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.

241 results for “disallowance”+ Section 270clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai845Delhi621Pune323Chennai241Bangalore212Kolkata192Ahmedabad126Jaipur114Hyderabad93Chandigarh82Cochin62Surat58Indore45Cuttack44Calcutta35Rajkot29Allahabad23Amritsar23Visakhapatnam20Karnataka20Panaji18Guwahati16Nagpur12Agra9Kerala7Jodhpur6Raipur6Dehradun5Telangana5Lucknow5Varanasi4SC3Ranchi3Jabalpur2Punjab & Haryana2Rajasthan1Patna1

Key Topics

Addition to Income53Section 80P(2)(d)39Section 143(3)37Deduction31Disallowance27Section 80P26Section 80I26Section 25018Section 153A17Business Income

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

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

Showing 1–20 of 241 · Page 1 of 13

...
17
Section 13915
Section 36(1)(viia)14
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

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1166/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh –
Section 2Section 270Section 270ASection 270A(9)

disallowance of marketing expenses on the ground that the AO has not made out a case of ‘under reporting of income and under reporting as a consequence of misreporting of income’ as specified in sub-section 9 of section 270

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1167/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh –
Section 2Section 270Section 270ASection 270A(9)

disallowance of marketing expenses on the ground that the AO has not made out a case of ‘under reporting of income and under reporting as a consequence of misreporting of income’ as specified in sub-section 9 of section 270

M/S. EID PARRY INDIA LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, LTU-1,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3113/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathait(Tp)A. Nos.:105, 106, 107/Chny/2024 & Ita No.3113/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. E.I.D. Parry India Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 234, Dare House, Nsc Vs. Income Tax, Bose Road, Parrys Corner, Large Taxpayer Unit -1, Chennai 600 001. Chennai. [Pan: Aaace-0702-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 92BSection 92C

disallowance and the ld. CIT(A) to confirm the same. 40. The Bangalore Benches of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Mahindra Electric Mobility Ltd. v. ACIT in ITA No.641/Bang/2017 vide order dated 14.09.2018 had held that prior to 01.07.2016 Form No.3CL has no legal sanctity and it is only w.e.f. 01.07.2016 with the amendment to Rule

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU CIRCLE 1 CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. E I D PARRY INDIA LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3251/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathait(Tp)A. Nos.:105, 106, 107/Chny/2024 & Ita No.3113/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. E.I.D. Parry India Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 234, Dare House, Nsc Vs. Income Tax, Bose Road, Parrys Corner, Large Taxpayer Unit -1, Chennai 600 001. Chennai. [Pan: Aaace-0702-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 92BSection 92C

disallowance and the ld. CIT(A) to confirm the same. 40. The Bangalore Benches of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Mahindra Electric Mobility Ltd. v. ACIT in ITA No.641/Bang/2017 vide order dated 14.09.2018 had held that prior to 01.07.2016 Form No.3CL has no legal sanctity and it is only w.e.f. 01.07.2016 with the amendment to Rule

M/S. FLORIND SHOES P. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. THE ADDL. CIT, CHENNAI

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

ITA 55/CHNY/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jul 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.55/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2008-09 M/S. Florind Shoes P. Ltd., The Additional Commissioner Of 29, College Road, Vs. Income Tax, Chennai 600 006. Company Circle Ii(1), [Pan: Aaacf0490J] Chennai (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri A.S. Sriraman, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Supriyo Pal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 02.05.2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.07.2017 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) Ii, Chennai Dated 29.11.2013 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2008-09. The Only Effective Ground Raised In The Appeal Of The Assessee Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Sustaining The Notional Disallowance Expenses Amounting To ₹.90,74,583/- Made Under Section 14A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri A.S. Sriraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 14A

disallowance made under section 14A of the Act. 3 I.T.A. No.55/M/14 5. On the other hand, the ld. DR strongly supported the orders of authorities below. 6. We have heard both sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has observed that the assessee has made

THIAGARAJAR MILLS (P) LIMITED,MADURAI vs. JCT, MADURAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1204/CHNY/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Nov 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.1202, 1203 & 1204/Chny/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/S. Thiagarajar Mills (P) Ltd., Joint Commissioner Of Gst Road, Kappalur Vs. Income Tax, Madurai – 625 008. Range – I, Madurai [Pan: Aaact 4304R] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Srinivasan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Srinivasa Rao, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.10.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.11.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: These Three Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Chennai All Dated 20.03.2015 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12. Since Common Issues Have Been Raised In These Appeals, Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity.

