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.

7 results for “disallowance”+ Section 801B(10)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai95Delhi36Rajkot34Indore20Pune14Jaipur8Ahmedabad7Chennai7Lucknow6Hyderabad5Nagpur4Surat3Amritsar3Cochin3Guwahati3Jodhpur3Dehradun2Ranchi2Jabalpur1Raipur1Chandigarh1Bangalore1

Key Topics

Section 80H20Section 80I16Section 80P12Section 143(3)9Deduction7Disallowance7Section 2635Section 271(1)(C)4Section 271(1)(c)4Section 56

THE GOVT. TELE COMMUNICATION EMPLOYEES CO-OP. SOCIETY LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-11(1), CHENNAI

ITA 2741/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member), SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri M. Karunakaran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.Sasikumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 56Section 57Section 80P

10 The Assessing officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) in the aforesaid order passed on 13/04/202 for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. During the course of penalty proceedings, the appellant had submitted its response against the proposal to levy penalty under section 271(1)(c). The Assessing officer however levied penalty of Rs.7

4
Exemption4
Penalty4

THE GOVT. TELE COMMUNICATION EMPOLOYEES CO-OP. SOCIETY LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-11(1), CHENNAI

ITA 2740/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member), SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri M. Karunakaran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.Sasikumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 56Section 57Section 80P

10 The Assessing officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) in the aforesaid order passed on 13/04/202 for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. During the course of penalty proceedings, the appellant had submitted its response against the proposal to levy penalty under section 271(1)(c). The Assessing officer however levied penalty of Rs.7

THE GOVT. TELE COMMUNICATION EMPLOYEES CO-OP. SOCIETY LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-11(1),, CHENNAI

ITA 2742/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member), SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri M. Karunakaran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.Sasikumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 56Section 57Section 80P

10 The Assessing officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) in the aforesaid order passed on 13/04/202 for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. During the course of penalty proceedings, the appellant had submitted its response against the proposal to levy penalty under section 271(1)(c). The Assessing officer however levied penalty of Rs.7

THE GOVT. TELE COMMUNICATION EMPLOYEES CO-OP. SOCIETY LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-11(1), CHENNAI

ITA 2743/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member), SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri M. Karunakaran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.Sasikumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 56Section 57Section 80P

10 The Assessing officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) in the aforesaid order passed on 13/04/202 for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. During the course of penalty proceedings, the appellant had submitted its response against the proposal to levy penalty under section 271(1)(c). The Assessing officer however levied penalty of Rs.7

INTERNATIONAL FLAVOURS & FRAGRANCES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI

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

ITA 268/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Dec 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri. Percy Pardiwalla, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Bipin C.N., C.I.T
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 801B

Disallowance of deduction claimed under\nsection 801B of the Act\n5,37,34,851\nTotal income as per assessment order\nu/s.143(3)\n1,40,87,85,237\n3.\nSubsequently, the Id.PCIT invoked jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act and sought\nto revise the assessment order with respect to the allowability of royalty payments\namounting to Rs.16,74,65,000/- made

SANMAR SPECIALITY CHEMICALS LTD ( SUCCESSORS TO INTEC POLYMERS LTD),CHENNAI vs. ACIT RG 3(2),

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in term of the above

ITA 3651/MUM/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Feb 2023AY 2004-2005
For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 80Section 801BSection 80HSection 80I

801B from the "Profits and Gains of business" while computing deduction under Section 80HHC. The Appellant relies on the decision of Madras HC in the case of SCM Creations Vs ACIT, Circle I - Tirupur. (b) The learned Commissioner of Income tax (A) - III has erred in disallowing the write off of advance paid for purchase of goods. (c) The learned

SANMAR SPECIALITY CHEMICALS LTD ( SUCCESSORS TO INTEC POLYMERS LTD),CHENNAI vs. ACIT RG 3(2), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in term of the above

ITA 3650/MUM/2008[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Feb 2023AY 2003-2004
For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 80Section 801BSection 80HSection 80I

801B from the "Profits and Gains of business" while computing deduction under Section 80HHC. The Appellant relies on the decision of Madras HC in the case of SCM Creations Vs ACIT, Circle I - Tirupur. (b) The learned Commissioner of Income tax (A) - III has erred in disallowing the write off of advance paid for purchase of goods. (c) The learned