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.

566 results for “disallowance”+ Section 153(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,816Delhi1,710Chennai566Bangalore482Jaipur271Ahmedabad212Kolkata208Hyderabad205Chandigarh152Surat148Indore123Cochin118Pune100Amritsar96Raipur88Lucknow48Karnataka45Guwahati43Allahabad43Nagpur41Rajkot38Cuttack33Jodhpur25Dehradun20Visakhapatnam17Patna17SC12Telangana10Calcutta10Agra5Panaji4Ranchi2Gauhati2Jabalpur2Varanasi2Punjab & Haryana2Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)64Addition to Income64Section 14851Section 14738Disallowance38Section 153A36Section 13231Section 4020Depreciation20Section 143(2)

SRI MAHARAJA REFINERIES,ERODE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-I,, ERODE

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

ITA 1956/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 May 2025AY 2014-15
Section 143(3)Section 153(5)Section 40A(2)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 92

disallowances made\nby the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) in the impugned CIT(A)'s\norder.\"\n10. We have heard the both parties and perused the paper books,\nwritten submissions.\n11. The relevant portion of section 153 is as under:\n153 (3

SRI MAHARAJA REFINERIES,ERODE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, ERODE

ITA 1955/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai

Showing 1–20 of 566 · Page 1 of 29

...
19
Section 153C16
Reassessment16
07 May 2025
AY 2013-14
Section 143(3)Section 153(5)Section 40A(2)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 92

disallowances made\nby the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) in the impugned CIT(A)'s\norder.\"\n10. We have heard the both parties and perused the paper books,\nwritten submissions.\n11. The relevant portion of section 153 is as under:\n153 (3

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, TRICHY, TRICHY vs. KUMARASAMY RAMAKRISHNAN, KARUR

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3321/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita Nos.:3315, 3316 & 3321/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri A. Sasikumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri.M.V.Prasad, C.A.&
Section 3Section 801ASection 801A(3)(ii)Section 80I

disallowance of the deduction u/s 80IA(4)(iv) of the Act. 21. In this regard, the ld.CIT(A) drew strong support from the judgment of the Hon’ble Madras High Courtin the case of CIT v. Heartland KG Information Ltd [2013] 39 taxmann.com 132 (Madras), wherein the Hon’ble High Court held while interpreting the analogous provision

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, TRICHY, TRICHY vs. KUMARASAMY RAMAKRISHNAN, KARUR

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are\nOrder pronounced in the court on 05th June, 2025 at Chennai

ITA 3315/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jun 2025AY 2019-20
Section 3Section 801ASection 801A(3)Section 801A(3)(ii)Section 80I

disallowance of the deduction claimed u/s.80IA(4)(iv) is\nattracted on the ground of violation of the condition specified in section\n801A(3)(ii) when the 'running business' of the 'wind mill undertaking' is\ntransferred to the assessee by the previous owner and that the stipulation in\nthe said condition that the 'undertaking' is not formed by the transfer

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, TRICHY, TRICHY vs. KUMARASAMY RAMAKRISHNAN, KARUR

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are\nOrder pronounced in the court on 05th June, 2025 at Chennai

ITA 3316/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jun 2025AY 2020-21
Section 3Section 801ASection 801A(3)Section 801A(3)(ii)Section 80I

disallowance of the deduction claimed u/s.80IA(4)(iv) is\nattracted on the ground of violation of the condition specified in section\n801A(3)(ii) when the 'running business' of the 'wind mill undertaking' is\ntransferred to the assessee by the previous owner and that the stipulation in\nthe said condition that the 'undertaking' is not formed by the transfer

CRR LEATHERS,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

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

ITA 616/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Aug 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.616/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2008-09 M/S. Crr Leathers, The Income Tax Officer, 9/5, Patnool Sardarjung Street, Vs. Non Corporate Ward 4(3), Periamet, Chennai 600 003. Chennai 600 006. [Pan: Aaafc4173G] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri K. Ravi, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.06.2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.08.2017 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 5, Chennai Dated 27.10.2016 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2008-09, Wherein, In The Grounds Appeal, Besides Challenging The Confirmation Of Various Additions For Want Of Tds Under Section 195 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short], The Assessee Has Mainly Challenged Confirmation Of Reopening Of Assessment, Which Is Barred By Limitation.

