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.

16 results for “disallowance”+ Section 44Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai33Delhi25Chennai16Ahmedabad2SC1Bangalore1Jodhpur1Pune1Kolkata1Cuttack1

Key Topics

Section 4021Section 143(3)16Addition to Income12Section 40A(3)10Section 1959TDS9Disallowance9Section 271B6Section 201(1)6Section 148

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

6
Section 44A4
Penalty4

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

JCIT (OSD), CHENNAI vs. SIFY TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1794/CHNY/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No. 1650/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S. Sify Technologies Ltd., Tidel Park, 2Nd Floor, Tax, Vs. Large Taxpayer Unit – 1, No.4, Canal Bank Road, Chennai – 600 101. Taramani, Chennai – 600 113. [Pan: Aaacs 9032R] (%&यथ'/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) आयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 1793, 1794 & 1795/Chny/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S. Sify Technologies Ltd., Tidel Park, 2Nd Floor, (Osd), Large Taxpayer Unit – 1, No.4, Canal Bank Road, Chennai – 600 034 Taramani, Chennai – 600 113. [Pan: Aaacs 9032R] (%&यथ'/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant)

For Respondent: Shri.Homi Rajvangh, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 194JSection 40

disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) was justified. 4.3 It is submitted that the decision of the CIT(A) for the AY 2005-06 in assessee’s own case on a similar issue was taken up in appeal before the ITAT and against the adverse decision of the ITAT, the matter has been taken in appeal to the Honble High Court

JCIT (OSD), CHENNAI vs. SIFY TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1793/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No. 1650/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S. Sify Technologies Ltd., Tidel Park, 2Nd Floor, Tax, Vs. Large Taxpayer Unit – 1, No.4, Canal Bank Road, Chennai – 600 101. Taramani, Chennai – 600 113. [Pan: Aaacs 9032R] (%&यथ'/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) आयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 1793, 1794 & 1795/Chny/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S. Sify Technologies Ltd., Tidel Park, 2Nd Floor, (Osd), Large Taxpayer Unit – 1, No.4, Canal Bank Road, Chennai – 600 034 Taramani, Chennai – 600 113. [Pan: Aaacs 9032R] (%&यथ'/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant)

For Respondent: Shri.Homi Rajvangh, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 194JSection 40

disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) was justified. 4.3 It is submitted that the decision of the CIT(A) for the AY 2005-06 in assessee’s own case on a similar issue was taken up in appeal before the ITAT and against the adverse decision of the ITAT, the matter has been taken in appeal to the Honble High Court

JCIT (OSD), CHENNAI vs. SIFY TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1795/CHNY/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No. 1650/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S. Sify Technologies Ltd., Tidel Park, 2Nd Floor, Tax, Vs. Large Taxpayer Unit – 1, No.4, Canal Bank Road, Chennai – 600 101. Taramani, Chennai – 600 113. [Pan: Aaacs 9032R] (%&यथ'/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) आयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 1793, 1794 & 1795/Chny/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S. Sify Technologies Ltd., Tidel Park, 2Nd Floor, (Osd), Large Taxpayer Unit – 1, No.4, Canal Bank Road, Chennai – 600 034 Taramani, Chennai – 600 113. [Pan: Aaacs 9032R] (%&यथ'/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant)

For Respondent: Shri.Homi Rajvangh, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 194JSection 40

disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) was justified. 4.3 It is submitted that the decision of the CIT(A) for the AY 2005-06 in assessee’s own case on a similar issue was taken up in appeal before the ITAT and against the adverse decision of the ITAT, the matter has been taken in appeal to the Honble High Court

OPG POWER GENERATION PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), , CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee vide

ITA 1088/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1088/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2012-13 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1089/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2013-14 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1090/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri V.Ravichandran, FCAFor Respondent: Shri R.Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT &
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 172Section 195Section 40Section 5(1)Section 5(2)

disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) is legally impermissible. 9.0 At the outset, we deem it necessary to examine the contents of the impugned instruction 1934 which is seminal to the controversy. For the purposes of clarity the said instruction is extracted hereunder:- Page - 8 - of 14 ITA Nos. 1088, 1089 & 1090/Chny/2024 Page - 9 - of 14 ITA Nos. 1088, 1089 & 1090/Chny/2024

OPG POWER GENERATION PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. THE ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee vide

ITA 1090/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1088/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2012-13 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1089/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2013-14 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1090/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri V.Ravichandran, FCAFor Respondent: Shri R.Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT &
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 172Section 195Section 40Section 5(1)Section 5(2)

disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) is legally impermissible. 9.0 At the outset, we deem it necessary to examine the contents of the impugned instruction 1934 which is seminal to the controversy. For the purposes of clarity the said instruction is extracted hereunder:- Page - 8 - of 14 ITA Nos. 1088, 1089 & 1090/Chny/2024 Page - 9 - of 14 ITA Nos. 1088, 1089 & 1090/Chny/2024

OPG POWER GENERATION PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee vide

ITA 1089/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1088/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2012-13 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1089/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2013-14 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1090/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri V.Ravichandran, FCAFor Respondent: Shri R.Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT &
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 172Section 195Section 40Section 5(1)Section 5(2)

disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) is legally impermissible. 9.0 At the outset, we deem it necessary to examine the contents of the impugned instruction 1934 which is seminal to the controversy. For the purposes of clarity the said instruction is extracted hereunder:- Page - 8 - of 14 ITA Nos. 1088, 1089 & 1090/Chny/2024 Page - 9 - of 14 ITA Nos. 1088, 1089 & 1090/Chny/2024

