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.

279 results for “disallowance”+ Section 253(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,410Delhi953Chennai279Bangalore224Kolkata200Ahmedabad163Chandigarh148Pune131Jaipur130Indore123Surat89Lucknow59Raipur57Allahabad52Hyderabad39Amritsar37Cuttack37Panaji36Cochin34Rajkot32Ranchi28Telangana25Guwahati21Nagpur18Jodhpur17Agra14Karnataka12Varanasi12Visakhapatnam9Patna6SC5Jabalpur4Calcutta2Dehradun2Uttarakhand1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Orissa1Punjab & Haryana1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)63Disallowance56Addition to Income53Section 14848Section 153C47Section 14A40Deduction34Section 13229Section 4028Section 80I

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. GREEN HOUSE PROMOTERS PRIVATE LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 1796/CHNY/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jun 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru R.L. Reddyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 1785, 1796 & 1828/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2010-11, 2011-12 & 2009-2010. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income M/S. Green House Promoters Tax Vs. Pvt. Ltd, Company Circle Ii(1) No.4,Rama Rao Street, Chennai. T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan Aaccg 2333B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Supriyo Pal, IRS, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. Y. Sridhar, C.A
Section 194CSection 40Section 4U

disallowed 20% of the expenses u/s.40A(3). However, the AR of the appellant pleaded that for the nature of the business the appellant involved i.e. real estate on the second proviso to section 40A(3) section 40A(3) is clearly applicable to this case and further he has filed the additional submissions as under :- "January 1st was a holiday

Showing 1–20 of 279 · Page 1 of 14

...
27
Section 25024
Depreciation10

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. GREEN HOUSE PROMOTERS P. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 1785/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jun 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru R.L. Reddyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 1785, 1796 & 1828/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2010-11, 2011-12 & 2009-2010. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income M/S. Green House Promoters Tax Vs. Pvt. Ltd, Company Circle Ii(1) No.4,Rama Rao Street, Chennai. T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan Aaccg 2333B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Supriyo Pal, IRS, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. Y. Sridhar, C.A
Section 194CSection 40Section 4U

disallowed 20% of the expenses u/s.40A(3). However, the AR of the appellant pleaded that for the nature of the business the appellant involved i.e. real estate on the second proviso to section 40A(3) section 40A(3) is clearly applicable to this case and further he has filed the additional submissions as under :- "January 1st was a holiday

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. GREEN HOUSE PROMOTERS PRIVATE LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 1828/CHNY/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jun 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru R.L. Reddyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 1785, 1796 & 1828/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2010-11, 2011-12 & 2009-2010. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income M/S. Green House Promoters Tax Vs. Pvt. Ltd, Company Circle Ii(1) No.4,Rama Rao Street, Chennai. T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan Aaccg 2333B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Supriyo Pal, IRS, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. Y. Sridhar, C.A
Section 194CSection 40Section 4U

disallowed 20% of the expenses u/s.40A(3). However, the AR of the appellant pleaded that for the nature of the business the appellant involved i.e. real estate on the second proviso to section 40A(3) section 40A(3) is clearly applicable to this case and further he has filed the additional submissions as under :- "January 1st was a holiday

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)

section 253(2A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. The learned TPO has erred in not providing any basis for arriving at 3.5 percentage as arm’s length price commission for issuing corporate guarantee for the subject AY 2009-10. 3. The learned TPO erred in not appreciating the fact that the learned TPO himself applied the rate

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)

section 253(2A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. The learned TPO has erred in not providing any basis for arriving at 3.5 percentage as arm’s length price commission for issuing corporate guarantee for the subject AY 2009-10. 3. The learned TPO erred in not appreciating the fact that the learned TPO himself applied the rate

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)

section 253(2A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. The learned TPO has erred in not providing any basis for arriving at 3.5 percentage as arm’s length price commission for issuing corporate guarantee for the subject AY 2009-10. 3. The learned TPO erred in not appreciating the fact that the learned TPO himself applied the rate

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)

section 253(2A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. The learned TPO has erred in not providing any basis for arriving at 3.5 percentage as arm’s length price commission for issuing corporate guarantee for the subject AY 2009-10. 3. The learned TPO erred in not appreciating the fact that the learned TPO himself applied the rate

