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.

224 results for “disallowance”+ Section 46Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi871Mumbai707Kolkata244Chennai224Ahmedabad173Hyderabad138Bangalore123Jaipur85Pune84Amritsar73Chandigarh59Indore56Raipur56Visakhapatnam54Surat48Cuttack43Rajkot37Lucknow29Guwahati28Allahabad24Agra21Nagpur19Panaji10Patna9Jodhpur9Dehradun8Cochin8Varanasi5Telangana4Jabalpur3Ranchi3Karnataka3SC1Calcutta1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Disallowance59Addition to Income59Section 143(3)58Section 4046Section 10A45Deduction37Section 40A(3)36Section 10B23Section 6819Section 139(1)

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. GREEN HOUSE PROMOTERS P. LTD., CHENNAI

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

ITA 1785/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jun 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru R.L. Reddyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 1785, 1796 & 1828/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2010-11, 2011-12 & 2009-2010. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income M/S. Green House Promoters Tax Vs. Pvt. Ltd, Company Circle Ii(1) No.4,Rama Rao Street, Chennai. T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan Aaccg 2333B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Supriyo Pal, IRS, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. Y. Sridhar, C.A
Section 194CSection 40Section 4U

section 194C is mandatory and in case of assessee's failure to do so in respect of contractual payments, disallowance has to be made u/s 40(a)(ia) irrespective of fact as to whether assessee is following cash or mercantile system of accounting. 3.1 The Id. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the assessee had not submitted sufficient proof

Showing 1–20 of 224 · Page 1 of 12

...
16
Section 36(1)(iii)15
TDS14

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. GREEN HOUSE PROMOTERS PRIVATE LTD., CHENNAI

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

ITA 1796/CHNY/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jun 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru R.L. Reddyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 1785, 1796 & 1828/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2010-11, 2011-12 & 2009-2010. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income M/S. Green House Promoters Tax Vs. Pvt. Ltd, Company Circle Ii(1) No.4,Rama Rao Street, Chennai. T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan Aaccg 2333B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Supriyo Pal, IRS, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. Y. Sridhar, C.A
Section 194CSection 40Section 4U

section 194C is mandatory and in case of assessee's failure to do so in respect of contractual payments, disallowance has to be made u/s 40(a)(ia) irrespective of fact as to whether assessee is following cash or mercantile system of accounting. 3.1 The Id. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the assessee had not submitted sufficient proof

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. GREEN HOUSE PROMOTERS PRIVATE LTD., CHENNAI

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

ITA 1828/CHNY/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jun 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru R.L. Reddyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 1785, 1796 & 1828/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2010-11, 2011-12 & 2009-2010. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income M/S. Green House Promoters Tax Vs. Pvt. Ltd, Company Circle Ii(1) No.4,Rama Rao Street, Chennai. T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan Aaccg 2333B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Supriyo Pal, IRS, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. Y. Sridhar, C.A
Section 194CSection 40Section 4U

section 194C is mandatory and in case of assessee's failure to do so in respect of contractual payments, disallowance has to be made u/s 40(a)(ia) irrespective of fact as to whether assessee is following cash or mercantile system of accounting. 3.1 The Id. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the assessee had not submitted sufficient proof

DCIT, OOTY vs. N.PURUSHOTHAMAN, COIMBATORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is party allowed

ITA 76/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.76/Chny/2017 & C.O. No.34/Chny/2017 [In Ita No.76/Chny/2017] ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

For Appellant: Mr. R. Mohan Reddy, CITFor Respondent: 11.04.2023
Section 37Section 40A(3)

disallowance by invoking provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act, being expenses paid in cash in excess of Rs.20,000/- per day per person, otherwise than account payee cheque or account payee draft. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). C.O. No.34/Chny/2017 7. During the course of appellate proceedings before the CIT(A), the assessee filed some

N.PURUSHOTHAMAN,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is party allowed

