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.

215 results for “disallowance”+ Section 172(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,078Delhi819Bangalore243Chennai215Jaipur165Kolkata164Ahmedabad153Hyderabad133Surat115Cochin99Pune80Indore75Chandigarh67Raipur52Calcutta35Cuttack33Allahabad29Guwahati26Ranchi25Visakhapatnam22Lucknow21Nagpur21Telangana20Rajkot20Karnataka18Agra10Amritsar9Jodhpur7SC7Jabalpur4Dehradun4Rajasthan1Patna1Varanasi1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Kerala1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)62Section 14A61Disallowance46Addition to Income44Section 80I35Deduction22Section 271A19Section 1114Section 801A14Section 147

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

3) will not apply, whereas, in the case of the assessee, since the entire undertaking has been purchased second hand, it means that 100% of plant and machinery in the new business has been previously used. 6. For these grounds and any other ground including amendment of grounds that may be raised during the course of the appeal proceedings

Showing 1–20 of 215 · Page 1 of 11

...
13
Section 26313
Natural Justice8

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

ITA 3316/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita Nos.:3315, 3316 & 3321/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2018-19 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Taxх, Central Circle -1, Trichy. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Vs. Shri Kumarasamy Ramakrishnan, Ramakrishna Poultry Farm, No.79, Main Road, Thalavapalayam, Karur, Tamil Nadu – 639 113. [Pan:Aagpr-3421-A] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थीकी ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit प्रत्यर्थीकी ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri.M.V.Prasad, C.A.& Shri.K.S.Rajendra Kumar, C.A. सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.03.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.06.2025 आदेश / Order Per S. R. Raghunatha: These Three Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai-19, Dated 07.10.2024, 04.10.2024 &04.10.2024And Pertain To Assessment Years 2019-20, 2020-21&2018-19 Respectively. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Being Heard Together & Disposed Off, By This Consolidated Order. :-2-:

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

3) will not apply, whereas, in the case of the assessee, since the entire undertaking has been purchased second hand, it means that 100% of plant and machinery in the new business has been previously used. 6. For these grounds and any other ground including amendment of grounds that may be raised during the course of the appeal proceedings

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

ITA 3315/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita Nos.:3315, 3316 & 3321/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2018-19 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Taxх, Central Circle -1, Trichy. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Vs. Shri Kumarasamy Ramakrishnan, Ramakrishna Poultry Farm, No.79, Main Road, Thalavapalayam, Karur, Tamil Nadu – 639 113. [Pan:Aagpr-3421-A] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थीकी ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit प्रत्यर्थीकी ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri.M.V.Prasad, C.A.& Shri.K.S.Rajendra Kumar, C.A. सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.03.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.06.2025 आदेश / Order Per S. R. Raghunatha: These Three Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai-19, Dated 07.10.2024, 04.10.2024 &04.10.2024And Pertain To Assessment Years 2019-20, 2020-21&2018-19 Respectively. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Being Heard Together & Disposed Off, By This Consolidated Order. :-2-:

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

3) will not apply, whereas, in the case of the assessee, since the entire undertaking has been purchased second hand, it means that 100% of plant and machinery in the new business has been previously used. 6. For these grounds and any other ground including amendment of grounds that may be raised during the course of the appeal proceedings

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, SALEM vs. THRIVENI EARTHMOVERS PVT. LTD., SALEM

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2281/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2280, 2281, 2282 & 2283/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt Ltd, Of Income Tax, 22/110, Greenways Road, Central Circle, Fairlands, Salem Salem 636 016. [Pan Aabct 6759R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. M. Srinivasa Rao, IRS, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 148

disallowance of amount paid to M/s. Sakshi Trade Link Pvt Ltd. In case this Tribunal holds that no addition is warranted in respect of alleged bogus ITA Nos.2280-83 /2018 :- 10 -: expenditure paid to M/s. Sakshi Trade Link Pvt Ltd, no other addition can be made even in terms of Explanation 3 to Section 147 of the Act reliance in this

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, SALEM vs. THRIVENI EARTHMOVERS PVT. LTD., SALEM

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2280/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2280, 2281, 2282 & 2283/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt Ltd, Of Income Tax, 22/110, Greenways Road, Central Circle, Fairlands, Salem Salem 636 016. [Pan Aabct 6759R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. M. Srinivasa Rao, IRS, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 148

disallowance of amount paid to M/s. Sakshi Trade Link Pvt Ltd. In case this Tribunal holds that no addition is warranted in respect of alleged bogus ITA Nos.2280-83 /2018 :- 10 -: expenditure paid to M/s. Sakshi Trade Link Pvt Ltd, no other addition can be made even in terms of Explanation 3 to Section 147 of the Act reliance in this

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, SALEM vs. THRIVENI EARTHMOVERS PVT. LTD., SALEM

