Search: disallowance | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

1,972 results for “disallowance”+ Section 50clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai7,524 Delhi6,338 Chennai1,972 Bangalore1,945 Kolkata1,760 Ahmedabad1,672 Pune1,181 Hyderabad1,028 Jaipur982 Chandigarh640 Indore584 Surat481 Raipur356 Cochin350 Visakhapatnam311 Rajkot273 Nagpur228 Cuttack221 Amritsar203 Lucknow169 Karnataka150 Allahabad93 Guwahati88 Jodhpur83 Agra77 Ranchi71 Telangana65 Calcutta59 Patna57 Panaji57 SC55 Dehradun35 Jabalpur33 Varanasi24 Kerala19 Punjab & Haryana7 Orissa3 Himachal Pradesh3 Rajasthan3 A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2 Bombay1 ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1 Uttarakhand1 Gauhati1 ANIL R. DAVE AMITAVA ROY L. NAGESWARA RAO1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)86 Disallowance64 Addition to Income60 Section 153C38 Section 14A37 Deduction36 Section 153A33 Section 4032 Section 14721 Section 132

ALBERT & CO. P. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD 6(1), CHENNAI

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2577/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Mr. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. V. Sreedevi, JCIT

Section 201(1)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40

Disallowed under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act on 34,50,866 account of failure to deduct tax at source

ALBERT & CO. P LTD. ,CHENNAI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD 6(1) , CHENNAI

Appeal is partly allowed

Showing 1–20 of 1,972 · Page 1 of 99

...

19

Business Income10

ITA 1618/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: Disposed

ITAT Chennai

02 Jun 2022

AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Mr. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. V. Sreedevi, JCIT

Section 201(1)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40

Disallowed under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act on 34,50,866 account of failure to deduct tax at source

ALBERT & CO. P. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD 6(1), CHENNAI

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2578/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Mr. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. V. Sreedevi, JCIT

Section 201(1)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40

Disallowed under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act on 34,50,866 account of failure to deduct tax at source

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

50,41,454/- after taking into account an amount of ₹.86,400/- already disallowed by the assessee. 3.2 The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). After considering the observations of the Assessing Officer and revised 3 I.T.A. Nos.1199 & 1307Chny/18 working of disallowance under section

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

50,41,454/- after taking into account an amount of ₹.86,400/- already disallowed by the assessee. 3.2 The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). After considering the observations of the Assessing Officer and revised 3 I.T.A. Nos.1199 & 1307Chny/18 working of disallowance under section

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

disallowance made under section 14A to the extent of dividend income earned by the assessee. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed in this regard. 31. On the issue of the transfer pricing adjustment in respect of the investment in OFCD , the ld DR submitted that during the year, SVL had invested in the OFCDs issued

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

disallowance made under section 14A to the extent of dividend income earned by the assessee. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed in this regard. 31. On the issue of the transfer pricing adjustment in respect of the investment in OFCD , the ld DR submitted that during the year, SVL had invested in the OFCDs issued

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

disallowance made under section 14A to the extent of dividend income earned by the assessee. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed in this regard. 31. On the issue of the transfer pricing adjustment in respect of the investment in OFCD , the ld DR submitted that during the year, SVL had invested in the OFCDs issued

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

disallowance made under section 14A to the extent of dividend income earned by the assessee. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed in this regard. 31. On the issue of the transfer pricing adjustment in respect of the investment in OFCD , the ld DR submitted that during the year, SVL had invested in the OFCDs issued

SHRIRAM CAPITAL LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 512/CHNY/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jun 2015AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.512 &513 /Mds/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 & 2011- 2012)

For Appellant: Shri. R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. N. Rengaraj, IRS, CIT

section 14A by an artificial method of interpretation.” However, we find that the calculation of disallowance under Rule 8D(iii) made by the Assessing Officer and upheld by Ld CIT(A) is not correct In view of the fact that Assessing Officer had included the value of total investments for calculation of disallowance whereas in our opinion the value

SHRIRAM CAPITAL LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 513/CHNY/2015[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jun 2015AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.512 &513 /Mds/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 & 2011- 2012)

