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.

188 results for “disallowance”+ Section 249(4)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,059Delhi648Kolkata237Chennai188Bangalore176Ahmedabad155Jaipur145Pune101Surat91Hyderabad71Indore70Raipur66Amritsar54Chandigarh52Cochin43Nagpur42Visakhapatnam40Guwahati22Lucknow21Ranchi19Cuttack18Rajkot14Patna11Telangana10Varanasi9Karnataka7Agra7Panaji5Allahabad5Dehradun4SC4Jodhpur3Kerala2Calcutta2Rajasthan2ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Disallowance56Addition to Income54Section 271(1)(c)50Section 143(3)46Deduction38Section 10B36Section 14A33Section 14833Section 80I31Section 143(1)

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

ITA 1262/CHNY/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon'Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1193, 1194, 1205, 1206 & 1207/Chny/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Cognizant Technology Solutions Vs The Asst. Commissioner India Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, No.5/535, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Central Circle 1(1), Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai. Chennai - 600 096. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Pan: Aaacd 3312M (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1262, 1263, 1264, 1265 & 1266/Chny/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs Cognizant Technology Income Tax, Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle 1(1), No.5/535, Okkiam Chennai. Thoraipakkam, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai - 600 096. Pan: Aaacd 3312M (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निधारिती की ओर से/Assessee By राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit & Ms. Anitha, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.05.2025 - 2 -

For Respondent: Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate
Section 10ASection 14ASection 40Section 9(1)

4. The substantial questions of law raised for consideration were answered against the Revenue in the case of Marg Ltd. v. CIT [2020] 120 taxmann.com 84/275 Taxman 502 (Mad.). The operative portion of the judgment reads as follows: "9. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of CIT v. Tidel Park Ltd. [TCA Nos.732

Showing 1–20 of 188 · Page 1 of 10

...
29
Section 1124
TDS20

COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1),, CHENNAI

ITA 1207/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1193, 1194, 1205, 1206 & 1207/Chny/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Vs Cognizant Technology Solutions The Asst. Commissioner India Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, No.5/535, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Central Circle 1(1), Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 096. Pan : Aaacd 3312M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1262, 1263, 1264, 1265 & 1266/Chny/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Vs The Asst. Commissioner Of Cognizant Technology Income Tax, Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle 1(1), No.5/535, Okkiam Chennai. Thoraipakkam, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai – 600 096. Pan : Aaacd 3312M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 14ASection 40Section 9(1)

4. The substantial questions of law raised for consideration were answered against the Revenue in the case of Marg Ltd. v. CIT [2020] 120 taxmann.com 84/275 Taxman 502 (Mad.). The operative portion of the judgment reads as follows: "9. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of CIT v. Tidel Park Ltd. [TCA Nos.732

COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1),, CHENNAI

ITA 1193/CHNY/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1193, 1194, 1205, 1206 & 1207/Chny/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Vs Cognizant Technology Solutions The Asst. Commissioner India Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, No.5/535, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Central Circle 1(1), Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 096. Pan : Aaacd 3312M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1262, 1263, 1264, 1265 & 1266/Chny/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Vs The Asst. Commissioner Of Cognizant Technology Income Tax, Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle 1(1), No.5/535, Okkiam Chennai. Thoraipakkam, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai – 600 096. Pan : Aaacd 3312M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 14ASection 40Section 9(1)

4. The substantial questions of law raised for consideration were answered against the Revenue in the case of Marg Ltd. v. CIT [2020] 120 taxmann.com 84/275 Taxman 502 (Mad.). The operative portion of the judgment reads as follows: "9. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of CIT v. Tidel Park Ltd. [TCA Nos.732

TAMILNADU INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1159/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. SailendraMamidi. Pr. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 14A

section he has disallowed the expense. 5. The CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Interest paid on Ways and Means Advance amounting to Rs. 37,80,822/- 5.1 The CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the interest was payable on Ways and Means Advance of Rs. 50 crores received from the Government of Tamilnadu. The Government

TAMILNADU INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1160/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. SailendraMamidi. Pr. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 14A

section he has disallowed the expense. 5. The CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Interest paid on Ways and Means Advance amounting to Rs. 37,80,822/- 5.1 The CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the interest was payable on Ways and Means Advance of Rs. 50 crores received from the Government of Tamilnadu. The Government

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. INTEGRATED SERVICE POINT LIMITED, ANNA NAGAR

Accordingly, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos. 1881, 1882, and 1883/Chny/2025 for A.Ys. 2016-17, 2019-20, and 2022-23 are allowed

ITA 1879/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon’Ble Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.1881, 1882 & 1883/Chny/2025 िनधा;रण वष; /Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2019-20 & 2022-23

For Appellant: Mr. Y. Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Mr. Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 134(4)Section 250

Disallowance u/S 37(1) - 53,25,720 3,89,98,710 4,43,24,430 Bogus purchases Unexplained money u/S Nil 39,22,000 39,22,000 69A and unexplained 42,30,000 42,30,000 expenditure u/S 69C Income on account of 1,97,03,000 Nil 1,97,03,000 Palakol land sale Misc. income on sale

