BSection 92C

disallowed the expenditure of loss on account of forward contracts entered IT(TP)A Nos.105 to 107/Chny/2024 & ITA No. 3113 & 3251/Chny/24 into by the assessee to protect the forex fluctuation claimed under section 37 of the Act. 47. On appeal, after considering the contentions of the assessee, the CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to verify the purpose for which

Showing 1–20 of 463 · Page 1 of 24

...
24
Section 14716
Condonation of Delay15

M/S. EID PARRY INDIA LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, LTU-1,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3113/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathait(Tp)A. Nos.:105, 106, 107/Chny/2024 & Ita No.3113/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. E.I.D. Parry India Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 234, Dare House, Nsc Vs. Income Tax, Bose Road, Parrys Corner, Large Taxpayer Unit -1, Chennai 600 001. Chennai. [Pan: Aaace-0702-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 92BSection 92C

disallowed the expenditure of loss on account of forward contracts entered IT(TP)A Nos.105 to 107/Chny/2024 & ITA No. 3113 & 3251/Chny/24 into by the assessee to protect the forex fluctuation claimed under section 37 of the Act. 47. On appeal, after considering the contentions of the assessee, the CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to verify the purpose for which

J.K.FENNER (INDIA) LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. JCIT, MADURAI

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1063/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 32(2)

disallowance u/s 14A. 3. The issue of unabsorbed depreciation as raised in revenue’s appealwas remitted back by Hon’ble Court to Tribunal with following observations: - 6. The second substantial question of law raised by the Revenue is regarding unabsorbed depreciation for the previous years. 7. The Revenue contends before us that the eight years limitation in respect of carry

J.K.FENNER (INDIA) LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. JCIT, MADURAI

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1061/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 32(2)

disallowance u/s 14A. 3. The issue of unabsorbed depreciation as raised in revenue’s appealwas remitted back by Hon’ble Court to Tribunal with following observations: - 6. The second substantial question of law raised by the Revenue is regarding unabsorbed depreciation for the previous years. 7. The Revenue contends before us that the eight years limitation in respect of carry

ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1, MADURAI vs. J.K.FENNER (INDIA) LTD., MADURAI

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1883/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 32(2)

disallowance u/s 14A. 3. The issue of unabsorbed depreciation as raised in revenue’s appealwas remitted back by Hon’ble Court to Tribunal with following observations: - 6. The second substantial question of law raised by the Revenue is regarding unabsorbed depreciation for the previous years. 7. The Revenue contends before us that the eight years limitation in respect of carry

ACIT, MADURAI vs. J.K.FENNER (INDIA) LIMITED, MADURAI

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 967/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 32(2)

disallowance u/s 14A. 3. The issue of unabsorbed depreciation as raised in revenue’s appealwas remitted back by Hon’ble Court to Tribunal with following observations: - 6. The second substantial question of law raised by the Revenue is regarding unabsorbed depreciation for the previous years. 7. The Revenue contends before us that the eight years limitation in respect of carry

J.K.FENNER (INDIA) LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, MADURAI

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 947/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 32(2)

disallowance u/s 14A. 3. The issue of unabsorbed depreciation as raised in revenue’s appealwas remitted back by Hon’ble Court to Tribunal with following observations: - 6. The second substantial question of law raised by the Revenue is regarding unabsorbed depreciation for the previous years. 7. The Revenue contends before us that the eight years limitation in respect of carry

ACIT, MADURAI vs. J.K.FENNER (INDIA) LTD., MADURAI

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1272/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 32(2)

disallowance u/s 14A. 3. The issue of unabsorbed depreciation as raised in revenue’s appealwas remitted back by Hon’ble Court to Tribunal with following observations: - 6. The second substantial question of law raised by the Revenue is regarding unabsorbed depreciation for the previous years. 7. The Revenue contends before us that the eight years limitation in respect of carry

ACIT, MADURAI vs. J.K.FENNER (INDIA) LTD., MADURAI

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1076/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 32(2)

disallowance u/s 14A. 3. The issue of unabsorbed depreciation as raised in revenue’s appealwas remitted back by Hon’ble Court to Tribunal with following observations: - 6. The second substantial question of law raised by the Revenue is regarding unabsorbed depreciation for the previous years. 7. The Revenue contends before us that the eight years limitation in respect of carry

J.K.FENNER (INDIA) LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. JCIT, MADURAI

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1060/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 32(2)

disallowance u/s 14A. 3. The issue of unabsorbed depreciation as raised in revenue’s appealwas remitted back by Hon’ble Court to Tribunal with following observations: - 6. The second substantial question of law raised by the Revenue is regarding unabsorbed depreciation for the previous years. 7. The Revenue contends before us that the eight years limitation in respect of carry

ACIT, MADURAI vs. J.K.FENNER (INDIA) LTD., MADURAI

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1077/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 32(2)

disallowance u/s 14A. 3. The issue of unabsorbed depreciation as raised in revenue’s appealwas remitted back by Hon’ble Court to Tribunal with following observations: - 6. The second substantial question of law raised by the Revenue is regarding unabsorbed depreciation for the previous years. 7. The Revenue contends before us that the eight years limitation in respect of carry

ACIT, MADURAI vs. J.K.FENNER (INDIA) LTD., MADURAI

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1078/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 32(2)

disallowance u/s 14A. 3. The issue of unabsorbed depreciation as raised in revenue’s appealwas remitted back by Hon’ble Court to Tribunal with following observations: - 6. The second substantial question of law raised by the Revenue is regarding unabsorbed depreciation for the previous years. 7. The Revenue contends before us that the eight years limitation in respect of carry

