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.

54 results for “disallowance”+ Section 271Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai54Mumbai43Bangalore32Jaipur27Delhi15Ahmedabad12Hyderabad9Kolkata9Cuttack7Raipur5Panaji5Pune4Rajkot4Lucknow3Agra2Amritsar2Chandigarh2Indore2Jodhpur1Jabalpur1Dehradun1SC1Surat1Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 153A86Section 271A63Penalty54Section 153D14Section 14414Section 271(1)(c)10Section 40A(3)10Section 44A9Section 271B7Undisclosed Income

V SEETHARAMAN,VILLUPURAM vs. ACIT, VILLUPURAM CIRCLE, VILLUPURAM

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

ITA 229/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.229/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Mr. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271BSection 273BSection 44Section 44A

section 271A cannot absolve him for the penal consequence u/s 271B. Penalty is confirmed.” 5. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the order passed by the A.O. 6. Before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that when the assessee has not maintained the books of accounts, the auditing of account does not arise, therefore, penalty

Showing 1–20 of 54 · Page 1 of 3

7
Exemption2
Disallowance2

P.SENTHIL KUMAR,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 3398/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3397 & 3398/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2012-13. Shri. P. Senthil Kumar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, P-2, Hig Adyar Apartments, Non Corporate Ward 3(3) Kottur Gardens, Chennai. Circular Road, Kotturpuram, Chennai 600 086. [Pan Abbps 1019H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Durai Pandian, Sr. A.R
Section 271BSection 40A(3)

disallowance if any, which is needed u/s.40A(3) of ITA Nos.3397 & 3398/Mds/16 :- 6 -: the Act back to the file of the ld. Assessing Officer for consideration afresh in accordance with law. 8. Now, we take appeal of the assessee in ITA No.3398/Mds/2016. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that levy of penalty 9. u/s.271B of the Act was not warranted

P.SENTHIL KUMAR,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 3397/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3397 & 3398/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2012-13. Shri. P. Senthil Kumar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, P-2, Hig Adyar Apartments, Non Corporate Ward 3(3) Kottur Gardens, Chennai. Circular Road, Kotturpuram, Chennai 600 086. [Pan Abbps 1019H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Durai Pandian, Sr. A.R
Section 271BSection 40A(3)

disallowance if any, which is needed u/s.40A(3) of ITA Nos.3397 & 3398/Mds/16 :- 6 -: the Act back to the file of the ld. Assessing Officer for consideration afresh in accordance with law. 8. Now, we take appeal of the assessee in ITA No.3398/Mds/2016. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that levy of penalty 9. u/s.271B of the Act was not warranted

S.RAVI,CUDDALORE vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), CHENNAI

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

ITA 1023/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1021 To 1027/Chny/2019 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 To 2015-16

For Respondent: Mr.Salendra Mammidi
Section 132Section 144Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 271ASection 44A

271A is not applicable. (c) Reference was made to sub section (2) of Sec. 44AA of the Act, to indicate that the appellant had maintained books of accounts and other documents that could have enabled AO to compute Assessee's total income in accordance with the Act. 5. The Revenue Department was aware about the income declared by the Assessee

S.RAVI,CUDDALORE vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), CHENNAI

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

ITA 1022/CHNY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1021 To 1027/Chny/2019 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 To 2015-16

For Respondent: Mr.Salendra Mammidi
Section 132Section 144Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 271ASection 44A

271A is not applicable. (c) Reference was made to sub section (2) of Sec. 44AA of the Act, to indicate that the appellant had maintained books of accounts and other documents that could have enabled AO to compute Assessee's total income in accordance with the Act. 5. The Revenue Department was aware about the income declared by the Assessee

S.RAVI,CUDDALORE vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), CHENNAI

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

ITA 1021/CHNY/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1021 To 1027/Chny/2019 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 To 2015-16

For Respondent: Mr.Salendra Mammidi
Section 132Section 144Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 271ASection 44A

271A is not applicable. (c) Reference was made to sub section (2) of Sec. 44AA of the Act, to indicate that the appellant had maintained books of accounts and other documents that could have enabled AO to compute Assessee's total income in accordance with the Act. 5. The Revenue Department was aware about the income declared by the Assessee