ITA 393/CHNY/2017[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Apr 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.76/Chny/2017 & C.O. No.34/Chny/2017 [In Ita No.76/Chny/2017] ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

For Appellant: Mr. R. Mohan Reddy, CITFor Respondent: 11.04.2023
Section 37Section 40A(3)

disallowance by invoking provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act, being expenses paid in cash in excess of Rs.20,000/- per day per person, otherwise than account payee cheque or account payee draft. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). C.O. No.34/Chny/2017 7. During the course of appellate proceedings before the CIT(A), the assessee filed some

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1 (2), CHENNAI vs. M/S CAPLIN POINT LABORATORIES LTD, CHENNAI

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

ITA 1716/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1716/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Caplin Point Laboratories Ltd., Income Tax, No. 3, Narbavi, Lakshmanan Street, Corporate Circle 1(2), T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aabcc2667F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17.07.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai, Dated 07.03.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Delayed By Two Days In Filing The Appeal, For Which, The Revenue Has Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of The Delay, To Which; The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Not Raised Any Serious Objection. Consequently, Since The Revenue Was Prevented By 2

For Appellant: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCITFor Respondent: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 251(1)(a)Section 35Section 356Section 80I

disallowance of provision for gratuity to the file of the Assessing Officer for verification and allow the grounds, which is in contravention of section 251(1)(a) of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) should have called remand report under Rule 46A

M/S. ASPIRE SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ADL. CIT, COMPANY RANGE-1, CHENNAI

In the result, the both the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the appeal filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 785/CHNY/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2000/Chny/2019 & 762/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2011-12 The Deputy/Joint Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Aspire Systems India Income Tax, Private Limited, Old. No. 4, New No. 7, Corporate Circle 1(1), Ii Trust Link Road, Mandaveli, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 028. [Pan:Aacca4543M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 785/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Aspire Systems India Vs. The Additional Commissioner Of Private Limited, Old. No. 4, New No. Income Tax, 7, Ii Trust Link Road, Mandaveli, Company Range-1, Chennai 600 028. Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Department By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit Assessee By : Ms. Jharna B. Harilal, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.12.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2022 : आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Appeals Filed By The Revenue As Well Are Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai, Dated 29.03.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year

For Appellant: Ms. Jharna B. Harilal, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 14ASection 40

disallowance under section 14A of the Act for the assessment year 2014-15, the ld. DR has submitted that by considering the fresh evidence, the ld. CIT(A) has remitted the matter to the file of Assessing Officer to verify the interest expenditure, which is in violation of Rule 46A

JCIT (OSD), CORPORATE CIRCLE - 1 (1),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. ASPIRE SYSTEMS INDIA PVT. LTD,, CHENNAI

In the result, the both the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the appeal filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 762/CHNY/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2000/Chny/2019 & 762/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2011-12 The Deputy/Joint Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Aspire Systems India Income Tax, Private Limited, Old. No. 4, New No. 7, Corporate Circle 1(1), Ii Trust Link Road, Mandaveli, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 028. [Pan:Aacca4543M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 785/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Aspire Systems India Vs. The Additional Commissioner Of Private Limited, Old. No. 4, New No. Income Tax, 7, Ii Trust Link Road, Mandaveli, Company Range-1, Chennai 600 028. Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Department By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit Assessee By : Ms. Jharna B. Harilal, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.12.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2022 : आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Appeals Filed By The Revenue As Well Are Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai, Dated 29.03.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year

For Appellant: Ms. Jharna B. Harilal, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 14ASection 40

disallowance under section 14A of the Act for the assessment year 2014-15, the ld. DR has submitted that by considering the fresh evidence, the ld. CIT(A) has remitted the matter to the file of Assessing Officer to verify the interest expenditure, which is in violation of Rule 46A

