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.

75 results for “disallowance”+ Section 194A(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai242Delhi159Bangalore140Kolkata89Chennai75Ahmedabad68Pune61Hyderabad52Chandigarh47Cochin47Visakhapatnam39Cuttack35Jaipur34Rajkot23Raipur22Surat19Jodhpur12Guwahati12Nagpur12Amritsar10Panaji5Ranchi4Allahabad4Indore4Karnataka3Lucknow3SC2Patna2Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 4092Section 194A55Disallowance49Section 143(3)45Deduction44Addition to Income43TDS42Section 14A33Section 194A(3)16Section 194A(3)(viia)

VIRUDHUNAGAR CENTRAL DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. ITO, VIRUDHUNAGAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both the years are

ITA 2055/CHNY/2014[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan, Shri Abraham P. George & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2055 & 2056/Chny/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2012-13 & 2013-2014. The Virudhunagar District Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Tds Ward, 104/1, Madurai Road, Virudhungar. Virudhunagar 626 001. [Pan Aaaau 0147N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri. Sailendra Mamidi, PCIT
Section 194ASection 194A(3)Section 201

section 40(a)(ia) and disallowed the corresponding expenditure with the finding that the assessee was liable to deduct tax in view of specific clause (viia) of 194A(3

VIRUDHUNAGAR CENTRAL DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. ITO, VIRUDHUNAGAR

Showing 1–20 of 75 · Page 1 of 4

16
Section 36(1)14
Section 194A(1)13

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both the years are

ITA 2056/CHNY/2014[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan, Shri Abraham P. George & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2055 & 2056/Chny/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2012-13 & 2013-2014. The Virudhunagar District Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Tds Ward, 104/1, Madurai Road, Virudhungar. Virudhunagar 626 001. [Pan Aaaau 0147N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri. Sailendra Mamidi, PCIT
Section 194ASection 194A(3)Section 201

section 40(a)(ia) and disallowed the corresponding expenditure with the finding that the assessee was liable to deduct tax in view of specific clause (viia) of 194A(3

THE LIC EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are stands allowed

ITA 825/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jun 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaraman

Section 194ASection 194A(1)Section 194A(3)Section 194A(3)(i)Section 194A(3)(v)Section 194A(3)(viia)

disallowance of the interest paid to co-operative societies on the ground that no TDS has been made u/s.194A(3) of the Act. The Ld.AR submitted that the issue was squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s.Coimbatore Central Co- operative Bank Ltd. vs. the TDS Officer in Tax Case Appeal

THE LIC EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are stands allowed

ITA 826/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jun 2017AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaraman

Section 194ASection 194A(1)Section 194A(3)Section 194A(3)(i)Section 194A(3)(v)Section 194A(3)(viia)

disallowance of the interest paid to co-operative societies on the ground that no TDS has been made u/s.194A(3) of the Act. The Ld.AR submitted that the issue was squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s.Coimbatore Central Co- operative Bank Ltd. vs. the TDS Officer in Tax Case Appeal

THE LIC EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are stands allowed

ITA 824/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jun 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaraman

Section 194ASection 194A(1)Section 194A(3)Section 194A(3)(i)Section 194A(3)(v)Section 194A(3)(viia)

disallowance of the interest paid to co-operative societies on the ground that no TDS has been made u/s.194A(3) of the Act. The Ld.AR submitted that the issue was squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s.Coimbatore Central Co- operative Bank Ltd. vs. the TDS Officer in Tax Case Appeal

THE LIC EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are stands allowed

ITA 823/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jun 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaraman

Section 194ASection 194A(1)Section 194A(3)Section 194A(3)(i)Section 194A(3)(v)Section 194A(3)(viia)

disallowance of the interest paid to co-operative societies on the ground that no TDS has been made u/s.194A(3) of the Act. The Ld.AR submitted that the issue was squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s.Coimbatore Central Co- operative Bank Ltd. vs. the TDS Officer in Tax Case Appeal