S.RAVI,CUDDALORE vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), CHENNAI

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

ITA 1024/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1021 To 1027/Chny/2019 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 To 2015-16

For Respondent: Mr.Salendra Mammidi
Section 132Section 144Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 271ASection 44A

271A is not applicable. (c) Reference was made to sub section (2) of Sec. 44AA of the Act, to indicate that the appellant had maintained books of accounts and other documents that could have enabled AO to compute Assessee's total income in accordance with the Act. 5. The Revenue Department was aware about the income declared by the Assessee

S.RAVI,CUDDALORE vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), CHENNAI

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

ITA 1025/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1021 To 1027/Chny/2019 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 To 2015-16

For Respondent: Mr.Salendra Mammidi
Section 132Section 144Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 271ASection 44A

271A is not applicable. (c) Reference was made to sub section (2) of Sec. 44AA of the Act, to indicate that the appellant had maintained books of accounts and other documents that could have enabled AO to compute Assessee's total income in accordance with the Act. 5. The Revenue Department was aware about the income declared by the Assessee

S.RAVI,CUDDALORE vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), CHENNAI

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

ITA 1026/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Sept 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1021 To 1027/Chny/2019 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 To 2015-16

For Respondent: Mr.Salendra Mammidi
Section 132Section 144Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 271ASection 44A

271A is not applicable. (c) Reference was made to sub section (2) of Sec. 44AA of the Act, to indicate that the appellant had maintained books of accounts and other documents that could have enabled AO to compute Assessee's total income in accordance with the Act. 5. The Revenue Department was aware about the income declared by the Assessee

S.RAVI,CUDDALORE vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), CHENNAI

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

ITA 1027/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Sept 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1021 To 1027/Chny/2019 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 To 2015-16

For Respondent: Mr.Salendra Mammidi
Section 132Section 144Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 271ASection 44A

271A is not applicable. (c) Reference was made to sub section (2) of Sec. 44AA of the Act, to indicate that the appellant had maintained books of accounts and other documents that could have enabled AO to compute Assessee's total income in accordance with the Act. 5. The Revenue Department was aware about the income declared by the Assessee

SHRI.S.J.SURYAH,CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), CHENNAI

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

ITA 806/CHNY/2023[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.806/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2002-03 V. Shri S.J.Suryah, The Asst. Commissioner- No.35-1D, Of Income Tax, 114, Neelakanta Mehta Street, Central Circle-2(4), T. Nagar, Chennai-600 017. Chennai. [Pan: Alyps 3012 R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

271A, 271B and 271(1)(c) are initiated separately." 4. As evident from the above recording made during the course of assessment proceeding, the entire legal requirement, i. initiation during the pendency of the proceeding ii. Recording of satisfaction and iii. Initiated for concealment of total income has been met. Section 271(1B) clarifies if due recording of reason

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE-10, CHENNAI vs. SJ SURYAH, CHENNAI

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

ITA 594/CHNY/2024[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.806/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2002-03 V. Shri S.J.Suryah, The Asst. Commissioner- No.35-1D, Of Income Tax, 114, Neelakanta Mehta Street, Central Circle-2(4), T. Nagar, Chennai-600 017. Chennai. [Pan: Alyps 3012 R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

271A, 271B and 271(1)(c) are initiated separately." 4. As evident from the above recording made during the course of assessment proceeding, the entire legal requirement, i. initiation during the pendency of the proceeding ii. Recording of satisfaction and iii. Initiated for concealment of total income has been met. Section 271(1B) clarifies if due recording of reason

SHANTHILAL D JAIN,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2 (1),, CHENNAI

2400/CHNY/2019

ITA 2399/CHNY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Dr. M.L. Meena

Section 153ASection 271A

disallowance of interest claimed on such bogus credit of Rs.5,52,182/- deserve to be upheld. The appellant’s ground is dismissed.” 25.2 Similarly in assessment year 2009-10, the assessee introduced a further sundry creditor loan of Rs.8 lakhs apart from earlier Rs.40 lakhs and also claimed consequential interest of Rs.1,40,850/-. The CIT(A) deleted the addition