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2282/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2280, 2281, 2282 & 2283/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt Ltd, Of Income Tax, 22/110, Greenways Road, Central Circle, Fairlands, Salem Salem 636 016. [Pan Aabct 6759R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. M. Srinivasa Rao, IRS, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 148

disallowance of amount paid to M/s. Sakshi Trade Link Pvt Ltd. In case this Tribunal holds that no addition is warranted in respect of alleged bogus ITA Nos.2280-83 /2018 :- 10 -: expenditure paid to M/s. Sakshi Trade Link Pvt Ltd, no other addition can be made even in terms of Explanation 3 to Section 147 of the Act reliance in this

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, SALEM vs. THRIVENI EARTHMOVERS PVT. LTD., SALEM

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2283/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2280, 2281, 2282 & 2283/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt Ltd, Of Income Tax, 22/110, Greenways Road, Central Circle, Fairlands, Salem Salem 636 016. [Pan Aabct 6759R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. M. Srinivasa Rao, IRS, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 148

disallowance of amount paid to M/s. Sakshi Trade Link Pvt Ltd. In case this Tribunal holds that no addition is warranted in respect of alleged bogus ITA Nos.2280-83 /2018 :- 10 -: expenditure paid to M/s. Sakshi Trade Link Pvt Ltd, no other addition can be made even in terms of Explanation 3 to Section 147 of the Act reliance in this

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR M/S. MASCON GLOBAL LTD. (IN LIQUIDATION), CHENNAI

Accordingly, the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 633/CHNY/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2018AY 2004-05

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

disallowances. By relying on the 4 I.T.A. No.1139/Chny/08, 1135/Chny/10 & C.O. No. 69/Chny/17, 1136/Chny/10 & 632-634/Chny/17 decision in the case of CIT v. Shri Ram Singh 306 ITR 343 (Raj), the assessee contended before the ld. CIT(A) that the reassessment order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act cannot survive and deserves to be annulled. However

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR M/S. MASCON GLOBAL LTD. (IN LIQUIDATION), CHENNAI

Accordingly, the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 634/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

disallowances. By relying on the 4 I.T.A. No.1139/Chny/08, 1135/Chny/10 & C.O. No. 69/Chny/17, 1136/Chny/10 & 632-634/Chny/17 decision in the case of CIT v. Shri Ram Singh 306 ITR 343 (Raj), the assessee contended before the ld. CIT(A) that the reassessment order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act cannot survive and deserves to be annulled. However

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR M/S. MASCON GLOBAL LTD. (IN LIQUIDATION), CHENNAI

Accordingly, the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 632/CHNY/2017[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2018AY 2003-04

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

disallowances. By relying on the 4 I.T.A. No.1139/Chny/08, 1135/Chny/10 & C.O. No. 69/Chny/17, 1136/Chny/10 & 632-634/Chny/17 decision in the case of CIT v. Shri Ram Singh 306 ITR 343 (Raj), the assessee contended before the ld. CIT(A) that the reassessment order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act cannot survive and deserves to be annulled. However

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. MASCON GLOBAL LTD., CHENNAI

Accordingly, the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1139/CHNY/2008[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2018AY 2003-04

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

disallowances. By relying on the 4 I.T.A. No.1139/Chny/08, 1135/Chny/10 & C.O. No. 69/Chny/17, 1136/Chny/10 & 632-634/Chny/17 decision in the case of CIT v. Shri Ram Singh 306 ITR 343 (Raj), the assessee contended before the ld. CIT(A) that the reassessment order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act cannot survive and deserves to be annulled. However

SUNTEC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 3(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

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

ITA 3252/CHNY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri AR.V Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 143C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

section 143(3) :- 2 -: r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2021-22. 2. Brief facts of the case are as follows: The assessee is a private limited company engaged in software development services for banking and financial institutions. For the assessment year 2021-22, the return of income

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. VELS INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE & ADVANCED STUDIES, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue for assessment

ITA 3549/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.3547 To 3550/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2015-16) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs M/S. Vels Institute Of Science, (Exemptions), Chennai Circle Technology & Advanced Chennai-600 034. Studies, 521/2, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai-600 035. Pan: Aaatv 9804F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. R.Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: 08.12.2021
Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 143(3)

172 ITR 373) (Born) the Hon’ble High Court held that even ignoring the amendment to section 12, which means that even before the words appearing in parenthesis in the present section 12, it cannot be held that voluntary contributions specifically received towards corpus of the trust may be brought to tax. The aforesaid decision was followed by the Bombay

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. VELS INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE & ADVANCED STUDIES, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue for assessment

ITA 3548/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.3547 To 3550/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2015-16) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs M/S. Vels Institute Of Science, (Exemptions), Chennai Circle Technology & Advanced Chennai-600 034. Studies, 521/2, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai-600 035. Pan: Aaatv 9804F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. R.Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: 08.12.2021
Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 143(3)

172 ITR 373) (Born) the Hon’ble High Court held that even ignoring the amendment to section 12, which means that even before the words appearing in parenthesis in the present section 12, it cannot be held that voluntary contributions specifically received towards corpus of the trust may be brought to tax. The aforesaid decision was followed by the Bombay

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. VELS INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE & ADVANCED STUDIES, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue for assessment

