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.

3,506 results for “disallowance”+ Section 13(9)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai12,195Delhi10,787Bangalore3,733Chennai3,506Kolkata2,902Ahmedabad2,446Pune2,198Hyderabad1,703Jaipur1,500Surat973Chandigarh972Indore889Raipur594Cochin576Visakhapatnam547Cuttack476Rajkot412Amritsar401Karnataka382Nagpur363Lucknow272Agra188Panaji168Jodhpur155Guwahati147Ranchi133Telangana119Allahabad114SC111Patna89Dehradun74Calcutta69Jabalpur44Kerala37Varanasi33Punjab & Haryana13Rajasthan10Orissa8Himachal Pradesh6A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN5Gauhati2D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1RANJAN GOGOI PRAFULLA C. PANT1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1ANIL R. DAVE AMITAVA ROY L. NAGESWARA RAO1Tripura1Uttarakhand1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)74Addition to Income62Disallowance59Section 14834Section 153C34Section 153A33Section 14724Section 2(24)(iv)24Section 14A22Deduction

M/S JAYA EDUCATIONAL TRUST,THIRUVALLUR vs. DCIT, CC1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for the assessment years 2012-13 & 2013-14 are allowed and for the assessment years

ITA 916/CHNY/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Jul 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2915, 3114, 3115/Chny/2019 & 916/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. Bharath, CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(2)Section 13(2)(a)Section 13(3)Section 13(3)(e)Section 143(3)

9. A perusal of the relevant provisions indicates that the main objective of section 13(1)(c) read with section 13(3) is to prevent the exploitation of the tax exempt status charitable institution by such persons who are in a position to exercise control over the management of the institution. S 13(2) enumerates the situations where it shall

Showing 1–20 of 3,506 · Page 1 of 176

...
22
Section 143(2)21
Depreciation14

JAYA EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CENTRL CIRCLE 1 (2), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for the assessment years 2012-13 & 2013-14 are allowed and for the assessment years

ITA 2915/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Jul 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2915, 3114, 3115/Chny/2019 & 916/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. Bharath, CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(2)Section 13(2)(a)Section 13(3)Section 13(3)(e)Section 143(3)

9. A perusal of the relevant provisions indicates that the main objective of section 13(1)(c) read with section 13(3) is to prevent the exploitation of the tax exempt status charitable institution by such persons who are in a position to exercise control over the management of the institution. S 13(2) enumerates the situations where it shall

JAYA EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CENTRL CIRCLE 1 (2), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for the assessment years 2012-13 & 2013-14 are allowed and for the assessment years

ITA 3114/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Jul 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2915, 3114, 3115/Chny/2019 & 916/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. Bharath, CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(2)Section 13(2)(a)Section 13(3)Section 13(3)(e)Section 143(3)

9. A perusal of the relevant provisions indicates that the main objective of section 13(1)(c) read with section 13(3) is to prevent the exploitation of the tax exempt status charitable institution by such persons who are in a position to exercise control over the management of the institution. S 13(2) enumerates the situations where it shall

JAYA EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CENTRL CIRCLE 1 (2), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for the assessment years 2012-13 & 2013-14 are allowed and for the assessment years

ITA 3115/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2915, 3114, 3115/Chny/2019 & 916/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. Bharath, CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(2)Section 13(2)(a)Section 13(3)Section 13(3)(e)Section 143(3)

9. A perusal of the relevant provisions indicates that the main objective of section 13(1)(c) read with section 13(3) is to prevent the exploitation of the tax exempt status charitable institution by such persons who are in a position to exercise control over the management of the institution. S 13(2) enumerates the situations where it shall

M.P. SANTHOSH KUMAR, ITO, CHENNAI vs. GREENPEACE ENVIRONMENT TRUST, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 406/CHNY/2025[2011]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 406/Chny/2025 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer, Greenpeace Environment Trust, Exemptions, Ward-1, Vs. New No.49, Old No.23, Chennai. Ellaiamman Colony, Gopalapuram, Chennai-600 086. [Pan:Aaatg-3538-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. Kumar Chandan, Jcit. प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Y.Sridhar, F.C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.06.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am :

For Appellant: Mr. Kumar Chandan, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. Y.Sridhar, F.C.A
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)(c)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

Sections 13(1)(c) and 13(2) are inapplicable to the expenses of Rs.91.37 lakhs and Rs.1.44 lakhs disallowed in the Order. 4.1 The expenses are on actuals incurred for the purpose of the activities of the Appellant. Appellant furnished person / purpose wise breakup of the expense to the learned AO. Please refer ANNEXURE 9