SHANTHILAL D JAIN,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2 (1),, CHENNAI

2400/CHNY/2019

ITA 2398/CHNY/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 May 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Dr. M.L. Meena

Section 153ASection 271A

disallowance of interest claimed on such bogus credit of Rs.5,52,182/- deserve to be upheld. The appellant’s ground is dismissed.” 25.2 Similarly in assessment year 2009-10, the assessee introduced a further sundry creditor loan of Rs.8 lakhs apart from earlier Rs.40 lakhs and also claimed consequential interest of Rs.1,40,850/-. The CIT(A) deleted the addition

SHANTHILAL D JAIN,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2 (1),, CHENNAI

2400/CHNY/2019

ITA 2359/CHNY/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 May 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Dr. M.L. Meena

Section 153ASection 271A

disallowance of interest claimed on such bogus credit of Rs.5,52,182/- deserve to be upheld. The appellant’s ground is dismissed.” 25.2 Similarly in assessment year 2009-10, the assessee introduced a further sundry creditor loan of Rs.8 lakhs apart from earlier Rs.40 lakhs and also claimed consequential interest of Rs.1,40,850/-. The CIT(A) deleted the addition

SHANTHILAL D JAIN,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2 (1),, CHENNAI

2400/CHNY/2019

ITA 2397/CHNY/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 May 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Dr. M.L. Meena

Section 153ASection 271A

disallowance of interest claimed on such bogus credit of Rs.5,52,182/- deserve to be upheld. The appellant’s ground is dismissed.” 25.2 Similarly in assessment year 2009-10, the assessee introduced a further sundry creditor loan of Rs.8 lakhs apart from earlier Rs.40 lakhs and also claimed consequential interest of Rs.1,40,850/-. The CIT(A) deleted the addition

SHANTHILAL D JAIN,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2 (1),, CHENNAI

2400/CHNY/2019

ITA 2396/CHNY/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 May 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Dr. M.L. Meena

Section 153ASection 271A

disallowance of interest claimed on such bogus credit of Rs.5,52,182/- deserve to be upheld. The appellant’s ground is dismissed.” 25.2 Similarly in assessment year 2009-10, the assessee introduced a further sundry creditor loan of Rs.8 lakhs apart from earlier Rs.40 lakhs and also claimed consequential interest of Rs.1,40,850/-. The CIT(A) deleted the addition

SHANTHILAL D JAIN,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2 (1),, CHENNAI

2400/CHNY/2019

ITA 2358/CHNY/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 May 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Dr. M.L. Meena

Section 153ASection 271A

disallowance of interest claimed on such bogus credit of Rs.5,52,182/- deserve to be upheld. The appellant’s ground is dismissed.” 25.2 Similarly in assessment year 2009-10, the assessee introduced a further sundry creditor loan of Rs.8 lakhs apart from earlier Rs.40 lakhs and also claimed consequential interest of Rs.1,40,850/-. The CIT(A) deleted the addition

SHANTHILAL D JAIN,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2 (1),, CHENNAI

2400/CHNY/2019

ITA 2363/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Dr. M.L. Meena

Section 153ASection 271A

disallowance of interest claimed on such bogus credit of Rs.5,52,182/- deserve to be upheld. The appellant’s ground is dismissed.” 25.2 Similarly in assessment year 2009-10, the assessee introduced a further sundry creditor loan of Rs.8 lakhs apart from earlier Rs.40 lakhs and also claimed consequential interest of Rs.1,40,850/-. The CIT(A) deleted the addition

M/S. SHREE BATTERY HOUSE,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2 (1),, CHENNAI

2400/CHNY/2019

ITA 2588/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Dr. M.L. Meena

Section 153ASection 271A

disallowance of interest claimed on such bogus credit of Rs.5,52,182/- deserve to be upheld. The appellant’s ground is dismissed.” 25.2 Similarly in assessment year 2009-10, the assessee introduced a further sundry creditor loan of Rs.8 lakhs apart from earlier Rs.40 lakhs and also claimed consequential interest of Rs.1,40,850/-. The CIT(A) deleted the addition