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.

107 results for “disallowance”+ Section 80G(5)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai470Delhi291Pune198Ahmedabad133Kolkata133Bangalore120Chennai107Jaipur52Hyderabad44Chandigarh26Indore25Lucknow21Surat14Rajkot12Cuttack11Ranchi9Raipur7Visakhapatnam6Cochin6Jodhpur5Nagpur4Amritsar3Telangana2Allahabad1Dehradun1Guwahati1Punjab & Haryana1SC1Jabalpur1Karnataka1Agra1Panaji1

Key Topics

Section 11110Section 80G96Deduction56Addition to Income54Section 13(1)(c)43Disallowance40Section 153C38Section 80H36Exemption31Section 80

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU CIRCLE 1 CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. CARBORUNDUM UNIVERSAL LIMITED, CHENNAI

ITA 48/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon’Ble Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./ It(Tp)A Nos.2, 3 & 4/Chny/2025 िनधा@रण वष@ /Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri R.Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Senthil Kumar, Addl. CIT

disallowed the claim under Section 80G stating that Explanation has been introduced to Section 37 that expenditure incurred by an assessee on the activities relating to corporate social responsibility referred to in Section 135 of the Companies Act 2013 shall not be deemed to have been incurred for the purpose of business and hence shall not be allowed under Section

BOUNTEOUS DIGITAL PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI

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

ITA 1600/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai

Showing 1–20 of 107 · Page 1 of 6

30
Section 143(3)29
Section 2(15)25
28 Aug 2025
AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1600/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Bounteous Digital Private Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Block A, 8Th Floor, Global Infocity Park Income Tax, No. 40, Mgr Salai, Perungudi, Corporate Circle 4(1), Chennai 600 096. Chennai. [Pan:Aaacl6079R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri A.R. Raghunathan, Ca (Virtual) ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C. Sivakumar, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 18.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 11.02.2025 Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A) – 10, Mumbai For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The First Issue Raised By The Assessee Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Disallowance Of Csr Expenses In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri A.R. Raghunathan, CA (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri C. Sivakumar, Addl. CIT
Section 143(2)Section 30Section 36Section 37Section 37(1)Section 80G

5. With regard to the disallowance of donation, the ld. AR submits that donation amount was already disallowed by the assessee in its ITR and claimed as deduction under section 80G

M/S. SUPER AUTO FORGE PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD-3(1), CHENNAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1358/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Mr. K. Ramakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 37Section 80G

disallowed under section 37(1) towards CSR whether can be claimed as a deduction under section 80G is a M/s Super Auto Forge Pvt. Ltd. debatable issue though the issue is reasonably settled at Tribunal level. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industries Co. Ltd. [(2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC)] has laid down the ratio that

RANE ENGINE VALVE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 5 (1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 in ITA No

ITA 1477/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Suresh, JCIT
Section 143(3)

80G of the Act without adducing any reasons or providing an opportunity to the Appellant. 10.1 At the outset, the ld.counsel for the assessee stated that the AO while computing income has disallowed the claim of deduction claimed by assessee u/s.80G of the Act amounting to Rs.20.60 lakhs. The ld.counsel stated that the AO has not discussed this issue

RANE ENGINE VALVE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 5(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 in ITA No

ITA 2815/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Suresh, JCIT
Section 143(3)

80G of the Act without adducing any reasons or providing an opportunity to the Appellant. 10.1 At the outset, the ld.counsel for the assessee stated that the AO while computing income has disallowed the claim of deduction claimed by assessee u/s.80G of the Act amounting to Rs.20.60 lakhs. The ld.counsel stated that the AO has not discussed this issue

RANE ENGINE VALVES LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 in ITA No

ITA 1497/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Suresh, JCIT
Section 143(3)

80G of the Act without adducing any reasons or providing an opportunity to the Appellant. 10.1 At the outset, the ld.counsel for the assessee stated that the AO while computing income has disallowed the claim of deduction claimed by assessee u/s.80G of the Act amounting to Rs.20.60 lakhs. The ld.counsel stated that the AO has not discussed this issue