MR. PALANISAMY SENTHILKUMAR,CHENNAI vs. ITO, WARD 2(1) , TIRUPUR

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

ITA 1601/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1601/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2018-2019 Shri. Palanisamy Senthilkumar, The Income Tax Officer, 73/1, Selvakumar Rice Mill, Vs. Ward 2(1) Mangalam Road, Tirupur 641 601. Andipalayam, Tirupur 641 687. [Pan: Bwups 6975B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. J. Vamini, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Mr. D. Hema Bhupal, Irs, Jcit. सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.03.2024. घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06.03.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1054384098 (1) Dated 15.07.2023. The Assessment Was Framed By The Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner Of Income 2 Tax/ Income-Tax Officer, National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 143(3A) & 143(3B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Vide Order Dated 03.04.2021. 2. The Only Issue In This Appeal Of Assessee Is As Regard To Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income (Appeals) (In Short ‘’Ld. Cit(A)’’) Sustaining/ Restricting The Addition At Rs.73,99,559/- As Against Addition Made By The Ld. Assessing Officer At Rs.2,42,58,153/- In Regard To Disallowance Of Expenditure Being Payment Of Commission & Brokerage Made To Contractors U/S.69C Of The Act Being Unexplained Expenditure.

For Appellant: Ms. J. Vamini, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. D. Hema Bhupal, IRS, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 44BSection 68Section 69C

disallowance of expenditure being payment of commission and brokerage made to contractors u/s.69C of the Act being unexplained expenditure. 3. The brief facts of the case are that assessee is an individual carrying on the business as a trader in wearing apparels. Assessee filed his return of income and assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny assessment. The assessment

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SIFY TECHNOLOGIES LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in I

ITA 305/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.304 & 305/Chny/2018 धनिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S. Sify Technologies Limited, 2Nd Floor, Tidel Park, Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit -1, Vs. No.4, Canal Bank Road, Room No.712, Wanaparthy Block, Taramani, Chennai – 600 113. 7Th Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, No.121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, [Pan: Aaacs 9032R] Chennai – 600 034. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr. D. Manoj Kumar, Cit प्रत्यथी की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2020 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.02.2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan:

For Appellant: Mr. D. Manoj Kumar, CITFor Respondent: Mr. R. Vijayaraghavan
Section 195Section 201(1)

44B. The amendment was made by Finance Act, 2001 by incorporating c1ause (iv a) w.e.f. 01-04-2002 i.e., applicable for A.Y. 2002-03. In simple words, therefore, royalty means the payment of any kind received as a consideration for the use of' or the right to use, any copy right of literary artistic or scientific work but, does

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SIFY TECHNOLOGIES LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in I

ITA 304/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.304 & 305/Chny/2018 धनिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S. Sify Technologies Limited, 2Nd Floor, Tidel Park, Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit -1, Vs. No.4, Canal Bank Road, Room No.712, Wanaparthy Block, Taramani, Chennai – 600 113. 7Th Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, No.121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, [Pan: Aaacs 9032R] Chennai – 600 034. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr. D. Manoj Kumar, Cit प्रत्यथी की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2020 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.02.2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan:

For Appellant: Mr. D. Manoj Kumar, CITFor Respondent: Mr. R. Vijayaraghavan
Section 195Section 201(1)

44B. The amendment was made by Finance Act, 2001 by incorporating c1ause (iv a) w.e.f. 01-04-2002 i.e., applicable for A.Y. 2002-03. In simple words, therefore, royalty means the payment of any kind received as a consideration for the use of' or the right to use, any copy right of literary artistic or scientific work but, does

GNANADURAI,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 32/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Mar 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri. G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. M. Narayanan, Addl. CIT(Retd)For Respondent: Shri. A.V. Sreekanth, IRS, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 271BSection 36(1)(v)Section 43BSection 44A

disallowed sales tax payment u/sec. 43B, contribution to ESI & PF after due date u/sec. 36(1)(v)(a) and 25% of repairs and maintenance of vehicle as personal expenditure and added interest on bank accounts to the returned income and assessee income of "21,70,705/-. 4. The Assessing Officer has initiated penalty proceedings u/s.271B

GNANADURAI,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 31/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri. G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. M. Narayanan, Addl. CIT(Retd)For Respondent: Shri. A.V. Sreekanth, IRS, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 271BSection 36(1)(v)Section 43BSection 44A

disallowed sales tax payment u/sec. 43B, contribution to ESI & PF after due date u/sec. 36(1)(v)(a) and 25% of repairs and maintenance of vehicle as personal expenditure and added interest on bank accounts to the returned income and assessee income of "21,70,705/-. 4. The Assessing Officer has initiated penalty proceedings u/s.271B

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. SIFY TECHNOLOGIES LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 859/CHNY/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jun 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Dr. M.M.Bhusari, IRS, CITFor Respondent: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(2)Section 148Section 40

section 40(a)(i) of the Act to the file of the Assessing Officer with direction to decide the issue afresh after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee." Therefore, the issue in Cognizant Solutions case has not been decided by the Hon'ble ITAT. So far as the payments to non resident parties are concerned, these

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. SIFY TECHNOLOGIES LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 435/CHNY/2010[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jun 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Dr. M.M.Bhusari, IRS, CITFor Respondent: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(2)Section 148Section 40

section 40(a)(i) of the Act to the file of the Assessing Officer with direction to decide the issue afresh after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee." Therefore, the issue in Cognizant Solutions case has not been decided by the Hon'ble ITAT. So far as the payments to non resident parties are concerned, these

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. SIFY TECHNOLOGIES LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 439/CHNY/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jun 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Dr. M.M.Bhusari, IRS, CITFor Respondent: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(2)Section 148Section 40

section 40(a)(i) of the Act to the file of the Assessing Officer with direction to decide the issue afresh after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee." Therefore, the issue in Cognizant Solutions case has not been decided by the Hon'ble ITAT. So far as the payments to non resident parties are concerned, these