For Appellant: Shri R. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 129Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

section 124(3) of the Act, the technical ground raised by the assessee stands dismissed. 3. The first common ground raised in the appeals of the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of foreign exchange loss incurred in hedging transaction as speculative without appreciating the facts and law in the matter. The common ground

THIAGARAJAR MILLS (P) LIMITED,MADURAI vs. JCT, MADURAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1203/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.1202, 1203 & 1204/Chny/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/S. Thiagarajar Mills (P) Ltd., Joint Commissioner Of Gst Road, Kappalur Vs. Income Tax, Madurai – 625 008. Range – I, Madurai [Pan: Aaact 4304R] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Srinivasan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Srinivasa Rao, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.10.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.11.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: These Three Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Chennai All Dated 20.03.2015 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12. Since Common Issues Have Been Raised In These Appeals, Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity.

For Appellant: Shri R. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 129Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

section 124(3) of the Act, the technical ground raised by the assessee stands dismissed. 3. The first common ground raised in the appeals of the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of foreign exchange loss incurred in hedging transaction as speculative without appreciating the facts and law in the matter. The common ground

THIAGARAJAR MILLS (P) LIMITED,MADURAI vs. JCT, MADURAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1202/CHNY/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Nov 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.1202, 1203 & 1204/Chny/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/S. Thiagarajar Mills (P) Ltd., Joint Commissioner Of Gst Road, Kappalur Vs. Income Tax, Madurai – 625 008. Range – I, Madurai [Pan: Aaact 4304R] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Srinivasan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Srinivasa Rao, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.10.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.11.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: These Three Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Chennai All Dated 20.03.2015 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12. Since Common Issues Have Been Raised In These Appeals, Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity.

For Appellant: Shri R. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 129Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

section 124(3) of the Act, the technical ground raised by the assessee stands dismissed. 3. The first common ground raised in the appeals of the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of foreign exchange loss incurred in hedging transaction as speculative without appreciating the facts and law in the matter. The common ground

M/S. SUNDARAVEL MARKETING COMPANY PVT. LTD.,,SIVAKASI vs. ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE - 2,, MADURAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 1847/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Dec 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1847/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Sundaravel Marketing Company The Assistant Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., No. 69, A.S.K. Thangiah Nadar Vs. Income Tax Corporate Circle No. 2, Road, Sivakasi, No. 2, V.P. Rathinasamy Road, Madurai Tamil Nadu 626 123. 625 002. [Pan:Aaccs8823L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1848/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Sundaravel Match Industries The Assistant Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., No. 69, A.S.K. Thangiah Nadar Income Tax Corporate Circle No. 2, Road, Sivakasi, Vs. No. 2, V.P. Rathinasamy Road, Madurai Tamil Nadu 626 123. 625 002. [Pan:Aadcs9041H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Suresh Periasamy, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15.12.2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.12.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: Both Appeals Filed By Different Assessees Of Same Group Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Madurai, Both Dated 05.04.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Periasamy, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 92C

270/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny. After considering the details filed against statutory notices, the assessment under section 143(3) r.w. section 92CA(3) of the Act was completed by assessing total income of the assessee at ₹. 30,08,537/- after making disallowance

SUNDARAVEL MATCH INDUSTRIES PVT LTD.,SIVAKASI vs. ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2, MADURIA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 1848/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Dec 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1847/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Sundaravel Marketing Company The Assistant Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., No. 69, A.S.K. Thangiah Nadar Vs. Income Tax Corporate Circle No. 2, Road, Sivakasi, No. 2, V.P. Rathinasamy Road, Madurai Tamil Nadu 626 123. 625 002. [Pan:Aaccs8823L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1848/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Sundaravel Match Industries The Assistant Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., No. 69, A.S.K. Thangiah Nadar Income Tax Corporate Circle No. 2, Road, Sivakasi, Vs. No. 2, V.P. Rathinasamy Road, Madurai Tamil Nadu 626 123. 625 002. [Pan:Aadcs9041H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Suresh Periasamy, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15.12.2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.12.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: Both Appeals Filed By Different Assessees Of Same Group Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Madurai, Both Dated 05.04.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Periasamy, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 92C

270/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny. After considering the details filed against statutory notices, the assessment under section 143(3) r.w. section 92CA(3) of the Act was completed by assessing total income of the assessee at ₹. 30,08,537/- after making disallowance

