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.

8 results for “disallowance”+ Section 271Cclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai63Bangalore54Delhi50Kolkata34Chandigarh10Ahmedabad9Chennai8Lucknow7Jaipur6Panaji5Ranchi3Raipur2Surat1Visakhapatnam1Cuttack1Rajkot1SC1

Key Topics

Section 4012Section 40A(3)10Section 14A9Section 271C7Section 201(1)6Disallowance6Addition to Income5Section 2714Penalty4Section 115J

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

3
Section 2013
Deduction3

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

P.K.POWER APPLIANCES PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD 5(3), CHENNAI

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

ITA 1582/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Respondent: Mr.B.Sagadevan, JCIT, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80

271C, and, section 40(a)(ia) does not add to the same. The provisions of section 40(a)(ia), as they existed prior to insertion of second proviso thereto, went much beyond the obvious intentions of the lawmakers and created undue hardships even in cases in which the assessee's tax withholding lapses did not result in any loss

GIRISH BHATTAD ,CHENNAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 2280/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Dec 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Mr.B.Sagadevan, JCIT, D.RFor Respondent: 30.11.2017
Section 194Section 201(1)Section 40

disallow the expenditure, due to non-deduction of tax at source, even in a situation in which corresponding income is brought to tax in the hands of the recipient. The scheme of section 40(a)(ia), as we 7 see it, is aimed at ensuring that an expenditure should not be allowed as deduction in the hands of an assessee

ITO WARD 3, VELLORE vs. AZIZ LEATHER EXPORTS, AMBUR

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed for

ITA 2102/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Mrs.Meera Suresh, CAFor Respondent: 13.11.2017
Section 139Section 148Section 201Section 201(1)Section 40

disallow the expenditure, due to non-deduction of tax at source, even in a situation in which corresponding income is 6 brought to tax in the hands of the recipient. The scheme of section 40(a)(ia), as we see it, is aimed at ensuring that an expenditure should not be allowed as deduction in the hands of an assessee

TH 110 M/S. ARIGNAR ANNA PWCS LTD.,NAMAKKAL vs. ITO, SALEM

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1364/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri. N. Madhavan, JCIT
Section 201Section 201(1)Section 271CSection 40

disallowed such expenses u/s. 40(a)(ia) and added to its income. The ITO-TDS, by a consolidated order u/s. 201(1)/201(1A) dated 27.12.2013 raised a demand of Rs. 22,092/- and Rs. 15,224/-, under these sections, respectively. It appears that he has sent a proposal for initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. 271C

ABT LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 893/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.893/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-2013. M/S. Abt Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No.180, Race Course Road, Income Tax, Coimbatore 641 018. Corporate Circle I, Coimbatore [Pan Aabca 8398K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. S. Vijayaprabha, IRS, JCIT
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

section 143(3) of the Act that this was a capital expenditure. Assessee’s claim for depreciation at the rate of 50% on commercial vehicles was also not allowed in such assessment. 3. On 17.03.2017, ld. CIT issued a show cause notice u/s. 263 of the Act. As per the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), assessee had taken

D.C.B.ASHOK KUMAR,SIVAKASI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(2), CHENNAI

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

ITA 2381/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.816/Chny/2013 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Smt. C. Vatsala, CITFor Respondent: 09.01.2019
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

271C of the Act stand on different footings. Further, the consideration under the provisions of s. 271AAA of the Act had come up before Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of PCIT vs. Smt. Ritu Singal 92 taxmann.com 224 (Del.), wherein it was held as follows: “12. Like in that case, the first condition under Section 271AAA