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. Ravi, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 195Section 40

disallowances under sections 40(a)(ia) and 40(A)(2) of the Act during the course of reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act beyond the expiry of four years from the end of the assessment year under consideration. While doing so, the Assessing Officer has not brought on record any new tangible materials for reopening of assessment already

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MADURAI vs. ACHU TRADERS, PALAKKAD

In the result, the Cross Objections filed by the assessees in C

ITA 355/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Oct 2024AY 2012-13
Section 40A(3)

disallowance u/s 40A(3) can be considered only\nthe group concerns of Shri Shahjahan and not in the hands of M/s\nVVD & Sons Pvt Ltd. M/s Achu Traders is one of the group concerns\nof Shri Shahjahan.\n7. It is submitted that the Department has filed an appeal before the\nHon'ble ITAT, Chennai in the case

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, TUTICORIN vs. VVD & SONS (P) LIMITED, TUTICORIN

In the result, both the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are allowed and all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2153/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2153, 2154 2155 & 2156/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 & C.O. Nos. 132 & 133/Chny/2018 [In Ita Nos. 2153 & 2154/Chny/2018] The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Vvd & Sons (P) Limited, Income Tax, No. 182, Palayamkottai Road, Central Circle 2, Tuticorin 628 008. Madurai. [Pan:Aaacv8438J] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit For : Shri M. Rajan, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 24.08.2023 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 19, Chennai, Dated 23.04.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17. 2. The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Delayed By Three Days For Which, The Revenue Has Filed Affidavits For Condonation Of Delay, To Which 2

Section 40A(3)

3,40,000/- per acre. It was also seen that the company has paid Rs. 14,70,655/- as cash to Sri K Srinivasan, While raising a specific question in this aspect Shri D. Kabilan, vide his sworn statement in answer 6 has stated that the amount of Rs.14.70.655/- is the difference between the actual sale consideration agreed

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, TUTICORIN vs. VVD & SONS (P) LIMITED, TUTICORIN

In the result, both the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are allowed and all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2154/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2153, 2154 2155 & 2156/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 & C.O. Nos. 132 & 133/Chny/2018 [In Ita Nos. 2153 & 2154/Chny/2018] The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Vvd & Sons (P) Limited, Income Tax, No. 182, Palayamkottai Road, Central Circle 2, Tuticorin 628 008. Madurai. [Pan:Aaacv8438J] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit For : Shri M. Rajan, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 24.08.2023 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 19, Chennai, Dated 23.04.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17. 2. The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Delayed By Three Days For Which, The Revenue Has Filed Affidavits For Condonation Of Delay, To Which 2

Section 40A(3)

3,40,000/- per acre. It was also seen that the company has paid Rs. 14,70,655/- as cash to Sri K Srinivasan, While raising a specific question in this aspect Shri D. Kabilan, vide his sworn statement in answer 6 has stated that the amount of Rs.14.70.655/- is the difference between the actual sale consideration agreed

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, TUTICORIN vs. VVD & SONS (P) LIMITED, TUTICORIN

In the result, both the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are allowed and all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2155/CHNY/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2153, 2154 2155 & 2156/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 & C.O. Nos. 132 & 133/Chny/2018 [In Ita Nos. 2153 & 2154/Chny/2018] The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Vvd & Sons (P) Limited, Income Tax, No. 182, Palayamkottai Road, Central Circle 2, Tuticorin 628 008. Madurai. [Pan:Aaacv8438J] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit For : Shri M. Rajan, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 24.08.2023 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 19, Chennai, Dated 23.04.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17. 2. The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Delayed By Three Days For Which, The Revenue Has Filed Affidavits For Condonation Of Delay, To Which 2

Section 40A(3)

3,40,000/- per acre. It was also seen that the company has paid Rs. 14,70,655/- as cash to Sri K Srinivasan, While raising a specific question in this aspect Shri D. Kabilan, vide his sworn statement in answer 6 has stated that the amount of Rs.14.70.655/- is the difference between the actual sale consideration agreed

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, TUTICORIN vs. VVD & SONS (P) LIMITED, TUTICORIN

In the result, both the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are allowed and all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2156/CHNY/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2153, 2154 2155 & 2156/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 & C.O. Nos. 132 & 133/Chny/2018 [In Ita Nos. 2153 & 2154/Chny/2018] The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Vvd & Sons (P) Limited, Income Tax, No. 182, Palayamkottai Road, Central Circle 2, Tuticorin 628 008. Madurai. [Pan:Aaacv8438J] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit For : Shri M. Rajan, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 24.08.2023 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 19, Chennai, Dated 23.04.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17. 2. The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Delayed By Three Days For Which, The Revenue Has Filed Affidavits For Condonation Of Delay, To Which 2

Section 40A(3)