ITA 3550/CHNY/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.3547 To 3550/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2015-16) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs M/S. Vels Institute Of Science, (Exemptions), Chennai Circle Technology & Advanced Chennai-600 034. Studies, 521/2, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai-600 035. Pan: Aaatv 9804F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. R.Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: 08.12.2021
Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 143(3)

172 ITR 373) (Born) the Hon’ble High Court held that even ignoring the amendment to section 12, which means that even before the words appearing in parenthesis in the present section 12, it cannot be held that voluntary contributions specifically received towards corpus of the trust may be brought to tax. The aforesaid decision was followed by the Bombay

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. VELS INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE & ADVANCED STUDIES, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue for assessment

ITA 3547/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.3547 To 3550/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2015-16) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs M/S. Vels Institute Of Science, (Exemptions), Chennai Circle Technology & Advanced Chennai-600 034. Studies, 521/2, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai-600 035. Pan: Aaatv 9804F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. R.Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: 08.12.2021
Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 143(3)

172 ITR 373) (Born) the Hon’ble High Court held that even ignoring the amendment to section 12, which means that even before the words appearing in parenthesis in the present section 12, it cannot be held that voluntary contributions specifically received towards corpus of the trust may be brought to tax. The aforesaid decision was followed by the Bombay

PARRY INFRASTRUCTURE CO P LTD. ,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 5(1) , CHENNAI

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

ITA 1653/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Philip George, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

172 & 173 of assessee’s Paper Book. The assessing officer held that since the assessee had entered into an MOU only with CFL the commission payable on the sale consideration agreed between CFL and M/s. Sheth Corporation P. Ltd. was allowable and allowed a proportionate sum of Rs.1,03,14,000/- and disallowed the balance of Rs.1

M/S. P.P. FINANCIERS,KARUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, COIMBATORE

ITA 3388/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1119, 1120 & 1121/Chny/2025 निधारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.209 To 213 & 214/Chny/2025 निधारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2014-15 & 2016-17 Mr. P. Palanisamy, 390, P.P. Nilayam, 9Th Main I Cross, Hal Ii Stage, Indira Nagar, Bengaluru-560 038. V. The Acit, Central Circle-3, Coimbatore. [Pan:Adspp 9150 F] (अपीलाथ/Appellant) (प्रयथ/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.219, 220, 221 & 222/Chny/2025 निधारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2010-11, 2017-18 & 2018-19 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.200, 201 To 208/Chny/2025 निधारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2011-12 To 2018-19 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3388 To 3392/Chny/2024 िनधारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2018-19 M/S. P.P. Financers, 24, Radha Avenue, 3Rd Street, Valsaravakkam, Chennai-600 087. V. The Acit, Central Circle-3, Coimbatore. [Pan: Aahfp 0288 L] (अपीलाथ/Appellant) (प्रयथ/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.215 To 218 & 223/Chny/2025 निधारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2015-16 To 2018-19 & 2014-15 Mr. P. Kuppuchamy, No.80/7, 17Th Cross, 16Th Main Road, Btm Layout, Ns Palya, Bangaluru-560 076. V. The Acit, Central Circle-3, Coimbatore.

3) It can also be seen that in the table that is drawn up in the approval, there are arithmetical discrepancies i.e., numbers in the table of additions provided does not add up and the undisclosed income is mentioned as “00” in some of the years, which go on to reflect that the approval has been granted without application

SELLAMUTHU KABILAN,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CRICLE 3, COIMBATORE, COIMBATORE

ITA 3376/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

3), date of order \n26/12/2018 are quashed.”\n26. It is apparent from a plain reading of section 153C of the Act \nthat the provision refers to “six assessment years immediately \npreceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in \nwhich the search is concluded or requisition is made” and, \nadditionally, to the “relevant assessment year or years” for which

P. PALANISAMY,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, COIMBATORE

ITA 210/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1119, 1120 & 1121/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.209 To 213 & 214/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2014-15 & 2016-17 Mr. P. Palanisamy, 390, P.P. Nilayam, 9Th Main I Cross, Hal Ii Stage, Indira Nagar, Bengaluru-560 038. V. The Acit, Central Circle-3, Coimbatore. [Pan:Adspp 9150 F] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्र] )/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.219, 220, 221 & 222/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2010-11, 2017-18 & 2018-19 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.200, 201 To 208/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2011-12 To 2018-19 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3388 To 3392/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2018-19 M/S. P.P. Financers, 24, Radha Avenue, 3Rd Street, Valsaravakkam, Chennai-600 087. V. The Acit, Central Circle-3, Coimbatore. [Pan:Aahfp 0288 L] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्र] /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.215 To 218 & 223/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2015-16 To 2018-19 & 2014-15 Mr. P. Kuppuchamy, No.80/7, 17Th Cross, 16Th Main Road, Btm Layout, Ns Palya, Bangaluru-560 076. V. The Acit, Central Circle-3, Coimbatore.

3) It can also be seen that in the table that is drawn up in the approval, there are arithmetical discrepancies i.e., numbers in the table of additions provided does not add up and the undisclosed income is mentioned as “00” in some of the years, which go on to reflect that the approval has been granted without application