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.

179 results for “disallowance”+ Section 144Cclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,437Delhi1,081Bangalore551Chennai179Kolkata161Hyderabad134Ahmedabad72Pune67Jaipur21Karnataka17Dehradun14Visakhapatnam14Surat10Indore9Rajkot8Chandigarh6Cochin6Kerala3Amritsar3Lucknow2Raipur2Panaji2Nagpur2Guwahati1SC1Jodhpur1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)129Section 14A58Addition to Income58Transfer Pricing49Section 4048Disallowance43Section 144C(5)33Section 92C33Comparables/TP24

CONFERENCECALL SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LTD,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE -1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 319/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.319/Chny/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 V. M/S.Conferencecall – The Dy. Commissioner- Services India Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, Rmz Titanium, No.135, 1St Floor, Corporate Circle-1(2), Old Airport Road, Chennai. Bangalore-560 017. [Pan: Aaccc 6574 A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Soumen Adhak (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

section 144C(13) of the Act. 3. Brief facts are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of providing audio, video, web conference to its customers. It filed its return of income (RoI) for AY 2013-14 on 31.03.2014 admitting total income of Rs.37,23,48,860/-. Later, the RoI was selected for scrutiny. The AO noted that

Showing 1–20 of 179 · Page 1 of 9

...
Deduction21
Section 115J18
Section 144C17

SIVA INDUSTRIES AND HOLDINGS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

ITA 1973/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Chennai21 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

Section 250(6)

section 144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“Act”) is not in accordance with the law, contrary to the facts and circumstances of the present case and is in violation of principle of equity and natural justice. Validity of the Assessment Proceedings 2. The AO erred in passing the assessment order in the name of a non-existent company

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SIVA VENTURES LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

ITA 1421/CHNY/2016[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2020AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

Section 250(6)

section 144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“Act”) is not in accordance with the law, contrary to the facts and circumstances of the present case and is in violation of principle of equity and natural justice. Validity of the Assessment Proceedings 2. The AO erred in passing the assessment order in the name of a non-existent company

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SIVA VENTURES LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

ITA 1075/CHNY/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

Section 250(6)

section 144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“Act”) is not in accordance with the law, contrary to the facts and circumstances of the present case and is in violation of principle of equity and natural justice. Validity of the Assessment Proceedings 2. The AO erred in passing the assessment order in the name of a non-existent company

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SIVA VENTURES LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

ITA 663/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

Section 250(6)

section 144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“Act”) is not in accordance with the law, contrary to the facts and circumstances of the present case and is in violation of principle of equity and natural justice. Validity of the Assessment Proceedings 2. The AO erred in passing the assessment order in the name of a non-existent company

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

section 144C r.w.s. 92CA of the Act by making disallowance of ₹.7,35,900/-. 8. Aggrieved by the assessment order

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

section 144C r.w.s. 92CA of the Act by making disallowance of ₹.7,35,900/-. 8. Aggrieved by the assessment order

YCH LOGISTICS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,KANCHEEPURAM vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 322/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, CAFor Respondent: Dr. S.Palani Kumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92C

disallowance of deduction u/s.10AA of the Act. 3. Now before us, the ld.AR for the assessee stated that the assessee has filed additional grounds on the issue of jurisdiction of AO in framing the final assessment order u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 92CA(3) r.w.s. 144C(5) of the Act, dated 12.01.2016 and according to assessee, the assessment order is contrary

KELLER GROUND ENGINEERING INDIA PRIVATE LTD,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE 4(2), CHENNAI

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

ITA 114/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Sriram Seshadhri, CAFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 156Section 92C

section 144C of the Act is invalid in law and should be struck down as much. 2. The draft assessment order, which is in essence the final assessment order, given that the notice of demand had also been issued and penalty has also been initiated, is a patent violation of the provisions of the Act and therefore, the assessment deserved

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME CORPORATE CIRCLE 1-1, CHENNAI vs. FL SMIDTH PRIVATE LIMITED, KANCHIPURAM

ITA 1731/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2026AY 2014-15
Section 143(3)Section 43(1)

144C", "Section 43(1)", "Section 43(6)", "Section 14A", "Rule 8D", "Section 32(1)(ii)", "Section 92CA(3)", "Section 92C(3)" ], "issues": "1. Whether depreciation on goodwill arising from amalgamation is allowable.\n2. Whether transfer pricing adjustments made by the AO/TPO are justified.\n3. Whether disallowance

M/S. SAINT GOBAIN GLASS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KANCHEEPURAM vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

ITA 2096/CHNY/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

Section 10Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 14A

section 144C(5) r.w.s 144C(8) of the Act. 2. The assessee has raised in its appeal several elaborate grounds, however the cruxes of the issues are as follows:- 2 i) The learned DRP as well as the learned Assessing Officer has erred in disallowing

