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.

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

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai199Delhi55Rajkot35Indore23Kolkata22Ahmedabad21Pune17Chennai15Bangalore13Hyderabad9Jaipur7Nagpur4Jodhpur4Lucknow4Surat3Ranchi2Dehradun2Karnataka1Amritsar1Agra1Kerala1Raipur1

Key Topics

Section 80I42Section 80H20Deduction15Section 80P12Section 143(3)12Disallowance12Section 2635Section 271(1)(C)4Section 271(1)(c)4Section 56

ITO, CHENNAI vs. A.L.HOMES, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1427/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Mr.S.Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: 31.10.2017
Section 801BSection 801B(10)Section 80ISection 8O

disallowance of Rs.19,99,981/- u/s 801B(10). 2.1 The Ld CIT(A) failed to appreciate that new condition was introduced under clause (e) and (f) of section 801B(10) which reads as under”- “Not more than one residential unit in the housing project is allotted to any person not being an individual” Provisions of section 801B(10(f) reads

4
Exemption4
Penalty4

ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 11, CHENNAI vs. FOMRA DEVELOPERS, CHENNAI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2517/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jun 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri. D. Anand, Advocate
Section 80Section 801B(10)Section 801B(10)(f)Section 80I

C” BENCH, CHENNAI "ी जॉज" माथन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एस जयरामन, लेखा सद"य केसम# BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No: 2517/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2014-15 Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, M/s. Fomra Developers, Non Corporate Circle 11, Vs. No. 123, Govindappa Naicken Street

M/S MACRO MARVEL PROJECTS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, COMPANY WARD-IV(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2259/CHNY/2007[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jun 2022AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 80I

c) In respect of the A.Y. 2003-04, there is no provision in section 80 IB (10) which permits commercial area within a housing project. On the basis of the above grounds, I hold that the A.O was fully justified in disallowing the appellant's claim u/s 80IB(10). The grounds of the appellant in this regard thus fail.” Aggrieved

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S MACRO MARVEL PROJECTS LTD, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 194/CHNY/2008[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jun 2022AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 80I

c) In respect of the A.Y. 2003-04, there is no provision in section 80 IB (10) which permits commercial area within a housing project. On the basis of the above grounds, I hold that the A.O was fully justified in disallowing the appellant's claim u/s 80IB(10). The grounds of the appellant in this regard thus fail.” Aggrieved

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

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

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

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

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

C' BENCH, CHENNAI\nश्री मनु कुमार गिरि, न्यायिक सदस्य एवं श्री एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष\nBEFORE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nAND SHRI S.R.RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nआयकर अपीलसं./ITA No.268/CHNY/2025\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2017-18\nInternational Flavours & Fragrances\nIndia Pvt. Ltd.,\nSKCL Triton Square,\n2nd Floor, C3-C7,\nThiru-vi-ka Industrial Estate, Guindy,\nChennai

ACIT, MADURAI vs. THE METAL POWDER COMPANY LTD., MADURAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1143/CHNY/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Mar 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri. G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. A.V.Sreekanth, IRS, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. A.S. Sriraman, Advocate
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 80I

C ” BENCH, CHENNAI "ी ए. मोहन अलंकामणी , लेखा सद"य एवं "ी जी. पवन कुमार, "या"यक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1143/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment year : 2010-2011 The Deputy Commissioner of Vs. The Metal Powder Company Ltd, Income Tax, Maravankulam, Circle

COOPER BUSSMANN INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,PONDICHERRY vs. ACIT, PONDICHERRY

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for the assessment years 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-

ITA 1559/CHNY/2014[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Nov 2019AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.1559 To 1563, 2592 - 2594/Chny/2014) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2001-02 To 2008-09) Vs The Acit, M/S. Cooper Bussmann India Pvt. Ltd., Circle – 1, 34, Evr Street, Sedarapet, Pondicherry. Pondicherry - 605 111. Pan: Aabcs 0431R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos. 1662 & 1663/Chny/2016 & 178/Chny/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 To 2011-12) Vs The Jcit, M/S. Cooper Bussmann India Pvt. Ltd., Range – 1, 34, Evr Street, Sedarapet, Pondicherry. Pondicherry - 605 111. Pan: Aabcs 0431R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Vishal Kalra, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Srinivasa Rao, Cit

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 80ISection 80l

disallowance U/s.80IB, the ld.AR submitted against the various findings recorded by the lower authorities issue- wise as under: 1. With regard to the finding that investment was not substantial, the ld.AR submitted that the issue of substantial investment is relevant to be examined when the undertaking manufactures same products as the old undertaking, so as to establish that the undertaking

COOPER BUSSMANN INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,PONDICHERRY vs. ACIT, PONDICHERRY

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for the assessment years 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-

ITA 1563/CHNY/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Nov 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.1559 To 1563, 2592 - 2594/Chny/2014) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2001-02 To 2008-09) Vs The Acit, M/S. Cooper Bussmann India Pvt. Ltd., Circle – 1, 34, Evr Street, Sedarapet, Pondicherry. Pondicherry - 605 111. Pan: Aabcs 0431R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos. 1662 & 1663/Chny/2016 & 178/Chny/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 To 2011-12) Vs The Jcit, M/S. Cooper Bussmann India Pvt. Ltd., Range – 1, 34, Evr Street, Sedarapet, Pondicherry. Pondicherry - 605 111. Pan: Aabcs 0431R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Vishal Kalra, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Srinivasa Rao, Cit

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 80ISection 80l

disallowance U/s.80IB, the ld.AR submitted against the various findings recorded by the lower authorities issue- wise as under: 1. With regard to the finding that investment was not substantial, the ld.AR submitted that the issue of substantial investment is relevant to be examined when the undertaking manufactures same products as the old undertaking, so as to establish that the undertaking

COOPER BUSSMANN INDIA PVT. LTD.,PONDICHERRY vs. JCIT, PONDICHERRY

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for the assessment years 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-

ITA 178/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Nov 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.1559 To 1563, 2592 - 2594/Chny/2014) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2001-02 To 2008-09) Vs The Acit, M/S. Cooper Bussmann India Pvt. Ltd., Circle – 1, 34, Evr Street, Sedarapet, Pondicherry. Pondicherry - 605 111. Pan: Aabcs 0431R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos. 1662 & 1663/Chny/2016 & 178/Chny/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 To 2011-12) Vs The Jcit, M/S. Cooper Bussmann India Pvt. Ltd., Range – 1, 34, Evr Street, Sedarapet, Pondicherry. Pondicherry - 605 111. Pan: Aabcs 0431R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Vishal Kalra, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Srinivasa Rao, Cit

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 80ISection 80l

disallowance U/s.80IB, the ld.AR submitted against the various findings recorded by the lower authorities issue- wise as under: 1. With regard to the finding that investment was not substantial, the ld.AR submitted that the issue of substantial investment is relevant to be examined when the undertaking manufactures same products as the old undertaking, so as to establish that the undertaking