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.

226 results for “disallowance”+ Section 178clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai942Delhi874Bangalore297Kolkata296Chennai226Ahmedabad213Jaipur135Hyderabad115Indore86Pune75Chandigarh69Raipur67Cochin53Lucknow41Surat36Ranchi35Calcutta35Guwahati29Amritsar28Allahabad25Karnataka17Telangana17Cuttack17Nagpur14Visakhapatnam13Jodhpur13Rajkot12SC8Agra6Dehradun6Varanasi6Patna6Jabalpur3Panaji2Kerala1Rajasthan1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1Uttarakhand1Punjab & Haryana1Orissa1

Key Topics

Disallowance55Section 14A52Section 143(3)43Addition to Income42Section 153C24Section 153A18Section 14818Section 4017Deduction16Depreciation

TAMIL NADU INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in I

ITA 692/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jul 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Milind Madhukar Bhusari, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 43B

section 43B of the Act, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee itself has disallowed the expenditure in the computation of income, and therefore, he has pleaded that the Assessing Officer cannot make double disallowance, which was already disallowed by the assessee. In view of the above submissions, we direct the Assessing Officer to verify

Showing 1–20 of 226 · Page 1 of 12

...
13
Section 143(1)10
Section 36(1)(iii)10

TAMIL NADU INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in I

ITA 691/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jul 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Milind Madhukar Bhusari, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 43B

section 43B of the Act, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee itself has disallowed the expenditure in the computation of income, and therefore, he has pleaded that the Assessing Officer cannot make double disallowance, which was already disallowed by the assessee. In view of the above submissions, we direct the Assessing Officer to verify

K.BADAL BAI L/H OF LATE SRI A.KEWALCHAND,GUDIYATHAM vs. ACIT, VELLORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed/ treated as allowed

ITA 1688/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Mrs. Ann Mary Baby, JCIT
Section 14ASection 40A(3)

178 :-12-: 10.1 The AR further submitted that the capital of the assessee was sufficient to cover the investment in the assets considered for the purpose of disallowance u/s 14A and hence, no disallowance could be made under section

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)

178 Veerapandi Filling charges 65,048 Total 1,17,55,663 Since the assessee has not deducted tax at source on the above payments of ₹.1,17,55,663/- to contractors for the assessment year 2013- 14, the Assessing Officer invoked the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) and made the disalalowance. Similarly, the Assessing Officer disallowed

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)

178 Veerapandi Filling charges 65,048 Total 1,17,55,663 Since the assessee has not deducted tax at source on the above payments of ₹.1,17,55,663/- to contractors for the assessment year 2013- 14, the Assessing Officer invoked the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) and made the disalalowance. Similarly, the Assessing Officer disallowed

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)

178 Veerapandi Filling charges 65,048 Total 1,17,55,663 Since the assessee has not deducted tax at source on the above payments of ₹.1,17,55,663/- to contractors for the assessment year 2013- 14, the Assessing Officer invoked the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) and made the disalalowance. Similarly, the Assessing Officer disallowed

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)

178 Veerapandi Filling charges 65,048 Total 1,17,55,663 Since the assessee has not deducted tax at source on the above payments of ₹.1,17,55,663/- to contractors for the assessment year 2013- 14, the Assessing Officer invoked the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) and made the disalalowance. Similarly, the Assessing Officer disallowed

M/S. UPDATER SERVICES LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by both the assessee and the Revenue, as well as the grounds raised in the cross-objections filed by the assessee, are treated as allowed for statistical...

ITA 1339/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1339 /Chny/2025 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Updater Services Limited (Formerly Dcit, Known As Updater Services Private Vs. Central Circle -2(3), Limited), No.2/302-A, Uds Salai, Chennai. Off Old Mahabalipuram Road, Thoraipakkam, Chennai – 600 097. [Pan:Aaacu-6845-J] (अपीलाथ%/Appellant) (&'थ%/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. K. Prasanna, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T
Section 115QSection 250Section 263Section 391Section 77A

disallow a sum of INR 5,70,62,500 (being 10% of the total consideration paid by the Company) on an ad-hoc basis under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act as interest on funds utilized for acquiring a capital asset (being own shares of the Company) and shall therefore not be allowed as deduction as per the proviso

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. UPDATER SERVICES LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by both the assessee and the Revenue, as well as the grounds raised in the cross-objections filed by the assessee, are treated as allowed for statistical...