EATON POWER QUALITY PRIVATE LIMITED,PONDICHERRY vs. DCIT, PONDICHERRY

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1010/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1010/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Eaton Power Quality Private The Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, V. Income Tax, No.2, Evr Street Sedarapet, Pondicherry Circle, Puducherry 605 111, Pondicherry. Puducherry (Ut). [Pan: Aacc-6943-R] आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.: 35/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Eaton Power Quality Private The Assessing Officer, Limited, V. National E-Assessment Centre, No.2, Evr Street Sedarapet, Delhi. Puducherry 605 111, Puducherry (Ut). [Pan: Aacc-6943-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Vishal Kalra, Advocate : Shri. S. Maruthu Pandian, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01.05.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03.05.2023 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Vishal Kalra, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 37(1)Section 92C

144C(13) and 1448 of the Act is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case and thus, liable to be quashed. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order dated November 1, 2019 passed by the TPO under section 92CA(3) of the Act is barred by limitation

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. REDINGTON (INDIA) LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1145/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Oct 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Jayaram Raipura, CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

Section 143(3) r.w.s. 92CA and 144C(1) of the Act on 23.03.2015 along with disallowance under Section 14A of the Act of `5,95,44,737/-. Against

REDINGTON (INDIA) LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1155/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Oct 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Jayaram Raipura, CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

Section 143(3) r.w.s. 92CA and 144C(1) of the Act on 23.03.2015 along with disallowance under Section 14A of the Act of `5,95,44,737/-. Against

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. PARRYWARE ROCA PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, I.T.A. Nos

ITA 1169/CHNY/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.586/Mds/2014 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.610/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Raghunathan Sampath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Milind Madhukar Bhusari, CIT

Section 144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). 14. Now coming to Revenue’s appeal in I.T.A. No.1169/Mds/2014, the only issue arises for consideration is with regard to disallowance

ROCA BATHROOM PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. JCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, I.T.A. Nos

ITA 586/CHNY/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.586/Mds/2014 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.610/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Raghunathan Sampath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Milind Madhukar Bhusari, CIT

Section 144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). 14. Now coming to Revenue’s appeal in I.T.A. No.1169/Mds/2014, the only issue arises for consideration is with regard to disallowance

PANASONIC CORPORATION,HARYANA vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

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

ITA 1483/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Aug 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Shri R.K. Kapoor, FCAFor Respondent: Shri M. Sreenivasa Rao, CIT

Section 144C(1) of the Act. According to the Ld. representative, the reimbursement of salary cannot be considered to be income in the hands of the assessee. Therefore, there is no question of any addition or disallowance

SL LUMAX LIMITED,KANCHIPURAM vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 6(2), CHENNAI

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

ITA 1692/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Duvvuru R.L.Reddy*नधा,रण वष, /Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S.Sl Lumax Ltd., V. The Principal Commissioner G-14, 15 & 25, Sipcot Industrial Of Income Tax, Room No.602, Park, Irrungattukottai, Vi Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Sriperumbudur-602 117. New Block, Mahatama Gandhi Kancheepuram District. Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600034. [Pan: Aaacl 1857 B] (अपीलाथ//Appellant) (01यथ//Respondent) : Mr. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, अपीलाथ/ क2 ओर से/ Appellant By Adv. : Mr. A.Sundararajan, Cit 01यथ/ क2 ओर से /Respondent By : 28.11.2019 सुनवाई क2 तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 10.02.2020 घोषणा क2 तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar:

For Respondent: 28.11.2019
Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 263Section 92C

Section 144C(3) of the 1961 Act by the AO , vide assessment order dated 27.02.2017 assessing the income of the assessee at Rs. 76.04 Crs. The learned PCIT after examining records was of the view that provision for warranty claimed by assessee to the tune of Rs. 1,40,45,352/- for financial year 2012-13 in its Profit

VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

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

ITA 587/CHNY/2017[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jan 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.587/Chny/2017 िनधा:रण वष: /Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Ketan K. Ved, C.A HIFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 153(2)Section 201(1)Section 40

144C of the Act. Each of the ground is referred to separately, which may kindly be considered independent of each other. 1. Ground No. 1 Assessment order is bad in law and hence, void-ab- initio. 1.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has failed to adjudicate the following ground taken

EAST WIND FOOTWEAR COMPANY LIMITED - INDIA BRANCH ,THIRUVANNAMALAI vs. DCIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 1(1) & 1(2) , CHENNAI

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

ITA 1655/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1655/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2014-15 M/S. East Wind Footwear Company The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Limited – India Branch, Plot No. 3, Income Tax, D&E, Sipcot Industrial Park, Mathur, International Taxation 1(1) & 1(2), Mangal Village, Cheyyar T.K., Chennai. Thiruvannamalai, Tamil Nadu 631 701. [Pan: Aacce5043N] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ashik Shah, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Ramakrishnan, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.01.2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.01.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvurul Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Dated 28.04.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Effective Grounds Raised In The Appeal Of The Assessee Are That The Assessing Officer & The Drp Have Erred In Law In Not Allowing The Deduction Under Section 10Aa Of The Act & Computation Of Tax Payable & Levy Of Interest Under Section 234D Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Ashik Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri S. Ramakrishnan, CIT
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 234D

section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(1) of the Act by disallowing the claim of exemption under section 10AA of the Act while