UNIPRES INDIA PVT. LTD.,KANCHEEPURAM vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD - 3 (2),, CHENNAI

ITA 1851/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar"नधा'रण वष' /Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Respondent: 30.09.2019
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 253(3)

disallowance under section 14A is attracted only while computing the total income under the normal provisions of the Act and not for the purpose of section 115JB of the Act. 4. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, substitute, modify and/or withdraw in any manner whatsoever all or any of the foregoing grounds of appeal at or before

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

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT LTD, CHENNAI

ITA 1613/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos. 1613 To 1615/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. C. Yamuna, CIT &
Section 132Section 153CSection 250

disallowance of alleged bogus purchases made by the AO is considered, the resultant net profit would be an unreasonable net profit which is considered, the resultant net profit would be an unreasonable net profit which is considered, the resultant net profit would be an unreasonable net profit which cannot be achieved in the kind of business of the appellant company

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT LTD, CHENNAI

ITA 1615/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos. 1613 To 1615/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. C. Yamuna, CIT &
Section 132Section 153CSection 250

disallowance of alleged bogus purchases made by the AO is considered, the resultant net profit would be an unreasonable net profit which is considered, the resultant net profit would be an unreasonable net profit which is considered, the resultant net profit would be an unreasonable net profit which cannot be achieved in the kind of business of the appellant company

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT LTD, CHENNAI

ITA 1614/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos. 1613 To 1615/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. C. Yamuna, CIT &
Section 132Section 153CSection 250

disallowance of alleged bogus purchases made by the AO is considered, the resultant net profit would be an unreasonable net profit which is considered, the resultant net profit would be an unreasonable net profit which is considered, the resultant net profit would be an unreasonable net profit which cannot be achieved in the kind of business of the appellant company

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

ITA 1548/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos. 1613 To 1615/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. C. Yamuna, CIT &
Section 132Section 153CSection 250

disallowance of alleged bogus purchases made by the AO is considered, the resultant net profit would be an unreasonable net profit which is considered, the resultant net profit would be an unreasonable net profit which is considered, the resultant net profit would be an unreasonable net profit which cannot be achieved in the kind of business of the appellant company

M/S ENRICA ENTERPRISES PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1164/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Das

Section 271Section 271(1)(C)Section 271ASection 274

3) r.w.s.153A of the Act on 26.07.2021, accepting the additional income voluntarily offered by the assessee towards inflated expenditure under the head ‘gift articles’. While completing the assessment, the AO observed that after considering relevant submissions of the assessee, the income offered by the assessee, including estimated disallowance of portion of marketing expenses, is ITA Nos.1164 & 1165/Chny/2023 :: 6 :: found

M/S.ENRICA ENTERPRISES PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1165/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Das

Section 271Section 271(1)(C)Section 271ASection 274

3) r.w.s.153A of the Act on 26.07.2021, accepting the additional income voluntarily offered by the assessee towards inflated expenditure under the head ‘gift articles’. While completing the assessment, the AO observed that after considering relevant submissions of the assessee, the income offered by the assessee, including estimated disallowance of portion of marketing expenses, is ITA Nos.1164 & 1165/Chny/2023 :: 6 :: found

DR.L.SARAVANAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by Dr

ITA 1621/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Mr.S.Sridhar,AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Clement Ramesh Kumar
Section 2(22)(e)Section 40A(3)

253 3,20,62,648 1,88,16,862 1,45,40,542 35,99,514 It was a submission that ld. Assessing Officer held that the assessee had drawn funds from the company, and therefore, held that there was violation of provisions of the section 2(22)(e) of the Act and the Assessing Officer brought

DR.S.MAHALAKSHMI,CHENNAI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by Dr

ITA 1616/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Mr.S.Sridhar,AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Clement Ramesh Kumar
Section 2(22)(e)Section 40A(3)

253 3,20,62,648 1,88,16,862 1,45,40,542 35,99,514 It was a submission that ld. Assessing Officer held that the assessee had drawn funds from the company, and therefore, held that there was violation of provisions of the section 2(22)(e) of the Act and the Assessing Officer brought