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. ASPIRE SYSTEMS (INDIA) P. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the both the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the appeal filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2000/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2000/Chny/2019 & 762/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2011-12 The Deputy/Joint Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Aspire Systems India Income Tax, Private Limited, Old. No. 4, New No. 7, Corporate Circle 1(1), Ii Trust Link Road, Mandaveli, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 028. [Pan:Aacca4543M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 785/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Aspire Systems India Vs. The Additional Commissioner Of Private Limited, Old. No. 4, New No. Income Tax, 7, Ii Trust Link Road, Mandaveli, Company Range-1, Chennai 600 028. Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Department By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit Assessee By : Ms. Jharna B. Harilal, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.12.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2022 : आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Appeals Filed By The Revenue As Well Are Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai, Dated 29.03.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year

For Appellant: Ms. Jharna B. Harilal, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 14ASection 40

disallowance under section 14A of the Act for the assessment year 2014-15, the ld. DR has submitted that by considering the fresh evidence, the ld. CIT(A) has remitted the matter to the file of Assessing Officer to verify the interest expenditure, which is in violation of Rule 46A

ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 10(1), CHENNAI vs. V.MAMTA, CHENNAI

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

ITA 3072/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I T.A. No. 3072/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 The Assistant Commissioner Of Smt. V. Mamta, Income Tax, Vs. # 24/3, Chinna Thambi Non Corporate Circle 10(1), Mudali Street, Triplicane, 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai 600 005. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Adepv6877B] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ar. V. Sreenivasan, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : None सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 11.06.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.06.2018 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 12, Chennai Dated 12.10.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Only Effective Ground Raised In The Appeal Of The Revenue Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Disallowances Made On Account Of (I) Short Deduction Of Tds At ₹.17,57,680/-, (Ii) Disallowance Incentive Payment Of ₹.20,75,000/-, (Iii)

For Appellant: Shri AR. V. Sreenivasan, JCITFor Respondent: None
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40

disallowance of interest under section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] by admitting fresh evidence in violation of Rule 46A

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. ANAND TRANSPORT, CHENNAI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals in I

ITA 2293/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2293 & 2294/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1269/Mds/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-2010

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Milind Madhukar Bhusari, CIT
Section 195(1)Section 195ASection 40

Section 195A of the Act before the Assessing Officer. 4. On the contrary, Shri G. Baskar, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that the very same issue was considered by the Madras High Court in the assessee's own case in Anand Transport (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2015) 370 ITR 524. The Madras High Court found that an identical payment

M/S. ANAND TRANSPORT,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals in I

ITA 2299/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2293 & 2294/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1269/Mds/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-2010

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Milind Madhukar Bhusari, CIT
Section 195(1)Section 195ASection 40

Section 195A of the Act before the Assessing Officer. 4. On the contrary, Shri G. Baskar, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that the very same issue was considered by the Madras High Court in the assessee's own case in Anand Transport (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2015) 370 ITR 524. The Madras High Court found that an identical payment

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. ANAND TRANSPORT, CHENNAI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals in I

ITA 2294/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2293 & 2294/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1269/Mds/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-2010

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Milind Madhukar Bhusari, CIT
Section 195(1)Section 195ASection 40

Section 195A of the Act before the Assessing Officer. 4. On the contrary, Shri G. Baskar, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that the very same issue was considered by the Madras High Court in the assessee's own case in Anand Transport (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2015) 370 ITR 524. The Madras High Court found that an identical payment

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. ANAND TRANSPORT, CHENNAI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals in I

ITA 1269/CHNY/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2293 & 2294/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1269/Mds/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-2010

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Milind Madhukar Bhusari, CIT
Section 195(1)Section 195ASection 40

Section 195A of the Act before the Assessing Officer. 4. On the contrary, Shri G. Baskar, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that the very same issue was considered by the Madras High Court in the assessee's own case in Anand Transport (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2015) 370 ITR 524. The Madras High Court found that an identical payment

M/S. ANAND TRANSPORT,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals in I

ITA 2298/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2293 & 2294/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1269/Mds/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-2010

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Milind Madhukar Bhusari, CIT
Section 195(1)Section 195ASection 40