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)

disallowance made under section 14A to the extent of dividend income earned by the assessee. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed in this regard. 31. On the issue of the transfer pricing adjustment in respect of the investment in OFCD , the ld DR submitted that during the year, SVL had invested in the OFCDs issued

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)

disallowance made under section 14A to the extent of dividend income earned by the assessee. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed in this regard. 31. On the issue of the transfer pricing adjustment in respect of the investment in OFCD , the ld DR submitted that during the year, SVL had invested in the OFCDs issued

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)

disallowance made under section 14A to the extent of dividend income earned by the assessee. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed in this regard. 31. On the issue of the transfer pricing adjustment in respect of the investment in OFCD , the ld DR submitted that during the year, SVL had invested in the OFCDs issued

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)

disallowance made under section 14A to the extent of dividend income earned by the assessee. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed in this regard. 31. On the issue of the transfer pricing adjustment in respect of the investment in OFCD , the ld DR submitted that during the year, SVL had invested in the OFCDs issued

INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,LTU(2), CHENNAI

Accordingly, this ground of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 203/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.661/Chny/2019, 202 & 203/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-2018) Indian Overseas Bank, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of 763, Anna Salai, Income Tax, Chennai 600 002. Ltu (2) Chennai. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.914/Chny/2019, 253 & 254/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17&2017-2018) The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Indian Overseas Bank, Income Tax, 763, Anna Salai, Ltu (2) Chennai 600 002. Chennai. [Pan: Aaaci 1223J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. C. Naresh, C.A., Department By : Shri. A. Sasikumar, Irs. Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 14.11.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.12.2024

For Appellant: Shri. C. Naresh, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. A. Sasikumar, IRS. CIT
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 250Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

disallowed u/s. 43B for the reason that leave provision is a contractual liability and therefore, it cannot be treated at par with tax, duty, cess or fee u/s. 43B. However, in the SLP (Civil) Nos. 22889/2008 dated 08.05.2009 in the case of CIT &ors. Vs M/s. Exide Industries Ltd & ANR, wherein, the Apex Court held that “ pending hearing and final

COONOOR COOPERATIVE URBANK BANK LIMITED,COONOOR vs. DCIT,, OOTY

In the result, the appeal of the assesseein ITA No

ITA 228/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.228/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-2015) Coonoor Co-Operative Urban Bank Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, No.15, Mount Road, Circle I, Coonoor. Ooty. [Pan: Aaaac 0793M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Miss N.V. Lakshmi, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. Arv Srinivasan, Irs, Addl. Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.08.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Miss N.V. Lakshmi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. ARV Srinivasan, IRS, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 194ASection 36Section 40

Section 194A, 194A(3)(v), 194A(3)(vila)(b) and 194A(3) (i) (b) and disallowed the same on the ground

DCIT, CC-2,, MADURAI vs. SHRI V. MANOHARAN,, RAMNAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3246/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3246/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 & C.O. No. 2/Chny/2021 [In I.T.A. No.3246/Chny/2019] The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Shri V. Manoharan, Income Tax, D. No. 99/2, Maharnonbu Ground Road, Central Circle 2, Madurai. Near Velumanickam Theatre, Ramnad 632 501. [Pan: Acspm0189J] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) Department By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit Assessee By : None सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27.06.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.07.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: The Appeal Filed By The Revenue & The Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 19, Chennai, Dated 14.08.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2016-17. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Is Erroneous On Facts Of The Case & In Law.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 10Section 132Section 142(1)Section 28Section 44A

194A of the Act. Once, he is not required to deduct tax then automatically the assessee is immune from application of section 40(i)(a) of the Act. Therefore, the deduction on account of payment of interest in the present case cannot be disallowed under section 40(i)(a) of the Act. Moreover, the provision of section 40A(3

KAVYA TRAVEL PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD 4 (4), CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for ay: 2013-14

ITA 1790/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Ms.R.Anitha, JCITFor Respondent: 17.09.2019
Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 40

disallowed by the AO for ay: 2014-15 , keeping in view exemption provided u/s 194A(3)(iii)(a) read with section