ACIT, EXEMPTIONS, COIMBATORE vs. MAHENDRA EDUCATIONAL TRUST, MANAKKAL

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 126/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Feb 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 125 & 126/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 The Acit (Exemptions), M/S. Mahendra Educational May Flower Mid City Building, V. Trust, 1510, Trichy Road, Kalipatti Post, Attayampatti Via, Coimbatore – 641 018. Tiruchengode, Namakkal – 637 501. Pan: Aaaam2491C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & Co Nos.: 18 & 19/Chny/2019 (In Ita Nos.125 & 126/Chny/2019) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 The Acit (Exemptions), M/S. Mahendra Educational May Flower Mid City Building, V. Trust, 1510, Trichy Road, Kalipatti Post, Attayampatti Via, Coimbatore – 641 018. Tiruchengode, Namakkal – 637 501. Pan: Aaaam2491C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate राज" की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri G. Chandrababu, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 28.01.2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.02.2021

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Chandrababu, Addl.CIT
Section 1Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(1)(d)Section 13(2)(a)Section 13(2)(h)Section 13(3)

section 13 (1) (d) of the Act. The assessing officer and the CIT (A) erred in not considering the submissions of the appellant. 9. The CIT (A) ought to have appreciated, even if the sums were to be disallowed

ACIT, EXEMPTIONS, COIMBATORE vs. MAHENDRA EDUCATIONAL TRUST, MANAKKAL

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 125/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 125 & 126/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 The Acit (Exemptions), M/S. Mahendra Educational May Flower Mid City Building, V. Trust, 1510, Trichy Road, Kalipatti Post, Attayampatti Via, Coimbatore – 641 018. Tiruchengode, Namakkal – 637 501. Pan: Aaaam2491C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & Co Nos.: 18 & 19/Chny/2019 (In Ita Nos.125 & 126/Chny/2019) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 The Acit (Exemptions), M/S. Mahendra Educational May Flower Mid City Building, V. Trust, 1510, Trichy Road, Kalipatti Post, Attayampatti Via, Coimbatore – 641 018. Tiruchengode, Namakkal – 637 501. Pan: Aaaam2491C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate राज" की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri G. Chandrababu, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 28.01.2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.02.2021

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Chandrababu, Addl.CIT
Section 1Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(1)(d)Section 13(2)(a)Section 13(2)(h)Section 13(3)

section 13 (1) (d) of the Act. The assessing officer and the CIT (A) erred in not considering the submissions of the appellant. 9. The CIT (A) ought to have appreciated, even if the sums were to be disallowed

PRAKASHCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CC2(3), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 68/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.68/Chny/2024 िनधा रण वष /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Prakashchand Jain, The Dy. Commissioner Of V. 39 & 40 Bakers Street, Income Tax, Choolai, Chennai – 600 112. Central Circle-2(3), Chennai. [Pan: Ahhpp 1690D] (अपीलाथ$/Appellant) (%&थ$/Respondent) अपीलाथ$कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate %&थ$कीओरसे /Respondent By Shri R. Clement Ramesh : Kumar, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10.12.2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 07.03.2025 :

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate
Section 132Section 153Section 153ASection 270A

Section 270A is satisfied. Therefore, show-cause notice proposing penalty cause notice proposing penalty is found to be vague and doesn’t muster the requir is found to be vague and doesn’t muster the requirement of law to legally ement of law to legally impose penalty and therefore consequent levy of penalty is fragile in eyes impose penalty

SIVANANDHA MILLS LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, ITA No.2106/Mds/13 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1216/CHNY/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Milind Madhukar Bhusari, CIT
Section 143Section 143(1)

9) also deals with pari passu charge of the workers under Section 529-A of the Companies Act, 1956, apart from banks and financial institutions, who are secured creditors. Section 13(10) inter alia states that where the dues of the secured creditors are not fully satisfied by the sale proceeds of the secured assets, the secured creditor may file

M/S. SIVANANDHA MILLS LTD.,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, ITA No.2106/Mds/13 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2106/CHNY/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jun 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Milind Madhukar Bhusari, CIT
Section 143Section 143(1)

9) also deals with pari passu charge of the workers under Section 529-A of the Companies Act, 1956, apart from banks and financial institutions, who are secured creditors. Section 13(10) inter alia states that where the dues of the secured creditors are not fully satisfied by the sale proceeds of the secured assets, the secured creditor may file

ST. FRANCIS EDUCATIONAL TRUST,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-2,, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee in ITA No

ITA 3395/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Aug 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Duvvuru R.L.Reddy

