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.

4 results for “disallowance”+ Section 44Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi20Mumbai10Chennai4Hyderabad4SC1Jodhpur1Pune1Bangalore1

Key Topics

Section 409Section 143(3)4TDS4Addition to Income4Section 1483Section 1953Section 5(1)3Section 5(2)3Section 1723Deduction

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

3
Reassessment3
Limitation/Time-bar3

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

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

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