INTEGRATED SERVICE POINT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), CHENNAI

Accordingly, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos. 1881, 1882, and 1883/Chny/2025 for A.Ys. 2016-17, 2019-20, and 2022-23 are allowed

ITA 1882/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon’Ble Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.1881, 1882 & 1883/Chny/2025 िनधा;रण वष; /Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2019-20 & 2022-23

For Appellant: Mr. Y. Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Mr. Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 134(4)Section 250

Disallowance u/S 37(1) - 53,25,720 3,89,98,710 4,43,24,430 Bogus purchases Unexplained money u/S Nil 39,22,000 39,22,000 69A and unexplained 42,30,000 42,30,000 expenditure u/S 69C Income on account of 1,97,03,000 Nil 1,97,03,000 Palakol land sale Misc. income on sale

ACIT, NUNAGAMBAKKAM vs. INTEGRATED SERVICE POINT LIMITED, ANNA NAGAR

ITA 1874/CHNY/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Dec 2025

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon'Ble Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.1881, 1882 & 1883/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2019-20 & 2022-23 Integrated Service Point Ltd., (Formerly Integrated Service Point Vs. Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd.,) The Dy./Asst. Commissioner Of Central Circle-2(4), 6C, 6Th Floor, Gaiety Palace I/L, Blackers Road, Anna Road H.O., Chennai - 600 002. Pan: Aaaci 9527P Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.1874, 1876 & 1879/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2019-20 & 2022-23 The Dy./Asst. Commissioner Of Integrated Service Point Ltd., Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai. (Formerly Integrated Service Point Vs. Pvt. Ltd.,) 6C, 6Th Floor, Gaiety Palace I/L, Blackers Road, Anna Road H.O., Chennai - 600 002. Pan: Aaaci 9527P (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr. Y. Sridhar, Fca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By Mr. Bipin C.N, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement 13.10.2025 30.12.2025 - : 2 -:

For Appellant: Mr. Y. Sridhar, FCA
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 134(4)Section 250

Disallowance u/S 37(1) - Bogus purchases 53,25,720 3,89,98,710 4,43,24,430 Unexplained money u/S 69A and unexplained expenditure u/S 69C Nil 39,22,000 42,30,000 39,22,000 42,30,000 Income on account of Palakol land sale 1,97,03,000 Nil 1,97,03,000 Misc. income on sale

ACIT, NUNGAMBAKKAM vs. INTEGRATED SERVICE POINT LIMITED, ANNA NAGAR

ITA 1876/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon'Ble Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.1881, 1882 & 1883/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2019-20 & 2022-23 Integrated Service Point Ltd., (Formerly Integrated Service Point Vs. Pvt. Ltd.,) The Dy./Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai. 6C, 6Th Floor, Gaiety Palace I/L, Blackers Road, Anna Road H.O., Chennai - 600 002. Pan: Aaaci 9527P (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.1874, 1876 & 1879/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2019-20 & 2022-23 The Dy./Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai. Integrated Service Point Ltd., (Formerly Integrated Service Point Vs. Pvt. Ltd.,) 6C, 6Th Floor, Gaiety Palace I/L, Blackers Road, Anna Road H.O., Chennai - 600 002. Pan: Aaaci 9527P (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr. Y. Sridhar, Fca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr. Bipin C.N, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.10.2025 घोषण की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 30.12.2025 :- 2 -:

For Appellant: Mr. Y. Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Mr. Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 134(4)Section 250

Disallowance u/S 37(1) - Bogus purchases 53,25,720 3,89,98,710 4,43,24,430 Unexplained money u/S 69A and unexplained expenditure u/S 69C Nil 39,22,000 42,30,000 39,22,000 42,30,000 Income on account of Palakol land sale 1,97,03,000 Nil 1,97,03,000 Misc. income on sale

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -4, PUDUCHERRY vs. KALAPET PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. , PONDICHERRY

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes’’

ITA 2190/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Feb 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

For Appellant: Mrs. S. Vijayaprabha, IRS, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. T. Vasudevan, Advocate
Section 5Section 56Section 80Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

disallowed by the AO in assessment on the ground that the assessee-society is a primary cooperative bank, a term defined under the BR Act, as a co-operative- society, other than a primary agricultural credit society, whose primary object or principal business is the transaction of banking business. Further qualifications (for it to be so ITA Nos.2190 to 2193/2017

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT-3, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals for AY 2014-15, 2016-17 & 2017-18 are partly allowed and appeals for AY 2015-16 & 2017-18 (in ITA No

ITA 182/CHNY/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1759/Chny/2019, 182 & 183/Chny/2021, 430/Chny/2022 & 683/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of O/O The Chief Manager, Cfac Income Tax – 3, Department, Head Office, United India Chennai 600 034. Nalanda, Door No. 19, Ground Floor, 4Th Lane, Utamar Gandhi Salai, Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aaacu5552C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sundararaman, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. V. Pushpa, Sr. Standing Counsel (Virtual) सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 07.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: The Appeal In Ita No. 1759/Chny/2019 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.03.2019 Passed By The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2014- 15. The Appeals In Ita No. 182 & 183/Chny/2021 Are Filed By The Assessee Against Different Orders Both Dated 28.03.2021 Passed By The Ld. Pcit-3, Chennai For The Assessment 2015-16 & 2016-17. The 2

