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.

181 results for “disallowance”+ Section 301clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai882Delhi662Chennai181Bangalore162Ahmedabad114Kolkata106Pune93Jaipur85Indore60Cochin50Hyderabad47Surat40Allahabad37Rajkot35Chandigarh29Lucknow21Cuttack21Visakhapatnam14Nagpur14Panaji8Karnataka7Raipur6Jodhpur5Telangana5Patna3Amritsar3SC3Ranchi2Agra2Rajasthan1Guwahati1Jabalpur1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Calcutta1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)88Section 26358Section 14A58Disallowance54Addition to Income50Deduction44Section 14842Section 36(1)(viii)40Section 14726Limitation/Time-bar

IDFC LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT COMPANY CIRCLE II(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA\nNo

ITA 877/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Sept 2024AY 2010-11
Section 14ASection 36(1)(vi)Section 36(1)(vii)

section 43B relating to loans and\nadvances from a scheduled bank is also not applicable in the instant\ncase. In the above circumstances, in our considered view, neither\nwas the Assessing Officer justified in disallowing the deduction\nclaimed for the provision made in respect of interest accrued but not\ndue on the deep discount bonds issued by the assessee

ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT COMPANY CIRCLE 1 (1), CHENNAI

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

ITA 895/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: Disposed

Showing 1–20 of 181 · Page 1 of 10

...
23
Section 80I19
Section 153A19
ITAT Chennai
05 Feb 2026
AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.895/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ashok Leyland Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 1, Sardar Patel Road, Guindy, Income Tax, Chennai 600 032. Company Circle – Ltu, Chennai. [Pan: Aaaca4651L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.945/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Ashok Leyland Limited, Income Tax, 1, Sardar Patel Road, Guindy, Large Taxpayer Unit – 2, Chennai. Chennai 600 032. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate (Virtual) ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 10.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.02.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Dated 28.12.2017 Passed By The Ld.

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, CIT

section 14A r.w. Rule 8D. 13 I.T.A. Nos.895 & 945/Chny/18 27. Before us, the ld. AR raised an issue of recording satisfaction by the Assessing Officer, but, however, on perusal of the assessment order, the Assessing Officer discussed in detail, why the disallowance made by the assessee is not acceptable with reference to exempt income issue from para

ACITLTU-2, CHENNAI vs. ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED, CHENNAI

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

ITA 945/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Feb 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.895/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ashok Leyland Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 1, Sardar Patel Road, Guindy, Income Tax, Chennai 600 032. Company Circle – Ltu, Chennai. [Pan: Aaaca4651L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.945/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Ashok Leyland Limited, Income Tax, 1, Sardar Patel Road, Guindy, Large Taxpayer Unit – 2, Chennai. Chennai 600 032. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate (Virtual) ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 10.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.02.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Dated 28.12.2017 Passed By The Ld.

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, CIT

section 14A r.w. Rule 8D. 13 I.T.A. Nos.895 & 945/Chny/18 27. Before us, the ld. AR raised an issue of recording satisfaction by the Assessing Officer, but, however, on perusal of the assessment order, the Assessing Officer discussed in detail, why the disallowance made by the assessee is not acceptable with reference to exempt income issue from para

IDFC LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CO. CIRCLE - II (3),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 677/CHNY/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.877/Chny/2018 & 677/Chny/2020 िनधा&रण वष& /Assessment Years: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Farookh V. Irani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vi)Section 36(1)(vii)

section 43B relating to loans and advances from a scheduled bank is also not applicable in the instant ITA No.877, 878/Chny/2018 & 677/Chny/2020 :- 20 -: case. In the above circumstances, in our considered view, neither was the Assessing Officer justified in disallowing the deduction claimed for the provision made in respect of interest accrued but not due on the deep discount bonds

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI vs. IDFC LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 878/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.877/Chny/2018 & 677/Chny/2020 िनधा&रण वष& /Assessment Years: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Farookh V. Irani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vi)Section 36(1)(vii)

section 43B relating to loans and advances from a scheduled bank is also not applicable in the instant ITA No.877, 878/Chny/2018 & 677/Chny/2020 :- 20 -: case. In the above circumstances, in our considered view, neither was the Assessing Officer justified in disallowing the deduction claimed for the provision made in respect of interest accrued but not due on the deep discount bonds

M/S. UPDATER SERVICES LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by both the assessee and the Revenue, as well as the grounds raised in the cross-objections filed by the assessee, are treated as allowed for statistical...

ITA 1339/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1339 /Chny/2025 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Updater Services Limited (Formerly Dcit, Known As Updater Services Private Vs. Central Circle -2(3), Limited), No.2/302-A, Uds Salai, Chennai. Off Old Mahabalipuram Road, Thoraipakkam, Chennai – 600 097. [Pan:Aaacu-6845-J] (अपीलाथ%/Appellant) (&'थ%/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. K. Prasanna, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T
Section 115QSection 250Section 263Section 391Section 77A

301 to 304 do not prescribe a specific buyback procedure, thereby justifying the High Courts intervention. :-22-: ITA Nos.:1339, 1616/Chny/2025 & C.O.No.66/Chny/2025 23. The AO held that buyback transaction falls within the ambit of Section 115QA of the Act. The fact that the assessee company resorted to a High Court sanctioned Scheme of Arrangement to comply with the Companies

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. UPDATER SERVICES LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by both the assessee and the Revenue, as well as the grounds raised in the cross-objections filed by the assessee, are treated as allowed for statistical...

