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.

1,160 results for “disallowance”+ Section 65clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai4,044Delhi3,482Bangalore1,259Chennai1,160Kolkata933Ahmedabad879Pune619Hyderabad616Jaipur563Indore375Chandigarh336Surat229Cochin167Visakhapatnam153Raipur145Cuttack133Rajkot111Nagpur107Lucknow105Amritsar79Karnataka75Ranchi65Guwahati55Jodhpur52Allahabad49Calcutta46Patna39Agra32SC29Telangana20Jabalpur18Panaji17Varanasi17Dehradun15Punjab & Haryana8Rajasthan4Kerala3Himachal Pradesh2Orissa2ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Disallowance68Addition to Income66Section 14A53Section 4052Section 19546Section 143(3)41Deduction41Section 153A29TDS27Section 5

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

65,460/- only during the aforesaid previous year. These findings of the CIT(A) have not been controverted in the appellate proceedings before us. 14. In view of the above, we direct the Assessing Officer to re-compute the amount of proportionate disallowance of interest on borrowed capital for the purpose of disallowance under Section

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

Showing 1–20 of 1,160 · Page 1 of 58

...
20
Section 143(2)16
Section 13216

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

65,460/- only during the aforesaid previous year. These findings of the CIT(A) have not been controverted in the appellate proceedings before us. 14. In view of the above, we direct the Assessing Officer to re-compute the amount of proportionate disallowance of interest on borrowed capital for the purpose of disallowance under Section

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

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1618/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Jun 2022AY 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

65,460/- only during the aforesaid previous year. These findings of the CIT(A) have not been controverted in the appellate proceedings before us. 14. In view of the above, we direct the Assessing Officer to re-compute the amount of proportionate disallowance of interest on borrowed capital for the purpose of disallowance under Section

TAMIL NADU INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

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

ITA 691/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jul 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Milind Madhukar Bhusari, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 43B

section 43B of the Act, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee itself has disallowed the expenditure in the computation of income, and therefore, he has pleaded that the Assessing Officer cannot make double disallowance, which was already disallowed by the assessee. In view of the above submissions, we direct the Assessing Officer to verify

TAMIL NADU INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

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

ITA 692/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jul 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Milind Madhukar Bhusari, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 43B

section 43B of the Act, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee itself has disallowed the expenditure in the computation of income, and therefore, he has pleaded that the Assessing Officer cannot make double disallowance, which was already disallowed by the assessee. In view of the above submissions, we direct the Assessing Officer to verify

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

Section 250(6)

Disallowance of escrow fee paid to bank under section 37 at INR 201,663 Transfer Pricing adjustment: INR 42,45,31,144 and thus a total additions of INR 65

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

Section 250(6)

Disallowance of escrow fee paid to bank under section 37 at INR 201,663 Transfer Pricing adjustment: INR 42,45,31,144 and thus a total additions of INR 65

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

Section 250(6)

Disallowance of escrow fee paid to bank under section 37 at INR 201,663 Transfer Pricing adjustment: INR 42,45,31,144 and thus a total additions of INR 65

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

Section 250(6)

Disallowance of escrow fee paid to bank under section 37 at INR 201,663 Transfer Pricing adjustment: INR 42,45,31,144 and thus a total additions of INR 65

SANMAR ENGINEERING SERVICES LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT CHENNAI-3, CHENNAI

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

ITA 568/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Dec 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.568/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Sanmar Engineering Services Limited, Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of 9, Cathedral Road, Income Tax Chennai-3, Chennai 600 086. 121, Mahatma Gandhi High Road, Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aaacs8765K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate & Shri Saroj Kumar Parida, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.11.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.12.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Chennai-3, Chennai, Dated 30.03.2023 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2018-19 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 37

section 143 (3) of the Income Tax Act vide order dated 31/03/2021 was erroneous as the order has been passed without disallowing Interest expenses of Rs.261,02,65

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

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 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

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)

section 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and they were prepared at a later stage as an afterthought. It was stated by the appellant's AR that these were prepared as part of finalisation of accounts. Only an amount of Rs.16,65,078/- out of the Development Expenses were disallowable

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)

section 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and they were prepared at a later stage as an afterthought. It was stated by the appellant's AR that these were prepared as part of finalisation of accounts. Only an amount of Rs.16,65,078/- out of the Development Expenses were disallowable

TAMILNADU INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

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

ITA 1160/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. SailendraMamidi. Pr. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 14A

section he has disallowed the expense. 5. The CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Interest paid on Ways and Means Advance amounting to Rs. 37,80,822/- 5.1 The CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the interest was payable on Ways and Means Advance of Rs. 50 crores received from the Government of Tamilnadu. The Government

TAMILNADU INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

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

ITA 1159/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. SailendraMamidi. Pr. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 14A

section he has disallowed the expense. 5. The CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Interest paid on Ways and Means Advance amounting to Rs. 37,80,822/- 5.1 The CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the interest was payable on Ways and Means Advance of Rs. 50 crores received from the Government of Tamilnadu. The Government

TRIWAY CONTAINER FREIGHT STATION P LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD 3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 254/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.254 & 255/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Triway Container Freight Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Station P. Ltd., No. 14, Jaffer Street, Corporate Ward 3(2), Harbour, Chennai 600 001. Chennai – 34. [Pan:Aabct8013A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 11, Chennai Dated 06.12.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 14-15. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Has Filed Its Return Of Income On 28.09.2013 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Admitting Nil Income After Claiming Deduction Under Section 80Ia(4) Of The Income

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 80I

65,93,840/- has been disallowed under section 37(1) of the Act and added back to the total income

TRIWAY CONTAINER FREIGHT STATION P LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD 3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 255/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.254 & 255/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Triway Container Freight Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Station P. Ltd., No. 14, Jaffer Street, Corporate Ward 3(2), Harbour, Chennai 600 001. Chennai – 34. [Pan:Aabct8013A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 11, Chennai Dated 06.12.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 14-15. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Has Filed Its Return Of Income On 28.09.2013 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Admitting Nil Income After Claiming Deduction Under Section 80Ia(4) Of The Income

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 80I

65,93,840/- has been disallowed under section 37(1) of the Act and added back to the total income

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1), CHENNAI vs. BGR ENERGY SYSTEMS LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed

ITA 277/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.221 & 222/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 & 2018-19 M/S. Bgr Energy Systems Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 443, Anna Salai, Guna Complex, Income Tax, Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. Central Circle 3(1), Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aabcg2202J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.277 & 278/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 & 2018-19 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Bgr Energy Systems Limited, Income Tax, No. 443, Anna Salai, Guna Complex, Central Circle 3(1), Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. T. Sandhyaarti, Fca Department By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 19.07.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: These Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As Revenue Are Directed Against The Consolidated Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income

For Appellant: Ms. T. Sandhyaarti, FCAFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 37

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer for both the assessment years. 8. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. The ld. DR has submitted that the issue has been considered by the ITAT in assessee’s own case for earlier