RANE ENGINE VALVES LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 in ITA No

ITA 1498/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Suresh, JCIT
Section 143(3)

80G of the Act without adducing any reasons or providing an opportunity to the Appellant. 10.1 At the outset, the ld.counsel for the assessee stated that the AO while computing income has disallowed the claim of deduction claimed by assessee u/s.80G of the Act amounting to Rs.20.60 lakhs. The ld.counsel stated that the AO has not discussed this issue

RANE ENGINE VALVE LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE-5(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 in ITA No

ITA 885/CHNY/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Suresh, JCIT
Section 143(3)

80G of the Act without adducing any reasons or providing an opportunity to the Appellant. 10.1 At the outset, the ld.counsel for the assessee stated that the AO while computing income has disallowed the claim of deduction claimed by assessee u/s.80G of the Act amounting to Rs.20.60 lakhs. The ld.counsel stated that the AO has not discussed this issue

ACIT, CIRCLE LTU-1,, CHENNAI vs. CARBORUNDUM UNIVERSAL LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 140/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos. 139, 140 & 117/Chny/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2018-19)

For Appellant: Ms. Anitha, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan
Section 32(1)(iia)Section 40

5) Depreciation on know-how fees 24,652/- 6) Brand value depreciation 83,057/- 7) Disallowance of export commission u/s. 40(a)(і) 1,40,83,245/- 8) Disallowance of excess depreciation: Printer, UPS, Scanner 3,66,828/- & Router 10,32,028/- Software 6,20,000/- 9) Excess deduction u/s.35(2AB) 10) Disallowance of Principal amount

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE LTU-1, , CHENNAI vs. CARBORUNDUM UNIVERSAL LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 139/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos. 139, 140 & 117/Chny/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2018-19)

For Appellant: Ms. Anitha, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan
Section 32(1)(iia)Section 40

5) Depreciation on know-how fees 24,652/- 6) Brand value depreciation 83,057/- 7) Disallowance of export commission u/s. 40(a)(і) 1,40,83,245/- 8) Disallowance of excess depreciation: Printer, UPS, Scanner 3,66,828/- & Router 10,32,028/- Software 6,20,000/- 9) Excess deduction u/s.35(2AB) 10) Disallowance of Principal amount

ACIT, LTU CIRCLE 1 CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. CARBORUNDUM UNIVERSAL LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 117/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos. 139, 140 & 117/Chny/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2018-19)

For Appellant: Ms. Anitha, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan
Section 32(1)(iia)Section 40

5) Depreciation on know-how fees 24,652/- 6) Brand value depreciation 83,057/- 7) Disallowance of export commission u/s. 40(a)(і) 1,40,83,245/- 8) Disallowance of excess depreciation: Printer, UPS, Scanner 3,66,828/- & Router 10,32,028/- Software 6,20,000/- 9) Excess deduction u/s.35(2AB) 10) Disallowance of Principal amount

M/S. STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD.,MADURAI vs. ADDITIONAL CIT, CHENNAI

ITA 1386/CHNY/2010[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Mar 2017AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing
Section 271ASection 80Section 80H

80G of the Act. The Assessing Officer restricted the claim to the extent of `1,73,250/- since the donation made to Rajiv Gandhi Relief and National Welfare Trust was eligible for deduction only for 50% as against 100% claimed by the assessee. However, the CIT(Appeals) allowed the claim of the assessee under Section 37 of the Act. since

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD., TUTICORIN

ITA 1665/CHNY/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Mar 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing
Section 271ASection 80Section 80H

80G of the Act. The Assessing Officer restricted the claim to the extent of `1,73,250/- since the donation made to Rajiv Gandhi Relief and National Welfare Trust was eligible for deduction only for 50% as against 100% claimed by the assessee. However, the CIT(Appeals) allowed the claim of the assessee under Section 37 of the Act. since