ITA 1616/CHNY/2025[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1339 /Chny/2025 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Updater Services Limited (Formerly Dcit, Known As Updater Services Private Vs. Central Circle -2(3), Limited), No.2/302-A, Uds Salai, Chennai. Off Old Mahabalipuram Road, Thoraipakkam, Chennai – 600 097. [Pan:Aaacu-6845-J] (अपीलाथ%/Appellant) (&'थ%/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. K. Prasanna, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T
Section 115QSection 250Section 263Section 391Section 77A

301 to 304 do not prescribe a specific buyback procedure, thereby justifying the High Courts intervention. :-22-: ITA Nos.:1339, 1616/Chny/2025 & C.O.No.66/Chny/2025 23. The AO held that buyback transaction falls within the ambit of Section 115QA of the Act. The fact that the assessee company resorted to a High Court sanctioned Scheme of Arrangement to comply with the Companies

PARRY INFRASTRUCTURE CO P LTD. ,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 5(1) , CHENNAI

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

ITA 1653/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Philip George, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

disallowance of marketing fee paid to Coromandel Engineering Company Ltd., amounting to Rs.47,75,301/-. For this assessee has raised the following grounds:- Ground No. 2.7 – Disallowance of marketing fees paid to CECL – Rs.47,75,301/- : 2.7. Disallowance of marketing fees paid to M/s. Coromandel Engineering Company Ltd. (CECL]- Rs.47,75,301/- [Original Grounds of Appeal

T vs. MOTOR COMPANY LTD.,CHENNAIVS.ACIT, CHENNAI

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

ITA 672/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.672/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S.Tvs Motor Co. Ltd., V. The Acit, No.29, Haddows Road, Corporate Circle – 3(1), Chennai-600 006. Chennai. [Pan: Aaacs 7032 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vikram VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 143(3)

301 and Rs. 78,70,058 towards reimbursement of excess AMP and mark up on Excess AMP. Hence an adjustment to the income of the assessee up on Excess AMP. Hence an adjustment to the income of the assessee up on Excess AMP. Hence an adjustment to the income of the assessee amounting to Rs. 78,70,058 tow amounting

THEVOOR PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY ,SALEM vs. ITO , WARD -1(6) , SALEM

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 600/CHNY/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 May 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.600/Chny/2022 िनधा)रण वष) /Assessment Year: 2018-19 Thevoor Primary Agricultural Co- The Income Tax Officer, Operative Credit Society, Vs. Ward-1(6), Thevoor Village, Thevoor Post, Salem. Sankari Taluk, Salem Dist. – 637 301. [Pan: Aacat-0942-K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : None ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.05.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.05.2023 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 10ASection 139Section 139(1)Section 142Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

301. [PAN: AACAT-0942-K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : None ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent by : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing : 04.05.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 12.05.2023 आदेश / O R D E R PER MANOMOHAN DAS, J.M: 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year

M/S AADHI ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), CHENNAI

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

ITA 308/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 308/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Aadhi Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., The Acit, No.1-130, Perambur Barracks V. Central Circle-3(1), Road, Pattalam, Chennai. Chennai – 600 112. Pan: Aanca 0382P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Fca Shri S. Neelakantan, Fca Shri Shrenik Chordia, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.07.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.08.2023

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 68

disallowance of interest and not section 68 of the Act.The other observations of the AO as mentioned above do not have any relevance to the fact in issue and the finding recorded. 15. The facts stated by the AO are facts admitted by the assessee and the Pacatolus is a Special Purpose Vehicle funded by PGF and therefore, no adverse

M.A.ALAGAPPAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 3(1), CHENNAI

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 907/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Dec 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 907 & 908/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Shri M.A. Alagappan, The Acit, 10, Chittaranjan Road, V. Corporate Circle 3(1) Teynampet, Chennai. Chennai – 600 018. Pan: Aacpa9628C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri M. Karunakaran, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G.Johnson, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 17.12.2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.12.2020

For Appellant: Shri M. Karunakaran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.Johnson, Addl.CIT
Section 10(34)Section 14ASection 260A

disallowance of Rs. 11,16,301/- made under section 14A r/w Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules may be deleted

M.A.ALAGAPPAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 3(1), CHENNAI

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 908/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Dec 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 907 & 908/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Shri M.A. Alagappan, The Acit, 10, Chittaranjan Road, V. Corporate Circle 3(1) Teynampet, Chennai. Chennai – 600 018. Pan: Aacpa9628C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri M. Karunakaran, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G.Johnson, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 17.12.2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.12.2020

For Appellant: Shri M. Karunakaran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.Johnson, Addl.CIT
Section 10(34)Section 14ASection 260A

disallowance of Rs. 11,16,301/- made under section 14A r/w Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules may be deleted

