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.

25 results for “disallowance”+ Section 80Cclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi123Mumbai95Jaipur75Bangalore38Hyderabad31Ahmedabad29Chennai25Kolkata22Chandigarh21Pune17Lucknow15Cochin13Indore13Raipur10Amritsar10Surat10Nagpur6Cuttack5Patna5Telangana5Agra4Jodhpur3Visakhapatnam3Karnataka2Ranchi2Varanasi2Allahabad2Panaji1

Key Topics

Section 80I36Section 80P21Deduction19Section 14816Section 143(1)13Disallowance11Section 8010Section 139(1)10Section 14A10Section 143(3)

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

Showing 1–20 of 25 · Page 1 of 2

8
Addition to Income8
Cash Deposit6

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

ITO, ERODE vs. THE ERODE CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED, ERODE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3369/CHNY/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 May 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3369/Mds/2016 "नधा+रण वष+ /Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Respondent: None
Section 14Section 14ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

disallowance can be made under section 14A of the Act in respect of the income on which deduction is allowed under section 80P of the Act by observing as under: “Section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, states that for the purpose of computing total income under Chapter IV, no deduction shall be allowed ill respect of expenditure incurred

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. TVS MOTOR COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1782/CHNY/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2008-09 The The Asst. Asst. Commissioner Commissioner Of Of Vs. M/S. Tvs Motor Company Ltd., M/S. Tvs Motor Company Ltd., Income Tax, Company Circle Income Tax, Company Circle- Jayalakshmi Estates, 29 (Old Jayalakshmi Estates, 29 (Old Iii(2), New Block, 4Th Floor, 121, Iii(2), New Block, 4 No.8), Haddows Road, Chennai No.8), Haddows Road, Chennai Mahatma Mahatma Gandhi Gandhi Road, Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai Nungambakkam, Chennai Pan/Gir No.Aaacs 7032 B Aaacs 7032 B (Appellant) (Appellant .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Ar Revenue By : Dr. S.Palanikumar, Cit ( Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 24 /2/ 2022 2 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/4/20 /2022 O R D E R Per C.M.Garg, Jm , Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vikram VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Dr. S.Palanikumar, CIT (
Section 80Section 80HSection 80I

80C to 80U shall be allowed from his gross total income. He further explained that sub- section*\(1) of section 80A has introduced a new concept of ‘gross total income’ as distinguished from the ‘total income’ i.e.the net or taxable income. Ld counsel for the assessee further explained that clause (5) of Section 80B defines the expression ‘gross total income

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

MITHU KUMARI RANKA,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 5(30, CHENNAI

In the result, five appeals vide ITA Nos

ITA 1970/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Ble“C” Bench

Section 10(38)Section 112Section 143(3)Section 234Section 68

section 10(38). 10. The Assessing Officer added a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- towards drawings ignoring the fact that the assessee's family is a small family showing adequate drawings. 11.That the Assessing Officer while giving a finding that the appellants claim of interest to loan creditors to the tune of Rs.1,10,580/- is disallowed on account

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

AQUASUB ENGINEERING ,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT ,CENTRALIZED PROCESSINF CENTER, BENGALURU

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

ITA 78/CHNY/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri G. Suresh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Guru Bashyam, CIT
Section 1Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 80ASection 80CSection 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

MR/ RAJASHEKHAR BASAPPA MALAGIHAL,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed

ITA 2873/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jan 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

For Respondent: Shri. Ashish Tripathi, IRS, JCIT
Section 57Section 80CSection 80G

80C. 2. Interest repaid on the loan is allowed as a deduction under section 24’’. :- 5 -: The claim is clearly allowable. In so far bank charges and interest of "13,525/- and Audit fees of "6,000/- claimed as expenditure u/s.57(iii) of the Act, admittedly assessee was unable to produce any evidence to show that such expenditure are incurred

ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2, COIMBATORE vs. SHANTHI GEARS LIMITED, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3068/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:3068/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013 - 2014

