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.

3 results for “disallowance”+ Section 55Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai96Delhi31Kolkata13Bangalore11Ahmedabad9Surat7Pune7Raipur6Chandigarh4Jaipur3Lucknow3Rajkot3Chennai3Hyderabad2Indore1SC1Nagpur1Karnataka1

Key Topics

Section 55A7Section 50C6Section 143(3)3Section 1472Section 54F2Section 56(2)(vii)2Section 142A2Addition to Income2

G.C.SIVARAJ,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 1, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 2946/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2946/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mr.G.C.Sivaraj, V. The Dy. Commissioner Of 21, Prem Nivas, Income Tax, Psg Estate Colony, Peelamedu, Non-Corporate Circle-1, Coimbatore-641 004. Coimbatore. [Pan: Bqips 4795 P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Mr.G.Johnson, Addl.CIT
Section 16A(5)Section 54FSection 55A

section 55A(a) is specific, clear and unambiguous and leaves no doubt as regards the correctness / validity of the reference in the present case. 5. The Commissioner (Appeals) failed to notice that in a detailed letter dt.02.08.2017 in reply to the assessing officer's letter, the Valuation Officer has explained and justified his method of valuation emphasizing that the valuation

SARAVANAN ARUMUGAM,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

ITA 2966/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Apr 2025AY 2014-15
Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 55ASection 56(2)(vii)

55A cannot be acceded at the fag end of the time barring date. 3.0 The Ld. Counsel of the assessee further submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) affirmed the action of the Ld. AO without properly appreciating true facts of the case. It is the case of the assessee that section 50C mandating stamp duty valuation is different than section

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. SGP EXIM PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2005/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2005/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. S.G.P. Exim Pvt Ltd., Income Tax, V. No. 68, Cathedral Road, Corporate Circle 6(1), Goapalapuram, Chennai. Chennai – 600 086. [Pan: Aabcs-0551-Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. G. Baskar, Advocate सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.11.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02.12.2022

For Appellant: Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. G. Baskar, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 50CSection 50C(1)Section 55Section 55A

55A(b)(1) or the Act applies to the assessee's case, When no reference was made to the DVO and the addition had been made under section 50C of the Act by the AO. 4. For these and other grounds that may be adduced at the time of hearing, it is prayed that the order