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.

1,592 results for “disallowance”+ Section 43(6)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai5,065Delhi5,007Bangalore1,633Chennai1,592Kolkata1,370Ahmedabad1,267Jaipur860Hyderabad748Pune741Chandigarh497Indore450Surat324Raipur265Amritsar229Cochin223Visakhapatnam211Cuttack187Rajkot176Nagpur165Karnataka143Agra114Guwahati111Lucknow105Jodhpur100Allahabad67Ranchi67SC58Telangana52Calcutta43Patna31Dehradun30Panaji24Jabalpur19Varanasi19Kerala14Himachal Pradesh4Punjab & Haryana4Rajasthan3Orissa3A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1Gauhati1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1

Key Topics

Addition to Income69Disallowance60Section 143(3)58Section 14A58Section 4055Section 153A34Section 14834Section 19529Deduction29Section 2(24)(iv)

M/S. V.V.V. & SONS EDIBLE OILS LTD.,,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL-1,, MADURAI

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

ITA 2281/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri P. G. Sekar, C.A ""For Respondent: Dr. S. Palani Kumar,CIT
Section 143(3)

6 of section 43 of the Act. As argued by the ld.CIT-DR about the applicability of 5th proviso to section 32(1) of the Act, in the present case of the assessee, we noted that the 5th proviso shall only apply to the previous year of amalgamation, demerger or succession in the hands of both predecessor and successor. This

M/S. V.V.V. & SONS EDIBLE OILS LTD.,,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL-1,, MADURAI

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

Showing 1–20 of 1,592 · Page 1 of 80

...
24
Section 14720
TDS16
ITA 2276/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: Disposed
ITAT Chennai
05 Aug 2022
AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri P. G. Sekar, C.A ""For Respondent: Dr. S. Palani Kumar,CIT
Section 143(3)

6 of section 43 of the Act. As argued by the ld.CIT-DR about the applicability of 5th proviso to section 32(1) of the Act, in the present case of the assessee, we noted that the 5th proviso shall only apply to the previous year of amalgamation, demerger or succession in the hands of both predecessor and successor. This

M/S. V.V.V. & SONS EDIBLE OILS LTD.,,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL-1,, MADURAI

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

ITA 2280/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri P. G. Sekar, C.A ""For Respondent: Dr. S. Palani Kumar,CIT
Section 143(3)

6 of section 43 of the Act. As argued by the ld.CIT-DR about the applicability of 5th proviso to section 32(1) of the Act, in the present case of the assessee, we noted that the 5th proviso shall only apply to the previous year of amalgamation, demerger or succession in the hands of both predecessor and successor. This

M/S. V.V.V. & SONS EDIBLE OILS LTD.,,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL-1,, MADURAI

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

ITA 2277/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri P. G. Sekar, C.A ""For Respondent: Dr. S. Palani Kumar,CIT
Section 143(3)

6 of section 43 of the Act. As argued by the ld.CIT-DR about the applicability of 5th proviso to section 32(1) of the Act, in the present case of the assessee, we noted that the 5th proviso shall only apply to the previous year of amalgamation, demerger or succession in the hands of both predecessor and successor. This

M/S. V.V.V. & SONS EDIBLE OILS LTD.,,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL-1,, MADURAI

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

ITA 2279/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri P. G. Sekar, C.A ""For Respondent: Dr. S. Palani Kumar,CIT
Section 143(3)

6 of section 43 of the Act. As argued by the ld.CIT-DR about the applicability of 5th proviso to section 32(1) of the Act, in the present case of the assessee, we noted that the 5th proviso shall only apply to the previous year of amalgamation, demerger or succession in the hands of both predecessor and successor. This

M/S. V.V.V. & SONS EDIBLE OILS LTD.,,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL-1,, MADURAI

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

ITA 2278/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri P. G. Sekar, C.A ""For Respondent: Dr. S. Palani Kumar,CIT
Section 143(3)

6 of section 43 of the Act. As argued by the ld.CIT-DR about the applicability of 5th proviso to section 32(1) of the Act, in the present case of the assessee, we noted that the 5th proviso shall only apply to the previous year of amalgamation, demerger or succession in the hands of both predecessor and successor. This

M/S. V.V.VANNIAPERUMAL & SONS,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. PCIT-2, CHENNAI, CHENNAI

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

ITA 1765/CHNY/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri P. G. Sekar, C.A ""For Respondent: Dr. S. Palani Kumar,CIT
Section 143(3)

6 of section 43 of the Act. As argued by the ld.CIT-DR about the applicability of 5th proviso to section 32(1) of the Act, in the present case of the assessee, we noted that the 5th proviso shall only apply to the previous year of amalgamation, demerger or succession in the hands of both predecessor and successor. This

M/S. V.V.V. & SONS EDIBLE OILS LTD.,,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL-1,, MADURAI

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

ITA 2275/CHNY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri P. G. Sekar, C.A ""For Respondent: Dr. S. Palani Kumar,CIT
Section 143(3)

6 of section 43 of the Act. As argued by the ld.CIT-DR about the applicability of 5th proviso to section 32(1) of the Act, in the present case of the assessee, we noted that the 5th proviso shall only apply to the previous year of amalgamation, demerger or succession in the hands of both predecessor and successor. This

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)

6 March, 2022 passed by Respondent No.1 under Section 270AA (4) of the Act is set aside and Respondent No.1 is directed to grant immunity under Section 270AA of the Act to the Petitioner.” 7. This Court is of the opinion that the only addition in the assessment order framed by Respondent No.1 is in respect of disallowance under section

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)