ITA 1616/CHNY/2025[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1339 /Chny/2025 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Updater Services Limited (Formerly Dcit, Known As Updater Services Private Vs. Central Circle -2(3), Limited), No.2/302-A, Uds Salai, Chennai. Off Old Mahabalipuram Road, Thoraipakkam, Chennai – 600 097. [Pan:Aaacu-6845-J] (अपीलाथ%/Appellant) (&'थ%/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. K. Prasanna, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T
Section 115QSection 250Section 263Section 391Section 77A

disallow a sum of INR 5,70,62,500 (being 10% of the total consideration paid by the Company) on an ad-hoc basis under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act as interest on funds utilized for acquiring a capital asset (being own shares of the Company) and shall therefore not be allowed as deduction as per the proviso

ACIT LTU 2, CHENNAI vs. NLC INDIA LIMITED, NEYVELI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for both assessment years are dismissed

ITA 952/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Feb 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 868 & 869/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Nlc India Ltd., The Dcit, (Formerly Known As Neyveli V. Company Circle Vi(4), Lignite Corporation Ltd.), Chennai. Block-1, Corporate Office, Neyveli Township, Cuddalore District, Neyveli – 607 801. Pan: Aaacn1121C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 952 & 953/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Dcit, M/S. Nlc India Ltd., Company Circle Vi(4), V. (Formerly Known As Neyveli Chennai. Lignite Corporation Ltd.), Block-1, Corporate Office, Neyveli Township, Cuddalore District, Neyveli – 607 801. Pan: Aaacn1121C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रतीक" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Raghavan Ramabadran, Ca : राज"कीओरसे /Revenue By Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, Cit

For Appellant: Shri Raghavan Ramabadran, CA
Section 14ASection 80I

178 of the Electricity Act • 2003 read with section 61 thereof CERC notifies (Terms and conditions of Tariff) Regulations. • These regulations apply in cases where tariff for a generating station or a unit thereof is required to be determined by the Commission under Section 62 of the Act read with section 179 thereof. The relevant extracts attached. c) How tariff

NLC INDIA LTD.,NEYVELI vs. DCIT LTU II, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for both assessment years are dismissed

ITA 869/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Feb 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 868 & 869/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Nlc India Ltd., The Dcit, (Formerly Known As Neyveli V. Company Circle Vi(4), Lignite Corporation Ltd.), Chennai. Block-1, Corporate Office, Neyveli Township, Cuddalore District, Neyveli – 607 801. Pan: Aaacn1121C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 952 & 953/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Dcit, M/S. Nlc India Ltd., Company Circle Vi(4), V. (Formerly Known As Neyveli Chennai. Lignite Corporation Ltd.), Block-1, Corporate Office, Neyveli Township, Cuddalore District, Neyveli – 607 801. Pan: Aaacn1121C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रतीक" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Raghavan Ramabadran, Ca : राज"कीओरसे /Revenue By Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, Cit

For Appellant: Shri Raghavan Ramabadran, CA
Section 14ASection 80I

178 of the Electricity Act • 2003 read with section 61 thereof CERC notifies (Terms and conditions of Tariff) Regulations. • These regulations apply in cases where tariff for a generating station or a unit thereof is required to be determined by the Commission under Section 62 of the Act read with section 179 thereof. The relevant extracts attached. c) How tariff

ACIT LTU 2, CHENNAI vs. NLC INDIA LIMITED, NEYVELI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for both assessment years are dismissed

ITA 953/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Feb 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 868 & 869/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Nlc India Ltd., The Dcit, (Formerly Known As Neyveli V. Company Circle Vi(4), Lignite Corporation Ltd.), Chennai. Block-1, Corporate Office, Neyveli Township, Cuddalore District, Neyveli – 607 801. Pan: Aaacn1121C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 952 & 953/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Dcit, M/S. Nlc India Ltd., Company Circle Vi(4), V. (Formerly Known As Neyveli Chennai. Lignite Corporation Ltd.), Block-1, Corporate Office, Neyveli Township, Cuddalore District, Neyveli – 607 801. Pan: Aaacn1121C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रतीक" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Raghavan Ramabadran, Ca : राज"कीओरसे /Revenue By Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, Cit

For Appellant: Shri Raghavan Ramabadran, CA
Section 14ASection 80I

178 of the Electricity Act • 2003 read with section 61 thereof CERC notifies (Terms and conditions of Tariff) Regulations. • These regulations apply in cases where tariff for a generating station or a unit thereof is required to be determined by the Commission under Section 62 of the Act read with section 179 thereof. The relevant extracts attached. c) How tariff

NLC INDIA LTD.,NEYVELI vs. DCIT LTU II, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for both assessment years are dismissed

