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.

12 results for “disallowance”+ Section 80Cclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi61Jaipur53Mumbai51Hyderabad24Bangalore20Lucknow15Chandigarh14Kolkata14Pune13Cochin13Chennai12Ahmedabad12Raipur8Indore7Amritsar7Surat6Patna5Nagpur5Agra4Cuttack4Visakhapatnam3Jodhpur3Rajkot1Ranchi1Panaji1Varanasi1Allahabad1

Key Topics

Section 80P16Section 80I13Deduction12Section 143(1)10Section 809Disallowance9Section 1477Section 139(1)7Addition to Income7Section 80C

E2594 VADAKAILASAM PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL COOP CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,PANRUTI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4, CUDDALORE, CUDDALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed’

ITA 1276/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1276 /Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2019-2020)

For Appellant: Shri. V. Meenakshi Sundar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. ARV Srinivasan, IRS, Addl.CIT
Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80P

disallow the appellant's deduction claim under section 80P while processing the return under section 143(1) of the Act. Consequently, all the raised appeal grounds are rejected.” Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before us. 7. Before us, the ld.AR for the assessee Ms. A. Vijayalakshmi, FCA pointed out that in the provisions of section 80AC

5
Section 545
Condonation of Delay4

K864 MURALI CHENNAMPATTI PRIMARY AGRICULTURE CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY,ERODE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), ERODE, ERODE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 517/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 516 & 517/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 M/S. K864 Murali Chennampatti The Income Tax Officer, Primary Agriculture Co-Op Vs. Ward 2(1), Credit Society, Erode. Mulari Post, Anthiyur Taluk, Erode – 638 504. Pan: Aabak 3671M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. A. Vijayalakshmi, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.06.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: These Appeals By The Assessee Are Arising Out Of The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Addl/Jcit(A),Prayagraj In Order No.Itba/Apl/S/250/2023-23/1058743474 (1) & 1058743723(1) Both Dated 14.12.2023. The Return Of Income For The Assessment Years 2018-19 & 2019-20 Were Processed & Intimation U/S.143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Were Issued By The Asst. Director Of Income Tax, Central Ita Nos.516 &517/Chny/2024 Processing Center (Cpc), Bengaluru Vide Orders Dated 12.07.2019 & 20.09.2020 Respectively.

For Appellant: Ms. A. Vijayalakshmi, FCAFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT
Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 80P

disallow the appellant's deduction claim under section 80P while processing the return under section 143(1) of the Act. Consequently, all the raised appeal grounds are rejected.” Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before us. 7. Before us, the ld.AR for the assessee Ms. A. Vijayalakshmi, FCA pointed out that in the provisions of section 80AC

K864 MURALI CHENNAMPATTI PRIMARY AGRICULTURE CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY,ERODE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), ERODE, ERODE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 516/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 516 & 517/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 M/S. K864 Murali Chennampatti The Income Tax Officer, Primary Agriculture Co-Op Vs. Ward 2(1), Credit Society, Erode. Mulari Post, Anthiyur Taluk, Erode – 638 504. Pan: Aabak 3671M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. A. Vijayalakshmi, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.06.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: These Appeals By The Assessee Are Arising Out Of The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Addl/Jcit(A),Prayagraj In Order No.Itba/Apl/S/250/2023-23/1058743474 (1) & 1058743723(1) Both Dated 14.12.2023. The Return Of Income For The Assessment Years 2018-19 & 2019-20 Were Processed & Intimation U/S.143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Were Issued By The Asst. Director Of Income Tax, Central Ita Nos.516 &517/Chny/2024 Processing Center (Cpc), Bengaluru Vide Orders Dated 12.07.2019 & 20.09.2020 Respectively.

For Appellant: Ms. A. Vijayalakshmi, FCAFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT
Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 80P

disallow the appellant's deduction claim under section 80P while processing the return under section 143(1) of the Act. Consequently, all the raised appeal grounds are rejected.” Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before us. 7. Before us, the ld.AR for the assessee Ms. A. Vijayalakshmi, FCA pointed out that in the provisions of section 80AC

LAGGISETTY MANOHAR KARTHIK,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 15(2), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 746/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 746/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 147Section 54Section 80C

disallowance of the claim of deduction claimed under Section 80C of the Act to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- and consequently

ANGALAKSHMI SPINNING MILL,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE-4, COIMBATORE

The Appeal is dismissed qua the issue of the extent of deduction under Section 80-IA of the Act

ITA 2260/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2260/Chny/2025 िनधा#रण वष# /Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Mr. A. Arjun Raj, C.A (virtual)For Respondent: Ms. Latchana, JCIT
Section 143(2)Section 153(1)Section 234ASection 250Section 801ASection 80I

disallowance warranted. The A.O however did not accept the submissions of the assessee and held that interest income which is to be taxed under the head income from other sources cannot be included in the gross total income against which deduction under section 80IA of the Act is to be claimed. Accordingly the AO restricted the deduction u/s.80IA and made

DR.RANGASAMY SUDHA,ERODE vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), ERODE, ERODE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1007/CHNY/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Aug 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1007/Chny/2025 धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2023-24 The Income-Tax Officer, Dr. Rangasamy Sudha, 448, Maragathavalli Hospital, Vs. Ward 1(1), Erode. E.V.N. Road, Erode – 638 009. [Pan:Ajcps-0749-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Manickasundaram, Advocate प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.07.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am :