KAVYA TRAVEL PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD 4 (4), CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for ay: 2013-14

ITA 1791/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Ms.R.Anitha, JCITFor Respondent: 17.09.2019
Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 40

disallowed by the AO for ay: 2014-15 , keeping in view exemption provided u/s 194A(3)(iii)(a) read with section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SALEM vs. GOVINDA RAJULU SRINIVASAN, SALEM

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1245/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.Bhupendran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs.C. Yamuna, CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 40Section 40A(3)

Disallowance u/s 40A(3) - Rs.40,72,980 5. And the Ld.CIT(A) found that the AO didn’t made any additions qua issues for which the assessment was reopened (as stated in the reasons Govinda Rajulu Srinivasan :: 4 :: recorded before issuing notice u/s.148 of the Act). Thus he found force in the legal issue raised by the assessee, by relying

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), CHENNAI vs. BAY FORGE LTD, KANCHEEPURAM

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

ITA 1462/CHNY/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1462/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 & C.O No.76/Chny/2019 [In I.T.A. No.1462/Chny/2019] The Dcit, Bay Forge Limited, Corporate Circle -1(2), Vs. Palayanoor Po Chennai. Vedanthangal Road, Pukkath Village, Madurantakam Taluk, Kancheepuram – 603 308. Pan: Aaacf 0453D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) राज" की ओर से /Revenue By : Dr. R. Mohan Reddy, Cit िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Raghav Menon, Advocate सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16.02.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.02.2023

For Appellant: Shri Raghav Menon, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. R. Mohan Reddy, CIT
Section 143Section 40Section 43B

section 194A(3) (iii) and hence it was not liable to deduct tax on the interest payments. Taking into account the facts, circumstances and the evidences furnished by the appellant I am inclined to accept the contentions of the appellant. The disallowance

THE IKKARAIBOLUVAMPATTI PACCS 33,COIMBATORE vs. ITO,NCW 4(2), COIMBATORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 461/CHNY/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.461/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S.Ikkaraiboluvampatti Paccs, V. The Income Tax Officer, 33, Rajaji Street, Non-Corporate Ward-4(2), Coimbatore. Coimbatore. [Pan: Aaaai 3699 A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.J.Saravanan, Adv. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.P.Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.10.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02.11.2022

For Respondent: Mr.P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

disallowed the Appellant's claim of deduction under section 80P(2)(a). 5.1 Vide the above referred decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, has held that the deduction under section 80P(2)(a) is available to only the 'operational income' from business, and not the 'other income' which accrues to a Co-operative society. Relying on the said decision

PATTURASU NAGAPUSHANAM,PONDICHERRY vs. ITO WARD 5, PONDICHERRY

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

ITA 3032/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3032/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Smt. Patturasu Nagapushanam, The Income Tax Officer, No. 17, Pudhu Nagar, Suthukeni, Vs. Ward 5, Pondicherry 605 502. Pondicherry. [Pan:Aespn5193F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Sivaraman, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 04.02.2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.02.2020 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)-Puducherry, Puducherry, Dated 31.08.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13. The Only Effective Ground Raised In The Appeal Of The Assessee Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Made Under Section 40(A)(Ia) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 197Section 40

3 I.T.A. No. 3032/Chny/18 Officer noticed that the assessee has not deducted TDS on the above payments as required under section 194A of the Act. Since the assessee has not produced any evidence of tax payment by HPCL, the Assessing Officer disallowed

CITY UNION BANK LIMITED,KUMBAKONAM vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA 1316/CHNY/2018

ITA 1130/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri. S. Ananthan,C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Sailendra Mamidi, IRS
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 40Section 41(1)

3. We find that in respect of the very same assessee, for the earlier assessment years, a Division Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. City Union Bank Ltd., [2007] 291 ITR 144 (Mad.) has answered both the substantial questions of law raised in this appeal in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The relevant