ITA 868/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Feb 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 868 & 869/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Nlc India Ltd., The Dcit, (Formerly Known As Neyveli V. Company Circle Vi(4), Lignite Corporation Ltd.), Chennai. Block-1, Corporate Office, Neyveli Township, Cuddalore District, Neyveli – 607 801. Pan: Aaacn1121C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 952 & 953/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Dcit, M/S. Nlc India Ltd., Company Circle Vi(4), V. (Formerly Known As Neyveli Chennai. Lignite Corporation Ltd.), Block-1, Corporate Office, Neyveli Township, Cuddalore District, Neyveli – 607 801. Pan: Aaacn1121C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रतीक" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Raghavan Ramabadran, Ca : राज"कीओरसे /Revenue By Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, Cit

For Appellant: Shri Raghavan Ramabadran, CA
Section 14ASection 80I

178 of the Electricity Act • 2003 read with section 61 thereof CERC notifies (Terms and conditions of Tariff) Regulations. • These regulations apply in cases where tariff for a generating station or a unit thereof is required to be determined by the Commission under Section 62 of the Act read with section 179 thereof. The relevant extracts attached. c) How tariff

ACIT, LTU-2,, CHENNAI vs. ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2618/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

disallowing a part of interest payments under section 14A of the Act read with rule 8D(2)(ii) of I.T Rules, 1962 needs to be set aside". We also note that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. (2009) 313 ITR 340 has laid the proposition of law that, when

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI vs. ANSALDO CALDAIE BOILERS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

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

ITA 1999/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1999/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Ansaldo Caldaie Boilers India Income Tax, Private Limited, New No. 45 (Old No. 45), No. 3, 3Rd Floor, Manjula Towers, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai 600 034. Ceebros Complex, Egmore, Chennai 600 008. [Pan:Aafca0623B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 13.06.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.06.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai, Dated 29.03.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2015-16. The Grounds Raised By The Revenue Are As Under: 1. The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Is Contrary To Law, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2.1 The Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Disallowance Made U/S 36(1)(Iii) Of The Act Based On The Fresh Evidences Furnished By The Assessee During The Course Of Appellate Proceedings, Without Affording Any Opportunity To The Ao Under Rule 46A For Verifying The Additional Evidences Submitted By The Assessee Based On Which Relief Was Given.

For Appellant: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CITFor Respondent: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate
Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(ii)Section 36(1)(iii)

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act, by considering the fresh evidences furnished by the assessee during the course of appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition made towards disallowance of interest without affording an opportunity to the Assessing Officer to verify the additional evidences submitted by the assessee is in violation of Rule

M/S. ASHOK LEYLAND LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, NCC-8(1), LTU-II, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2379/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.R. VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Mr.Nathala Ravi Babu, CIT
Section 14A

disallowing a part of interest payments under section 14A of the Act ( under section 14A of the Act (read with rule 8D(2)(ii) of I.T Rules, 1962 le 8D(2)(ii) of I.T Rules, 1962) needs to be set aside" eeds to be set aside". We also note that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case

SELVA GANESH CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD-6(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee in I

ITA 1654/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A Nos.:1654 To 1658/Chny/2019 Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17

For Appellant: Mr. J. Prabhakar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Mr. ARV Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40

178 5,07,096 4,54,705 Maintenance Other Repair 64,946 97,482 70,296 34,670 0 Total 11,60,852 13,24,472 13,92,019 11,14,951 7,59,954 The Assessing Officer had disallowed the depreciation and the related expenses of the aforesaid motor vehicle on the ground that the registration certificate

SELVA GANESH CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD-6(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee in I

ITA 1658/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A Nos.:1654 To 1658/Chny/2019 Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17

For Appellant: Mr. J. Prabhakar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Mr. ARV Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40

178 5,07,096 4,54,705 Maintenance Other Repair 64,946 97,482 70,296 34,670 0 Total 11,60,852 13,24,472 13,92,019 11,14,951 7,59,954 The Assessing Officer had disallowed the depreciation and the related expenses of the aforesaid motor vehicle on the ground that the registration certificate

SELVA GANESH CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD-6(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee in I

ITA 1657/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A Nos.:1654 To 1658/Chny/2019 Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17

For Appellant: Mr. J. Prabhakar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Mr. ARV Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40

178 5,07,096 4,54,705 Maintenance Other Repair 64,946 97,482 70,296 34,670 0 Total 11,60,852 13,24,472 13,92,019 11,14,951 7,59,954 The Assessing Officer had disallowed the depreciation and the related expenses of the aforesaid motor vehicle on the ground that the registration certificate

SELVA GANESH CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD-6(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee in I

ITA 1656/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A Nos.:1654 To 1658/Chny/2019 Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17

For Appellant: Mr. J. Prabhakar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Mr. ARV Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40

178 5,07,096 4,54,705 Maintenance Other Repair 64,946 97,482 70,296 34,670 0 Total 11,60,852 13,24,472 13,92,019 11,14,951 7,59,954 The Assessing Officer had disallowed the depreciation and the related expenses of the aforesaid motor vehicle on the ground that the registration certificate