3,40,000/- per acre. It was also seen that the company has paid Rs. 14,70,655/- as cash to Sri K Srinivasan, While raising a specific question in this aspect Shri D. Kabilan, vide his sworn statement in answer 6 has stated that the amount of Rs.14.70.655/- is the difference between the actual sale consideration agreed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NUMGAMBAKKAM vs. JSR INFRA DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2232/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 153CSection 801ASection 80I

153-A(1)(a) would be construed to A(1)(a) would be construed to be a return of income under section 139 of the Act. be a return of income under section 139 of the Act. ........ 13. In the present case, search was conducted on the assessee on 30 13. In the present case, search was conducted

SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2),, CHENNAI

In the result, both the both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Revenue and the

ITA 1236/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. C. Yamuna, CIT &
Section 132Section 148Section 20Section 250

Section 153A(1)(b) states that the assessing officer shall assess or Section 153A(1)(b) states that the assessing officer shall assess or Section 153A(1)(b) states that the assessing officer shall assess or reassess the total income of six years immediately preceding the reassess the total income of six years immediately preceding the reassess the total income

DCIT CC 2 2 , CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT LTD, CHENNAI

In the result, both the both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Revenue and the

ITA 1256/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. C. Yamuna, CIT &
Section 132Section 148Section 20Section 250

Section 153A(1)(b) states that the assessing officer shall assess or Section 153A(1)(b) states that the assessing officer shall assess or Section 153A(1)(b) states that the assessing officer shall assess or reassess the total income of six years immediately preceding the reassess the total income of six years immediately preceding the reassess the total income

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MADURAI vs. J S NIHAR BANU, PALAKKAD

In the result, the Cross Objections filed by the assessees in C

ITA 363/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Oct 2024AY 2012-13
Section 40A(3)

disallowance u/s 40A(3) can be considered only\nthe group concerns of Shri Shahjahan and not in the hands of M/s\nVVD & Sons Pvt Ltd. M/s Achu Traders is one of the group concerns\nof Shri Shahjahan.\n7. It is submitted that the Department has filed an appeal before the\nHon'ble ITAT, Chennai in the case

DCIT, CENTRAL CIR-2, MADURAI vs. M SHAHJAHAN, PALAKKAD

In the result, the Cross Objections filed by the assessees in C

ITA 361/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Oct 2024AY 2014-15
Section 40A(3)

disallowance u/s 40A(3) can be considered only\nthe group concerns of Shri Shahjahan and not in the hands of M/s\nVVD & Sons Pvt Ltd. M/s Achu Traders is one of the group concerns\nof Shri Shahjahan.\n7. It is submitted that the Department has filed an appeal before the\nHon'ble ITAT, Chennai in the case

DCIT, CENTRAL CIR-2, MADURAI vs. M SHAHJAHAN, PALAKKAD

In the result, the Cross Objections filed by the assessees in C

ITA 362/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Oct 2024AY 2015-16
Section 40A(3)

disallowance u/s 40A(3) can be considered only\nthe group concerns of Shri Shahjahan and not in the hands of M/s\nVVD & Sons Pvt Ltd. M/s Achu Traders is one of the group concerns\nof Shri Shahjahan.\n7. It is submitted that the Department has filed an appeal before the\nHon'ble ITAT, Chennai in the case

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TRICHY vs. DALMIA CEMENT (BHARAT) LIMITED, TRICHY

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1260/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri Soumen Adak, CA
Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153(1)Section 153(4)Section 92C

section 153(4) of the Act, the due date for passing of order get extended upto 31.03.2022 but in the present case, the assessment u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 144C(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act was passed vide order dated 30.09.2022, which is clearly barred by limitation. Hence, we find no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) holding the assessment

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MADURAI vs. ACHU TRADERS, PALAKKAD

In the result, the Cross Objections filed by the assessees in C

ITA 356/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Oct 2024AY 2013-14
Section 40A(3)

disallowance u/s 40A(3) can be considered only\nthe group concerns of Shri Shahjahan and not in the hands of M/s\nVVD & Sons Pvt Ltd. M/s Achu Traders is one of the group concerns\nof Shri Shahjahan.\n7. It is submitted that the Department has filed an appeal before the\nHon'ble ITAT, Chennai in the case

DCIT, CENTRAL CIR-2, MADURAI vs. J S NIHAR BANU, PALAKKAD

In the result, the Cross Objections filed by the assessees in C

ITA 444/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Oct 2024AY 2014-15
Section 40A(3)

disallowance u/s 40A(3) can be considered only\nthe group concerns of Shri Shahjahan and not in the hands of M/s\nVVD & Sons Pvt Ltd. M/s Achu Traders is one of the group concerns\nof Shri Shahjahan.\n7. It is submitted that the Department has filed an appeal before the\nHon'ble ITAT, Chennai in the case