Section 195A of the Act before the Assessing Officer. 4. On the contrary, Shri G. Baskar, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that the very same issue was considered by the Madras High Court in the assessee's own case in Anand Transport (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2015) 370 ITR 524. The Madras High Court found that an identical payment

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)

disallowance of loss on actual re is against the disallowance of loss on actual re is against the disallowance of loss on actual re- payment of External Commercial Borrowings (hereinafter in short ‘ECB’) payment of External Commercial Borrowings (hereinafter in short ‘ECB’) payment of External Commercial Borrowings (hereinafter in short ‘ECB’) loan during the year. 8.1 The brief facts

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. AADHITYA FINCORP PVT LTD, CHENNAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 659/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.TFor Respondent: Ms. N. V. Lakshmi, Advocate
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 153CSection 40A(3)Section 69A

46A. 2.2 The Ld.CIT(A) erred in not observing that the statement disclosing income made under section 132(4) has evidentiary value and any declaration contrary to the same cannot be admitted without any valid grounds. 2.3 The Ld.CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the working of unreconciled sundry parties is only an afterthought and the fact

E2E SUPPLY CHAIN SOLUTIONS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal for AY 2008-09 is treated as allowed for statistical purposes in terms of above order

ITA 3101/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 3100 & 3101/Chny/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2013-14 M/S. E2E Supply Chain V. Assistant Commissioner Solutions Limited, Of Income Tax, 4Th Floor, East Coast Centre, Corporate Circle -1(1), 534, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai. Chennai – 600 018. [Pan: Aabce 7932 P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr. S. Dwarakesh, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Revenue By : Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. Cit सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 02.03.2026 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of : 09.03.2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri, Jm:

For Appellant: Mr. S. Dwarakesh, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT

Section 194C(6), no TDS obligation arises subject to statutory conditions. The Assessee has discharged its primary onus by placing complete documentary evidence on record. It is further submitted that for AY 2014-15, the same AO completed the assessment without making any comparable disallowance. This reinforces the assessee’s submission that the impugned assessment

E2E SUPPLY CHAIN SOLUTIONS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal for AY 2008-09 is treated as allowed for statistical purposes in terms of above order

ITA 3100/CHNY/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 3100 & 3101/Chny/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2013-14 M/S. E2E Supply Chain V. Assistant Commissioner Solutions Limited, Of Income Tax, 4Th Floor, East Coast Centre, Corporate Circle -1(1), 534, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai. Chennai – 600 018. [Pan: Aabce 7932 P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr. S. Dwarakesh, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Revenue By : Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. Cit सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 02.03.2026 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of : 09.03.2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri, Jm:

For Appellant: Mr. S. Dwarakesh, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT

Section 194C(6), no TDS obligation arises subject to statutory conditions. The Assessee has discharged its primary onus by placing complete documentary evidence on record. It is further submitted that for AY 2014-15, the same AO completed the assessment without making any comparable disallowance. This reinforces the assessee’s submission that the impugned assessment

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI vs. ANSALDO CALDAIE BOILERS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

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

ITA 1999/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1999/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Ansaldo Caldaie Boilers India Income Tax, Private Limited, New No. 45 (Old No. 45), No. 3, 3Rd Floor, Manjula Towers, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai 600 034. Ceebros Complex, Egmore, Chennai 600 008. [Pan:Aafca0623B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 13.06.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.06.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai, Dated 29.03.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2015-16. The Grounds Raised By The Revenue Are As Under: 1. The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Is Contrary To Law, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2.1 The Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Disallowance Made U/S 36(1)(Iii) Of The Act Based On The Fresh Evidences Furnished By The Assessee During The Course Of Appellate Proceedings, Without Affording Any Opportunity To The Ao Under Rule 46A For Verifying The Additional Evidences Submitted By The Assessee Based On Which Relief Was Given.

For Appellant: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CITFor Respondent: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate
Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(ii)Section 36(1)(iii)

disallowance made under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act without affording an opportunity to the Assessing Officer to verify the additional evidences submitted by the assessee is in violation of Rule 46A