J.K.FENNER (INDIA) LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. JCIT, MADURAI

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1062/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 32(2)

disallowance u/s 14A. 3. The issue of unabsorbed depreciation as raised in revenue’s appealwas remitted back by Hon’ble Court to Tribunal with following observations: - 6. The second substantial question of law raised by the Revenue is regarding unabsorbed depreciation for the previous years. 7. The Revenue contends before us that the eight years limitation in respect of carry

J.K.FENNER (INDIA) LIMITED,MADURAI vs. ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1, MADURAI

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1846/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 32(2)

disallowance u/s 14A. 3. The issue of unabsorbed depreciation as raised in revenue’s appealwas remitted back by Hon’ble Court to Tribunal with following observations: - 6. The second substantial question of law raised by the Revenue is regarding unabsorbed depreciation for the previous years. 7. The Revenue contends before us that the eight years limitation in respect of carry

J.K.FENNER (INDIA) LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. JCIT, MADURAI

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1059/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 32(2)

disallowance u/s 14A. 3. The issue of unabsorbed depreciation as raised in revenue’s appealwas remitted back by Hon’ble Court to Tribunal with following observations: - 6. The second substantial question of law raised by the Revenue is regarding unabsorbed depreciation for the previous years. 7. The Revenue contends before us that the eight years limitation in respect of carry

M/S BGR EERGY SYSTEMS LIMIED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed

ITA 221/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.221 & 222/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 & 2018-19 M/S. Bgr Energy Systems Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 443, Anna Salai, Guna Complex, Income Tax, Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. Central Circle 3(1), Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aabcg2202J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.277 & 278/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 & 2018-19 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Bgr Energy Systems Limited, Income Tax, No. 443, Anna Salai, Guna Complex, Central Circle 3(1), Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. T. Sandhyaarti, Fca Department By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 19.07.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: These Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As Revenue Are Directed Against The Consolidated Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income

For Appellant: Ms. T. Sandhyaarti, FCAFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 37

119 to 124. 9. I have gone through the facts of the case. The appellant had made similar submissions in respect of the identical disallowance for all earlier years. In this regard, it is noted here that the disallowance made for the earlier A Ys have been upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) as well as the Hon. ITAT

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1), CHENNAI vs. BGR ENERGY SYSTEMS LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed

ITA 277/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.221 & 222/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 & 2018-19 M/S. Bgr Energy Systems Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 443, Anna Salai, Guna Complex, Income Tax, Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. Central Circle 3(1), Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aabcg2202J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.277 & 278/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 & 2018-19 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Bgr Energy Systems Limited, Income Tax, No. 443, Anna Salai, Guna Complex, Central Circle 3(1), Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. T. Sandhyaarti, Fca Department By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 19.07.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: These Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As Revenue Are Directed Against The Consolidated Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income

For Appellant: Ms. T. Sandhyaarti, FCAFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 37

119 to 124. 9. I have gone through the facts of the case. The appellant had made similar submissions in respect of the identical disallowance for all earlier years. In this regard, it is noted here that the disallowance made for the earlier A Ys have been upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) as well as the Hon. ITAT

M/S BGR EERGY SYSTEMS LIMIED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed

ITA 222/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.221 & 222/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 & 2018-19 M/S. Bgr Energy Systems Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 443, Anna Salai, Guna Complex, Income Tax, Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. Central Circle 3(1), Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aabcg2202J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.277 & 278/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 & 2018-19 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Bgr Energy Systems Limited, Income Tax, No. 443, Anna Salai, Guna Complex, Central Circle 3(1), Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. T. Sandhyaarti, Fca Department By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 19.07.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: These Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As Revenue Are Directed Against The Consolidated Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income

For Appellant: Ms. T. Sandhyaarti, FCAFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 37

119 to 124. 9. I have gone through the facts of the case. The appellant had made similar submissions in respect of the identical disallowance for all earlier years. In this regard, it is noted here that the disallowance made for the earlier A Ys have been upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) as well as the Hon. ITAT

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1), CHENNAI vs. BGR ENERGY SYSTEMS LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed

ITA 278/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.221 & 222/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 & 2018-19 M/S. Bgr Energy Systems Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 443, Anna Salai, Guna Complex, Income Tax, Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. Central Circle 3(1), Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aabcg2202J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.277 & 278/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 & 2018-19 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Bgr Energy Systems Limited, Income Tax, No. 443, Anna Salai, Guna Complex, Central Circle 3(1), Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. T. Sandhyaarti, Fca Department By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 19.07.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: These Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As Revenue Are Directed Against The Consolidated Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income

For Appellant: Ms. T. Sandhyaarti, FCAFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 37

119 to 124. 9. I have gone through the facts of the case. The appellant had made similar submissions in respect of the identical disallowance for all earlier years. In this regard, it is noted here that the disallowance made for the earlier A Ys have been upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) as well as the Hon. ITAT

VICTORIA EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-3,, CHENNAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 946/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:946/Chny/2025 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2022-23 Victoria Educational Trust, Ito, 62, 6Th Street, Vs. Exemptions Ward 3, S.R.P.Colony, Chennai. Peravallur, Chennai – 600 082. [Pan:Aabtv-0115-A] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Kumar Chandan, J.C.I.T.

For Appellant: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Kumar Chandan, J.C.I.T
Section 11Section 12(1)(ac)Section 12ASection 143(1)

disallowance of claim of tax exemption in terms of Section 11 of the Act even after the rejection of condonation petition in terms of Section 119