For Appellant: Shri. Manickasundaram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 115BSection 139Section 143(1)Section 80CSection 80T

80C and Rs.50,000/- under section 80TTB). The Ld.CIT(A), however, dismissed the appeal by holding that there is no discrepancy in the order passed by CPC u/s.143(1) of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the FAA, the assessee is in appeal before us. 4. Before us, the Ld.AR for the assessee contended that the assessee is eligible

MARUDHAMALAI SRE DHANDAPANI SPINNING MILLS,KARAMADAI vs. DCIT,CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 11/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 11/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Marudhamalai Sri Dhandapani Deputy Commissioner Of Spinning Mills, V. Income Tax, 142B Bettathapuram Pudur, Centralized Processing Centre, Karmadai Post – 641 104. Bengaluru – 560 500. [Pan: Aagfm-4590-F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 1Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(2)(a)Section 44ASection 80Section 80I

80C of the Act is furnished on the return of income of the Assessee on or before the due date specified under sub-section 1 of Section 139 of the Act. The learned Counsel for the Assessee relied upon the various decisions which are as under: [1] ACIT, Company Circle-I(2), Coimbatore Vs. M/s. Precot Meridian Limited, Coimbatore

MAYAVAN SHANTHI ,NAMAKKAL vs. ITO , WARD - 1 , NAMAKKAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 530/CHNY/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.530/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Smt. Mayavan Shanthi, The Income Tax Officer, 65, Rangar Sannathi Street, Vs. Ward 1, Namakkal, Tamil Nadu 637 001. Namakkal. [Pan: Acsps8564R] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate [Erode] : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 07.03.2023 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.03.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi Dated 06.06.2022, Relevant To The Assessment Year 2011–12. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Her Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2011-12 On 30.03.2012 Admitting An Income Of ₹.1,66,600/- After Deduction Under Section 80C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short]. While Computing The Income, The Assessee Has Claimed Large Interest Expenses Paid To The Husband Of The Assessee

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 57Section 80C

80C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short]. While computing the income, the assessee has claimed large interest expenses paid to the husband of the assessee 2 I.T.A. No. 530/Chny/2022 Dr. R. Mayavan to the extent of ₹.8,58,717/- under section 57(iii) of the Act. In order to verify the genuineness of claim in respect

MUTHIAH SHANMUGAM ,VELLORE vs. ITO, WARD - 3, VELLORE

In the result the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 345/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.345/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2020-21 Muthiah Shanmugam Income Tax Officer, No.1/245, Arapakkam Village, Ward-3, Vellore. Bapsu Nagar, Walaja Tk, Arapakkam, Vellore. [Pan: Aanps3951R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri T.Vasudevan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Arv Srinivasan, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 05.06.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.07.2024

For Appellant: Shri T.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri ARV Srinivasan, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 80CSection 80G

disallowances of Chapter-VIA deductions and interest on borrowed :- 2 -: capital. In this case in its original return the assesse had claimed deduction of Rs.1,50,000/- u/s 80C and Rs.3,509/- u/s.80G. Subsequently, the assesse revised its return of income and made claims of deduction under Chapter-VI A of Rs.8,59,500/- and interest on borrowed capital Rs.1

NARENDRA MAHENDRA KOTHARI,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 5(2), CHENNAI

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

ITA 1006/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1006/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 V. Shri Narendra Mahendra- The Income Tax Officer, Kothari, Non-Corporate Ward-5(2), No.76, Osian Heights, Chennai. Basin Bridge Road, Mint, Chennai-600 079. [Pan: Amopk 2535 Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By Shri D. Anand, Advocate : ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By Shri Arv Sreenivasan, Addl.Cit : सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date Of Hearing 05.02.2024 घोषणाक"तारीख /Date Of : 14.02.2024 Pronouncement

Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)Section 54Section 68Section 80C

80C which was rightfully allowable. 10. For these and other grounds that may be rendered at the time of hearing. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed its return of income for AY 2014-15 on 29.11.2014 admitting total income of Rs.2,31,330/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and assessment has been

FAIVELEY TRANSPORT TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT. LTD.,HOSUR vs. ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1598/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri. Ashik Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, IRS, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80

80C to 80U in computing total income, states the following: "Where the assessee fails to make a claim in his return of income for any deduction under section 104 or section 10AA or section 10B or section 10BA or under any provision of this Chapter under the heading "C.-Deductions in respect of certain incomes", no deduction shall be allowed

TITAN COMPANY LIMITED,HOSUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - LTU 2 (IC), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal raised by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1742/CHNY/2024[2011- 12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2024

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1742/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2011-12 Titan Company Limited, Assistant Commissioner Of No.3, Sipcot Industrial Complex, Income Tax, Hosur, Krishnagiri, Ltu-2, Tamil Nadu-635126 Chennai [Pan: Aaact5131A] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri Abhay Kumar, C.A अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Ms.Komali Krishna, Cit प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10.09.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.12.2024

For Appellant: Ms.Komali Krishna, CIT
Section 147Section 250Section 80Section 80C(2)(a)Section 80I

80C(2)(a)(ii) was made. The new undertaking commenced its operations w.e.f 29.03.2010 and the same being initial one the assessee was entitled to claim deduction u/s 80IC from AY-2010-11. The impugned entity had incurred a loss of Rs. 2,12,94,977/- in previous year 2009-10. It was noted that while computing deduction u/s 80IC