For Appellant: Mr.AR.V.Sreenivasan, JCITFor Respondent: 20.07.2020
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(2)Section 143(3)

disallowed the exemption claimed under section 11 of the Act. 2.3 The Learned AO has erred in invoking the provisions of Section 13(1)(c) of the Act without a holistic understanding of the facts of the case”. 6.3 In the written submission, the appellant contested that the trust had obtained term loan based on the collateral security

M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1622/CHNY/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

For Appellant: Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing Counsel

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer 16 I.T.A. Nos.1622 to 1630/Chny/11 I.T.A. No.1356/Chny/13 I.T.A. No.2310/Chny/14 I.T.A. Nos.1662 to 1670/Chny/11 I.T.A. No.1367/Chny/13 I.T.A. No.2371/Chny/14 under Section 40(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') is not justified. 13. On the contrary, Shri M. Swaminathan, the Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue, submitted that Section 101A

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1663/CHNY/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

For Appellant: Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing Counsel

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer 16 I.T.A. Nos.1622 to 1630/Chny/11 I.T.A. No.1356/Chny/13 I.T.A. No.2310/Chny/14 I.T.A. Nos.1662 to 1670/Chny/11 I.T.A. No.1367/Chny/13 I.T.A. No.2371/Chny/14 under Section 40(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') is not justified. 13. On the contrary, Shri M. Swaminathan, the Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue, submitted that Section 101A

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1662/CHNY/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

For Appellant: Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing Counsel

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer 16 I.T.A. Nos.1622 to 1630/Chny/11 I.T.A. No.1356/Chny/13 I.T.A. No.2310/Chny/14 I.T.A. Nos.1662 to 1670/Chny/11 I.T.A. No.1367/Chny/13 I.T.A. No.2371/Chny/14 under Section 40(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') is not justified. 13. On the contrary, Shri M. Swaminathan, the Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue, submitted that Section 101A

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1667/CHNY/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

For Appellant: Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing Counsel

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer 16 I.T.A. Nos.1622 to 1630/Chny/11 I.T.A. No.1356/Chny/13 I.T.A. No.2310/Chny/14 I.T.A. Nos.1662 to 1670/Chny/11 I.T.A. No.1367/Chny/13 I.T.A. No.2371/Chny/14 under Section 40(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') is not justified. 13. On the contrary, Shri M. Swaminathan, the Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue, submitted that Section 101A

M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1623/CHNY/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

For Appellant: Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing Counsel

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer 16 I.T.A. Nos.1622 to 1630/Chny/11 I.T.A. No.1356/Chny/13 I.T.A. No.2310/Chny/14 I.T.A. Nos.1662 to 1670/Chny/11 I.T.A. No.1367/Chny/13 I.T.A. No.2371/Chny/14 under Section 40(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') is not justified. 13. On the contrary, Shri M. Swaminathan, the Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue, submitted that Section 101A

M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1624/CHNY/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

For Appellant: Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing Counsel

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer 16 I.T.A. Nos.1622 to 1630/Chny/11 I.T.A. No.1356/Chny/13 I.T.A. No.2310/Chny/14 I.T.A. Nos.1662 to 1670/Chny/11 I.T.A. No.1367/Chny/13 I.T.A. No.2371/Chny/14 under Section 40(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') is not justified. 13. On the contrary, Shri M. Swaminathan, the Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue, submitted that Section 101A

M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1625/CHNY/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

For Appellant: Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing Counsel

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer 16 I.T.A. Nos.1622 to 1630/Chny/11 I.T.A. No.1356/Chny/13 I.T.A. No.2310/Chny/14 I.T.A. Nos.1662 to 1670/Chny/11 I.T.A. No.1367/Chny/13 I.T.A. No.2371/Chny/14 under Section 40(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') is not justified. 13. On the contrary, Shri M. Swaminathan, the Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue, submitted that Section 101A

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1664/CHNY/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

For Appellant: Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing Counsel

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer 16 I.T.A. Nos.1622 to 1630/Chny/11 I.T.A. No.1356/Chny/13 I.T.A. No.2310/Chny/14 I.T.A. Nos.1662 to 1670/Chny/11 I.T.A. No.1367/Chny/13 I.T.A. No.2371/Chny/14 under Section 40(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') is not justified. 13. On the contrary, Shri M. Swaminathan, the Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue, submitted that Section 101A

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2371/CHNY/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2018AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

For Appellant: Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing Counsel

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer 16 I.T.A. Nos.1622 to 1630/Chny/11 I.T.A. No.1356/Chny/13 I.T.A. No.2310/Chny/14 I.T.A. Nos.1662 to 1670/Chny/11 I.T.A. No.1367/Chny/13 I.T.A. No.2371/Chny/14 under Section 40(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') is not justified. 13. On the contrary, Shri M. Swaminathan, the Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue, submitted that Section 101A