For Appellant: Shri. R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. N. Rengaraj, IRS, CIT

section 14A by an artificial method of interpretation.” However, we find that the calculation of disallowance under Rule 8D(iii) made by the Assessing Officer and upheld by Ld CIT(A) is not correct In view of the fact that Assessing Officer had included the value of total investments for calculation of disallowance whereas in our opinion the value

M/S. SHREE BATTERY HOUSE,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2 (1),, CHENNAI

2400/CHNY/2019

ITA 2587/CHNY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Dr. M.L. Meena

Section 153ASection 271A

50 lakhs was added in the absence of any evidence in regard to identity of the party, creditworthiness and genuineness of transaction in term of section 68 of the Act. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) restricted the addition at Rs.13 lakhs by observing in para 16.6 as under:- 38 I.T.A. Nos.2357

M/S. SHREE BATTERY HOUSE,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2 (1),, CHENNAI

2400/CHNY/2019

ITA 2591/CHNY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Dr. M.L. Meena

Section 153ASection 271A

50 lakhs was added in the absence of any evidence in regard to identity of the party, creditworthiness and genuineness of transaction in term of section 68 of the Act. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) restricted the addition at Rs.13 lakhs by observing in para 16.6 as under:- 38 I.T.A. Nos.2357

SHANTHILAL D JAIN,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2 (1),, CHENNAI

2400/CHNY/2019

ITA 2399/CHNY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Dr. M.L. Meena

Section 153ASection 271A

50 lakhs was added in the absence of any evidence in regard to identity of the party, creditworthiness and genuineness of transaction in term of section 68 of the Act. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) restricted the addition at Rs.13 lakhs by observing in para 16.6 as under:- 38 I.T.A. Nos.2357

SMT. SHARMILA S. JAIN,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CC - 2 (1),, CHENNAI

2400/CHNY/2019

ITA 434/CHNY/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Dr. M.L. Meena

Section 153ASection 271A

50 lakhs was added in the absence of any evidence in regard to identity of the party, creditworthiness and genuineness of transaction in term of section 68 of the Act. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) restricted the addition at Rs.13 lakhs by observing in para 16.6 as under:- 38 I.T.A. Nos.2357

SHANTHILAL D JAIN,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2 (1),, CHENNAI

2400/CHNY/2019

ITA 2397/CHNY/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 May 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Dr. M.L. Meena

Section 153ASection 271A

50 lakhs was added in the absence of any evidence in regard to identity of the party, creditworthiness and genuineness of transaction in term of section 68 of the Act. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) restricted the addition at Rs.13 lakhs by observing in para 16.6 as under:- 38 I.T.A. Nos.2357

SHANTHILAL D JAIN,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2 (1),, CHENNAI

2400/CHNY/2019

ITA 2398/CHNY/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 May 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Dr. M.L. Meena

Section 153ASection 271A

50 lakhs was added in the absence of any evidence in regard to identity of the party, creditworthiness and genuineness of transaction in term of section 68 of the Act. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) restricted the addition at Rs.13 lakhs by observing in para 16.6 as under:- 38 I.T.A. Nos.2357

SHANTHILAL D JAIN,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2 (1),, CHENNAI

2400/CHNY/2019

ITA 2363/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Dr. M.L. Meena

Section 153ASection 271A

50 lakhs was added in the absence of any evidence in regard to identity of the party, creditworthiness and genuineness of transaction in term of section 68 of the Act. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) restricted the addition at Rs.13 lakhs by observing in para 16.6 as under:- 38 I.T.A. Nos.2357

SHANTHILAL D JAIN,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2 (1),, CHENNAI

2400/CHNY/2019

ITA 2359/CHNY/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 May 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Dr. M.L. Meena

Section 153ASection 271A

50 lakhs was added in the absence of any evidence in regard to identity of the party, creditworthiness and genuineness of transaction in term of section 68 of the Act. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) restricted the addition at Rs.13 lakhs by observing in para 16.6 as under:- 38 I.T.A. Nos.2357

SHANTHILAL D JAIN,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2 (1),, CHENNAI

2400/CHNY/2019

ITA 2401/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Dr. M.L. Meena

Section 153ASection 271A

50 lakhs was added in the absence of any evidence in regard to identity of the party, creditworthiness and genuineness of transaction in term of section 68 of the Act. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) restricted the addition at Rs.13 lakhs by observing in para 16.6 as under:- 38 I.T.A. Nos.2357