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD., TUTICORIN

ITA 319/CHNY/2008[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Mar 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing
Section 271ASection 80Section 80H

80G of the Act. The Assessing Officer restricted the claim to the extent of `1,73,250/- since the donation made to Rajiv Gandhi Relief and National Welfare Trust was eligible for deduction only for 50% as against 100% claimed by the assessee. However, the CIT(Appeals) allowed the claim of the assessee under Section 37 of the Act. since

M/S STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD.,TUTICORIN vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

ITA 86/CHNY/2008[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Mar 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing
Section 271ASection 80Section 80H

80G of the Act. The Assessing Officer restricted the claim to the extent of `1,73,250/- since the donation made to Rajiv Gandhi Relief and National Welfare Trust was eligible for deduction only for 50% as against 100% claimed by the assessee. However, the CIT(Appeals) allowed the claim of the assessee under Section 37 of the Act. since

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD., TUTICORIN

ITA 1020/CHNY/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Mar 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing
Section 271ASection 80Section 80H

80G of the Act. The Assessing Officer restricted the claim to the extent of `1,73,250/- since the donation made to Rajiv Gandhi Relief and National Welfare Trust was eligible for deduction only for 50% as against 100% claimed by the assessee. However, the CIT(Appeals) allowed the claim of the assessee under Section 37 of the Act. since

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD., CHENNAI

ITA 318/CHNY/2008[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Mar 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing
Section 271ASection 80Section 80H

80G of the Act. The Assessing Officer restricted the claim to the extent of `1,73,250/- since the donation made to Rajiv Gandhi Relief and National Welfare Trust was eligible for deduction only for 50% as against 100% claimed by the assessee. However, the CIT(Appeals) allowed the claim of the assessee under Section 37 of the Act. since

M/S. ANAND TRANSPORT,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals in I

ITA 2298/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2293 & 2294/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1269/Mds/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-2010

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Milind Madhukar Bhusari, CIT
Section 195(1)Section 195ASection 40

5 I.T.A. Nos.2293 & 2294/Mds/16 I.T.A. Nos.2298 & 2299/Mds/16 I.T.A. No.1269/Mds/13 7. Dr. Milind Madhukar Bhusari, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that the assessee advanced a sum of `20 Crores to M/s MGM Logistics and Shipping Pvt. Ltd., therefore, the Assessing Officer found that the borrowed funds were diverted for non-business purpose. Accordingly, he disallowed `1.36 Crores. On further appeal

M/S. ANAND TRANSPORT,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals in I

ITA 2299/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2293 & 2294/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1269/Mds/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-2010

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Milind Madhukar Bhusari, CIT
Section 195(1)Section 195ASection 40

5 I.T.A. Nos.2293 & 2294/Mds/16 I.T.A. Nos.2298 & 2299/Mds/16 I.T.A. No.1269/Mds/13 7. Dr. Milind Madhukar Bhusari, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that the assessee advanced a sum of `20 Crores to M/s MGM Logistics and Shipping Pvt. Ltd., therefore, the Assessing Officer found that the borrowed funds were diverted for non-business purpose. Accordingly, he disallowed `1.36 Crores. On further appeal

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. ANAND TRANSPORT, CHENNAI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals in I

ITA 2294/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2293 & 2294/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1269/Mds/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-2010

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Milind Madhukar Bhusari, CIT
Section 195(1)Section 195ASection 40

5 I.T.A. Nos.2293 & 2294/Mds/16 I.T.A. Nos.2298 & 2299/Mds/16 I.T.A. No.1269/Mds/13 7. Dr. Milind Madhukar Bhusari, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that the assessee advanced a sum of `20 Crores to M/s MGM Logistics and Shipping Pvt. Ltd., therefore, the Assessing Officer found that the borrowed funds were diverted for non-business purpose. Accordingly, he disallowed `1.36 Crores. On further appeal