CHENNAI PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.,CHENNAI vs. JCIT, CHENNAI

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

ITA 687/CHNY/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Dec 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathan

For Appellant: Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.Prabhu Mukunth Arun-
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40

section 40(a)(i) of the Act. ITA Nos.687 & 853/Mds/2013 :- 5 -: 3.4 No tax was deductible at source in respect of the payments made by the assessee for the purchase of the crude oil from M/s.HEPI. 3.5 In reply, the Ld.DR submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) has followed the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. CHENNAI PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED, CHENNAI

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

ITA 853/CHNY/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Dec 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathan

For Appellant: Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.Prabhu Mukunth Arun-
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40

section 40(a)(i) of the Act. ITA Nos.687 & 853/Mds/2013 :- 5 -: 3.4 No tax was deductible at source in respect of the payments made by the assessee for the purchase of the crude oil from M/s.HEPI. 3.5 In reply, the Ld.DR submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) has followed the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

SAMARJIT SINGH CHABRA,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 14(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1624/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1623, 1624, 1625 & 1646/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09 & W.T.A. Nos. 43 & 44/Chny/2018 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 Shri Samarijit Singh Chabra, Vs. The Income Tax Officer/ No. K-10, Sangath Apartments, Wealth Tax Officer, Mgr Nagar, Velachery, Non Corporate Ward – 14(1), Chennai 600 042. Chennai. [Pan: Bfops1703Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Income Tax Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 26.02.2018 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09. 2. Since, Issues Raised In All The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 142(1)

301/- on account of wages, salary, rent, printing and stationary, advertisement, car loan interest, and interest on land. The Assessing Officer asked the assessee to produce ledger, bills and vouchers in support of the claim vide notice under section 142(1) of the Act. For not providing any evidences in support of the claim, the Assessing Officer disallowed

SAMARJIT SINGH CHABRA,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 14(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1623/CHNY/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1623, 1624, 1625 & 1646/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09 & W.T.A. Nos. 43 & 44/Chny/2018 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 Shri Samarijit Singh Chabra, Vs. The Income Tax Officer/ No. K-10, Sangath Apartments, Wealth Tax Officer, Mgr Nagar, Velachery, Non Corporate Ward – 14(1), Chennai 600 042. Chennai. [Pan: Bfops1703Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Income Tax Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 26.02.2018 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09. 2. Since, Issues Raised In All The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 142(1)

301/- on account of wages, salary, rent, printing and stationary, advertisement, car loan interest, and interest on land. The Assessing Officer asked the assessee to produce ledger, bills and vouchers in support of the claim vide notice under section 142(1) of the Act. For not providing any evidences in support of the claim, the Assessing Officer disallowed

SAMARJIT SINGH CHABRA,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 14(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1625/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1623, 1624, 1625 & 1646/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09 & W.T.A. Nos. 43 & 44/Chny/2018 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 Shri Samarijit Singh Chabra, Vs. The Income Tax Officer/ No. K-10, Sangath Apartments, Wealth Tax Officer, Mgr Nagar, Velachery, Non Corporate Ward – 14(1), Chennai 600 042. Chennai. [Pan: Bfops1703Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Income Tax Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 26.02.2018 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09. 2. Since, Issues Raised In All The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 142(1)

301/- on account of wages, salary, rent, printing and stationary, advertisement, car loan interest, and interest on land. The Assessing Officer asked the assessee to produce ledger, bills and vouchers in support of the claim vide notice under section 142(1) of the Act. For not providing any evidences in support of the claim, the Assessing Officer disallowed

SAMARJIT SINGH CHABRA,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 14(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1646/CHNY/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1623, 1624, 1625 & 1646/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09 & W.T.A. Nos. 43 & 44/Chny/2018 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 Shri Samarijit Singh Chabra, Vs. The Income Tax Officer/ No. K-10, Sangath Apartments, Wealth Tax Officer, Mgr Nagar, Velachery, Non Corporate Ward – 14(1), Chennai 600 042. Chennai. [Pan: Bfops1703Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Income Tax Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 26.02.2018 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09. 2. Since, Issues Raised In All The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 142(1)

301/- on account of wages, salary, rent, printing and stationary, advertisement, car loan interest, and interest on land. The Assessing Officer asked the assessee to produce ledger, bills and vouchers in support of the claim vide notice under section 142(1) of the Act. For not providing any evidences in support of the claim, the Assessing Officer disallowed

AMBATTUR CLOTHING LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

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

ITA 1643/CHNY/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri V. Durga Raoआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.1436, 1643/Mds/2014, 910/Mds/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-2011)

For Appellant: Shri. T. Banusekar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Rajib Kumar Hota, IRS, CIT
Section 10BSection 14ASection 14A(2)

section 28 and disallowed the entire amount claimed by the assessee However, the AO has allowed the same to be carried I.T.A.Nos.1436 & 1643/Mds/14 & :- 18 -: I.T.A. No.910/Mds/2015. forward for set off against any future speculative income. Further, the AO has observed that as per the information given by the assessee the contracts were not settled by actual delivery