6 March, 2022 passed by Respondent No.1 under Section 270AA (4) of the Act is set aside and Respondent No.1 is directed to grant immunity under Section 270AA of the Act to the Petitioner.” 7. This Court is of the opinion that the only addition in the assessment order framed by Respondent No.1 is in respect of disallowance under section

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 6(1) (I/C) , CHENNAI vs. SHRIRAM CREDIT COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

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

ITA 1199/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1199/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Shriram Credit Company Income Tax, Corporate Circle 6(1) I/C, Limited, Shriram House, No. 4, Aayakar Bhavan, Wanaparthy Burkit Road, T. Nagar, Block, 7Th Floor, 121, M.G. Road, Chennai 600 042. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aagcs4497N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1307/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Shriram Credit Company Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Mookambika Complex, Income Tax, No. 4, Lady Desika Road, Corporate Circle 6(1), Mylapore, Chennai 600 004. Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Department By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit Assessee By : Shri R.Sivaraman, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.03.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.04.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Revenue As Well As Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 15, Chennai Dated 26.12.2017 Relevant To The Assessment

For Appellant: Shri R.Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 14A

6 I.T.A. Nos.1199 & 1307Chny/18 cases where the assessee in his return has himself apportioned but the Assessing Officer was not accepting the said apportionment. In that eventuality, it will have to record its satisfaction to this effect. Further, while recording such a satisfaction, the nature of the loan taken by the assessee for purchasing the shares/ making the investment

SHRIRAM CREDIT COMPANY LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 6(1), CHENNAI

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

ITA 1307/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1199/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Shriram Credit Company Income Tax, Corporate Circle 6(1) I/C, Limited, Shriram House, No. 4, Aayakar Bhavan, Wanaparthy Burkit Road, T. Nagar, Block, 7Th Floor, 121, M.G. Road, Chennai 600 042. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aagcs4497N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1307/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Shriram Credit Company Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Mookambika Complex, Income Tax, No. 4, Lady Desika Road, Corporate Circle 6(1), Mylapore, Chennai 600 004. Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Department By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit Assessee By : Shri R.Sivaraman, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.03.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.04.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Revenue As Well As Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 15, Chennai Dated 26.12.2017 Relevant To The Assessment

For Appellant: Shri R.Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 14A

6 I.T.A. Nos.1199 & 1307Chny/18 cases where the assessee in his return has himself apportioned but the Assessing Officer was not accepting the said apportionment. In that eventuality, it will have to record its satisfaction to this effect. Further, while recording such a satisfaction, the nature of the loan taken by the assessee for purchasing the shares/ making the investment

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 92 of the Act. 5.4.1 The DRP in the aforesaid order has held that “In all the international financial transactions, the rate of interest is to be considered at LIBOR rates and not at the rates at which the banks are lending / charging in India. Therefore, the assessee's claim of 6% interest is not adequate / comparable. Further

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 92 of the Act. 5.4.1 The DRP in the aforesaid order has held that “In all the international financial transactions, the rate of interest is to be considered at LIBOR rates and not at the rates at which the banks are lending / charging in India. Therefore, the assessee's claim of 6% interest is not adequate / comparable. Further

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 92 of the Act. 5.4.1 The DRP in the aforesaid order has held that “In all the international financial transactions, the rate of interest is to be considered at LIBOR rates and not at the rates at which the banks are lending / charging in India. Therefore, the assessee's claim of 6% interest is not adequate / comparable. Further

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 92 of the Act. 5.4.1 The DRP in the aforesaid order has held that “In all the international financial transactions, the rate of interest is to be considered at LIBOR rates and not at the rates at which the banks are lending / charging in India. Therefore, the assessee's claim of 6% interest is not adequate / comparable. Further

M/S SUN EDISON SOLAR POWER INDIA PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 6 (2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for the assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 are allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue for the assessment year 2015-16 is dismissed

ITA 1520/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 32(1)

section 43(1) & Explanation 2B to Sec 43(6)(c), I concur with the finding of the Addl. CIT that the claim of depreciation on such ‘goodwill’ recorded just for balancing purpose in the books of accounts cannot be allowed as deduction u/s 32 of IT Act for computing taxable income. In respect of appeal filed

ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE-6(2), CHENNAI vs. M/S SUN EDISON SOLAR POWER INDIA PVT LTD, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for the assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 are allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue for the assessment year 2015-16 is dismissed

ITA 427/CHNY/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 32(1)

section 43(1) & Explanation 2B to Sec 43(6)(c), I concur with the finding of the Addl. CIT that the claim of depreciation on such ‘goodwill’ recorded just for balancing purpose in the books of accounts cannot be allowed as deduction u/s 32 of IT Act for computing taxable income. In respect of appeal filed

M/S SUN EDISON SOLAR POWER INDIA PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD - 6 (3),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for the assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 are allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue for the assessment year 2015-16 is dismissed

ITA 2164/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 32(1)

section 43(1) & Explanation 2B to Sec 43(6)(c), I concur with the finding of the Addl. CIT that the claim of depreciation on such ‘goodwill’ recorded just for balancing purpose in the books of accounts cannot be allowed as deduction u/s 32 of IT Act for computing taxable income. In respect of appeal filed

M/S. SUN EDITION SOLAR POWER INDIA PVT. LTD.,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE - 6 (2),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for the assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 are allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue for the assessment year 2015-16 is dismissed

ITA 570/CHNY/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 32(1)

section 43(1) & Explanation 2B to Sec 43(6)(c), I concur with the finding of the Addl. CIT that the claim of depreciation on such ‘goodwill’ recorded just for balancing purpose in the books of accounts cannot be allowed as deduction u/s 32 of IT Act for computing taxable income. In respect of appeal filed