For Appellant: Shri S. Sundararaman, CAFor Respondent: Ms. V. Pushpa, Sr. Standing Counsel
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 44

249 placed at pages 60 to 70 of paper book and the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Escorts reported in 338 ITR 435 placed at pages 71 to 84 of paper book for the proposition that if similar claims have been allowed in the earlier assessment years, revisionary proceedings cannot be initiated

UNITED INDIA INSUANCE CO LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT 3, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals for AY 2014-15, 2016-17 & 2017-18 are

ITA 683/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jan 2026AY 2017-18
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 44

249 placed at pages 60 to 70 of paper book and the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Escorts reported in 338 ITR 435 placed at pages 71 to 84 of paper book for the proposition that if similar claims have been allowed in the earlier assessment years, revisionary proceedings cannot be initiated

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD,CHENNAI vs. PCIT-3,, CHENNAI

ITA 1759/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jan 2026AY 2014-15
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 44

249 placed at pages 60 to 70 of paper book and the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Escorts reported in 338 ITR 435 placed at pages 71 to 84 of paper book for the proposition that if similar claims have been allowed in the earlier assessment years, revisionary proceedings cannot be initiated

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD,CHENNAI vs. PCIT, CHENNAI

ITA 430/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jan 2026AY 2017-18
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 44

249 placed at pages 60 to 70 of paper book and the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Escorts reported in 338 ITR 435 placed at pages 71 to 84 of paper book for the proposition that if similar claims have been allowed in the earlier assessment years, revisionary proceedings cannot be initiated

SAHAI & SONS (I) LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

ITA 1447/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

For Appellant: Shri. N. Muralikumaran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. D. Prabhu Mukunth Arun
Section 132Section 153A

Section 68 of the Act, from sales accounted by the assessee. As mentioned by us at para 53 and 54 above, it is an undisputed position that credits in bullion margin money account were generally transferred to sales account. Addition of credit in bullion margin money account has been sustained by us, only to the extent not transferred/accounted

NARESH PRASAD AGARWAL,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

ITA 1449/CHNY/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jun 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

For Appellant: Shri. N. Muralikumaran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. D. Prabhu Mukunth Arun
Section 132Section 153A

Section 68 of the Act, from sales accounted by the assessee. As mentioned by us at para 53 and 54 above, it is an undisputed position that credits in bullion margin money account were generally transferred to sales account. Addition of credit in bullion margin money account has been sustained by us, only to the extent not transferred/accounted

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. NARESH PRASAD AGARWAL, CHENNAI

ITA 1485/CHNY/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jun 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

For Appellant: Shri. N. Muralikumaran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. D. Prabhu Mukunth Arun
Section 132Section 153A

Section 68 of the Act, from sales accounted by the assessee. As mentioned by us at para 53 and 54 above, it is an undisputed position that credits in bullion margin money account were generally transferred to sales account. Addition of credit in bullion margin money account has been sustained by us, only to the extent not transferred/accounted

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1), CHENNAI vs. SHIV SAHAI & SONS (INDIA) LTD., CHENNAI

ITA 1988/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

For Appellant: Shri. N. Muralikumaran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. D. Prabhu Mukunth Arun
Section 132Section 153A

Section 68 of the Act, from sales accounted by the assessee. As mentioned by us at para 53 and 54 above, it is an undisputed position that credits in bullion margin money account were generally transferred to sales account. Addition of credit in bullion margin money account has been sustained by us, only to the extent not transferred/accounted

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. COMSTAR AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOGIES P LTD., CHENGALPUT

ITA 1071/CHNY/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 827, 828, 829 & 830/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2005-06, 2005-06, 2007-08 & 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Prabhu Mukunth Arun Kumar, Jr
Section 10ASection 10BSection 2(45)Section 5Section 71

249 is exempt u/s 10(35). The assessee has interest outgo of :-10-: ITA Nos: 827, 828, 829, 830 1071, 1072/Chny/2017 Rs.1,08,77,141 and hence he disallowed interest in accordance with Rule 8D at Rs.9,77,156. Before the CIT(A) the assessee had provided the computation and contended that the figures adopted

COMSTAR AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOGIES (P) LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

ITA 828/CHNY/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Feb 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 827, 828, 829 & 830/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2005-06, 2005-06, 2007-08 & 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Prabhu Mukunth Arun Kumar, Jr
Section 10ASection 10BSection 2(45)Section 5Section 71

249 is exempt u/s 10(35). The assessee has interest outgo of :-10-: ITA Nos: 827, 828, 829, 830 1071, 1072/Chny/2017 Rs.1,08,77,141 and hence he disallowed interest in accordance with Rule 8D at Rs.9,77,156. Before the CIT(A) the assessee had provided the computation and contended that the figures adopted