For Appellant: Mr. G. Johnson, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Mr. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 80ASection 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 :: 7 :: I.T.A. No. 3068/Chny/2017 Counsel for the Assessee relied upon the various decisions which are as under: [1] ACIT, Company Circle-I(2), Coimbatore Vs. M/s. Precot

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

DCIT COMPANY CIRCLE I(1),, CHENNAI vs. POOL THEVAR MARIMUTHU, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue for the assessment

ITA 3400/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Apr 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.3399 & 3400/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs Mr. Pool Thevar Marimuthu Tax, Prop: M/S.Arun Enterprises 2 / 28, Reddy 1St Street, Company Circle-I(1), Chennai. Ekkattuthangal, Chennai-600 032. Pan: Aanpm 5361M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. Y.Sridhar, CAFor Respondent: 03.03.2021
Section 10BSection 80I

80C was disallowed on the grounds of splitting up of business and which was remanded back to the files of AO and the AO had after investigation and verification of the facts passed the order on 31.03.2016. The observations/inferences of the AO on the issue of the transferred machinery which was the second ground on which the disallowance

DCIT COMPANY CIRCLE I(1),, CHENNAI vs. POOL THEVAR MARIMUTHU, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue for the assessment

ITA 3399/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Apr 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.3399 & 3400/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs Mr. Pool Thevar Marimuthu Tax, Prop: M/S.Arun Enterprises 2 / 28, Reddy 1St Street, Company Circle-I(1), Chennai. Ekkattuthangal, Chennai-600 032. Pan: Aanpm 5361M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. Y.Sridhar, CAFor Respondent: 03.03.2021
Section 10BSection 80I

80C was disallowed on the grounds of splitting up of business and which was remanded back to the files of AO and the AO had after investigation and verification of the facts passed the order on 31.03.2016. The observations/inferences of the AO on the issue of the transferred machinery which was the second ground on which the disallowance

K.SURESH,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 568/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jun 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K. Ravi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT
Section 148

section 69. Akberally Esufally vs. CIT (1966) 60 ITR 563 (Mad), CIT vs. M.K. Bros. (1986) 52 CTR (Guj) 228 : (1987) 163 ITR 249 (Guj). The Calcutta High Court in Mihir Chatterjee vs. CIT (1994) 118 CTR (Cal) 26 : (1994) 205 ITR 270 (Cal) held that where the facts on record clearly established that the explanations offered by the assessee

K.SURESH,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 571/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jun 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K. Ravi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT
Section 148

section 69. Akberally Esufally vs. CIT (1966) 60 ITR 563 (Mad), CIT vs. M.K. Bros. (1986) 52 CTR (Guj) 228 : (1987) 163 ITR 249 (Guj). The Calcutta High Court in Mihir Chatterjee vs. CIT (1994) 118 CTR (Cal) 26 : (1994) 205 ITR 270 (Cal) held that where the facts on record clearly established that the explanations offered by the assessee

K.SURESH,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 569/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jun 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K. Ravi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT
Section 148

section 69. Akberally Esufally vs. CIT (1966) 60 ITR 563 (Mad), CIT vs. M.K. Bros. (1986) 52 CTR (Guj) 228 : (1987) 163 ITR 249 (Guj). The Calcutta High Court in Mihir Chatterjee vs. CIT (1994) 118 CTR (Cal) 26 : (1994) 205 ITR 270 (Cal) held that where the facts on record clearly established that the explanations offered by the assessee

K.SURESH,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 572/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jun 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K. Ravi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT
Section 148

section 69. Akberally Esufally vs. CIT (1966) 60 ITR 563 (Mad), CIT vs. M.K. Bros. (1986) 52 CTR (Guj) 228 : (1987) 163 ITR 249 (Guj). The Calcutta High Court in Mihir Chatterjee vs. CIT (1994) 118 CTR (Cal) 26 : (1994) 205 ITR 270 (Cal) held that where the facts on record clearly established that the explanations offered by the assessee