DEVRAJ COMPUTERS PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, IT(OSD), CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3274/CHNY/2018[2015-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Mar 2024AY 2015-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3273 & 3274/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/S. Devraj Computers Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 42, Gee Gee Complex, 3Rd Floor, Income Tax, Corporate Range – 1, Mount Road, Chennai 600 002. Chennai. [Pan:Aabcd1593P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 05.02.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.03.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai, Dated 27.09.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2015-16. In The Grounds Of Appeal, The Assessee Has Raised Following Common Grounds For Both The Assessment Years: Grounds Of Appeal 1. The Order Passed By The Learned Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Range-1, Chennai 34 Is Against The Facts Of The Case & Principles Of Natural Justice. 2. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -1 Made Arbitrary Additions Without The Right Application Of Law.

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

section 40A(3) of the Act at ₹.54,426/-. Similarly, assessment for the assessment year 2015-16 has been completed after disallowing a sum of ₹.14,39,276/- on account 3 I.T.A. Nos.3273 & 3274/Chny/18 of interest cost attributable to interest-free loans and advances and a sum of ₹.1,45,215/- towards puja expenses. 3. With regard to the disallowance

DEVRAJ COMPUTERS PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, IT(OSD), CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3273/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3273 & 3274/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/S. Devraj Computers Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 42, Gee Gee Complex, 3Rd Floor, Income Tax, Corporate Range – 1, Mount Road, Chennai 600 002. Chennai. [Pan:Aabcd1593P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 05.02.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.03.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai, Dated 27.09.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2015-16. In The Grounds Of Appeal, The Assessee Has Raised Following Common Grounds For Both The Assessment Years: Grounds Of Appeal 1. The Order Passed By The Learned Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Range-1, Chennai 34 Is Against The Facts Of The Case & Principles Of Natural Justice. 2. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -1 Made Arbitrary Additions Without The Right Application Of Law.

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

section 40A(3) of the Act at ₹.54,426/-. Similarly, assessment for the assessment year 2015-16 has been completed after disallowing a sum of ₹.14,39,276/- on account 3 I.T.A. Nos.3273 & 3274/Chny/18 of interest cost attributable to interest-free loans and advances and a sum of ₹.1,45,215/- towards puja expenses. 3. With regard to the disallowance

JCIT (OSD) CIRCLE-2, TRICHY vs. THE KARUR VYSYA BANK LTD., KARUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for assessment year

ITA 635/CHNY/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 620/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S. Karur Vysya Bank, V. Tax, Finance &Control Dept., Circle -2(1), Erode Road, Trichy. Karur – 639 002. [Pan: Aaact-3373-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 635/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Karur Vysya Bank, The Joint Commissioner Of V. Finance &Control Dept., Income Tax, Erode Road, Circle -2, Karur – 639 002. No.44, Williams Road, [Pan: Aaact-3373-J] Contanment, Trichy – 620 001. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Ananthan, Ca & Smt. R. Lalitha, Ca Department By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.09.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha:

For Appellant: Shri. Ananthan, CA & Smt. R. Lalitha, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 145Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(2)(v)

disallowance to Rs.191,40,05,877/- by holding that the technical write – off of Rs.103,67,40,537/- is not allowable as the same was not debited to the Profit & Loss account and the non – rural write off should be adjusted against the provision account under Section 36(1)(viia). 10.2 The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the outset

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. RANE HOLDINGS LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal in I

ITA 1090/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Sh. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. S. Vijayaprabha, JCIT
Section 14A

270 ITR 452), (supra). No other contrary judgment was brought to the notice of the Bench. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the CIT(Appeals) has rightly confirmed the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, this Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority and accordingly the same

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. RANE HOLDINGS LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal in I

ITA 1089/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Oct 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Sh. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. S. Vijayaprabha, JCIT
Section 14A

270 ITR 452), (supra). No other contrary judgment was brought to the notice of the Bench. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the CIT(Appeals) has rightly confirmed the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, this Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority and accordingly the same

RANE HOLDINGS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal in I

ITA 1113/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Oct 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Sh. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. S. Vijayaprabha, JCIT
Section 14A

270 ITR 452), (supra). No other contrary judgment was brought to the notice of the Bench. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the CIT(Appeals) has rightly confirmed the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, this Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority and accordingly the same