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.

574 results for “disallowance”+ Section 90clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,119Delhi1,490Chennai574Bangalore414Hyderabad402Ahmedabad382Kolkata341Jaipur287Pune194Chandigarh153Surat149Indore118Raipur110Cochin106Amritsar92Visakhapatnam88Lucknow82Nagpur71Rajkot65Allahabad48SC42Ranchi33Patna32Guwahati29Cuttack29Jodhpur21Agra20Dehradun20Jabalpur11Panaji11Varanasi5A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)110Addition to Income63Section 153A46Disallowance46Section 14A37Section 14732Section 13226Deduction26Section 14825Section 143(2)

ZOHO CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED,KANCHEEPURAM vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is\ndismissed

ITA 2957/CHNY/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Feb 2025AY 2015-16
Section 143(3)Section 37Section 37(1)Section 40Section 90

disallowed this claim, citing Section 40(a)(ii).", "held": "The Tribunal held that the foreign taxes paid by the assessee are taxes levied on profits and gains of business and are thus covered under the prohibition of Section 40(a)(ii). The claim under Section 37(1) was therefore not permissible, as it would defeat the purpose of Sections 90

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

Showing 1–20 of 574 · Page 1 of 29

...
21
Section 271(1)(c)21
Reopening of Assessment18
ITA 48/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed
ITAT Chennai
20 Aug 2025
AY 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

90,000 under Rule 8D(2)(iii). The Assessee had suo moto disallowed a sum of Rs.73,710/- under Section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU CIRCLE 1 CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. E I D PARRY INDIA LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3251/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathait(Tp)A. Nos.:105, 106, 107/Chny/2024 & Ita No.3113/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. E.I.D. Parry India Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 234, Dare House, Nsc Vs. Income Tax, Bose Road, Parrys Corner, Large Taxpayer Unit -1, Chennai 600 001. Chennai. [Pan: Aaace-0702-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 92BSection 92C

disallowance made under section 40(a)(i) of the Act. 30. During the course of scrutiny proceedings, the assessee was directed to submit the details of expenditures incurred in foreign currency and TDS deducted thereon. Accordingly, the assessee furnished the details of expenditure incurred towards professional charges – legal & consultancy of ₹. 5,90

M/S. EID PARRY INDIA LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, LTU-1,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3113/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathait(Tp)A. Nos.:105, 106, 107/Chny/2024 & Ita No.3113/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. E.I.D. Parry India Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 234, Dare House, Nsc Vs. Income Tax, Bose Road, Parrys Corner, Large Taxpayer Unit -1, Chennai 600 001. Chennai. [Pan: Aaace-0702-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 92BSection 92C

disallowance made under section 40(a)(i) of the Act. 30. During the course of scrutiny proceedings, the assessee was directed to submit the details of expenditures incurred in foreign currency and TDS deducted thereon. Accordingly, the assessee furnished the details of expenditure incurred towards professional charges – legal & consultancy of ₹. 5,90

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 8 1 (INCHARGE), HYDERABAD vs. VIRTUSA CONSULTING SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, TAMIL NADU

In the result, the ground of appeal in Ground No 2-4 in IT(TP)A No

ITA 2632/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathait (Tp) A No.:42/Chny/2024 & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.2262/Chny/2024 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri. N. V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, C.I.T
Section 10ASection 35(1)(iv)

disallowance of Rs.8,90,35,000/- made under section 35(1)(iv). 3. Any other grounds that may be arisen

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HYDERABAD vs. VIRTUSA CONSULTING SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI TAMIL NADU

In the result, the ground of appeal in Ground No 2-4 in IT(TP)A No

ITA 2631/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathait (Tp) A No.:42/Chny/2024 & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.2262/Chny/2024 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri. N. V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, C.I.T
Section 10ASection 35(1)(iv)

disallowance of Rs.8,90,35,000/- made under section 35(1)(iv). 3. Any other grounds that may be arisen

VIRTUSA CONSULTING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CC-5(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the ground of appeal in Ground No 2-4 in IT(TP)A No

ITA 2262/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathait (Tp) A No.:42/Chny/2024 & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.2262/Chny/2024 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri. N. V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, C.I.T
Section 10ASection 35(1)(iv)

disallowance of Rs.8,90,35,000/- made under section 35(1)(iv). 3. Any other grounds that may be arisen

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1), CHENNAI vs. BGR ENERGY SYSTEMS LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed

ITA 277/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.221 & 222/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 & 2018-19 M/S. Bgr Energy Systems Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 443, Anna Salai, Guna Complex, Income Tax, Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. Central Circle 3(1), Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aabcg2202J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.277 & 278/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 & 2018-19 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Bgr Energy Systems Limited, Income Tax, No. 443, Anna Salai, Guna Complex, Central Circle 3(1), Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. T. Sandhyaarti, Fca Department By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 19.07.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: These Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As Revenue Are Directed Against The Consolidated Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income

For Appellant: Ms. T. Sandhyaarti, FCAFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 37

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer for both the assessment years. 8. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. The ld. DR has submitted that the issue has been considered by the ITAT in assessee’s own case for earlier

M/S BGR EERGY SYSTEMS LIMIED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed

ITA 222/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.221 & 222/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 & 2018-19 M/S. Bgr Energy Systems Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 443, Anna Salai, Guna Complex, Income Tax, Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. Central Circle 3(1), Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aabcg2202J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.277 & 278/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 & 2018-19 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Bgr Energy Systems Limited, Income Tax, No. 443, Anna Salai, Guna Complex, Central Circle 3(1), Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. T. Sandhyaarti, Fca Department By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 19.07.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: These Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As Revenue Are Directed Against The Consolidated Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income

For Appellant: Ms. T. Sandhyaarti, FCAFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 37

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer for both the assessment years. 8. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. The ld. DR has submitted that the issue has been considered by the ITAT in assessee’s own case for earlier

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1), CHENNAI vs. BGR ENERGY SYSTEMS LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed

ITA 278/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.221 & 222/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 & 2018-19 M/S. Bgr Energy Systems Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 443, Anna Salai, Guna Complex, Income Tax, Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. Central Circle 3(1), Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aabcg2202J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.277 & 278/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 & 2018-19 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Bgr Energy Systems Limited, Income Tax, No. 443, Anna Salai, Guna Complex, Central Circle 3(1), Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. T. Sandhyaarti, Fca Department By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 19.07.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: These Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As Revenue Are Directed Against The Consolidated Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income

For Appellant: Ms. T. Sandhyaarti, FCAFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 37

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer for both the assessment years. 8. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. The ld. DR has submitted that the issue has been considered by the ITAT in assessee’s own case for earlier

M/S BGR EERGY SYSTEMS LIMIED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed

ITA 221/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.221 & 222/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 & 2018-19 M/S. Bgr Energy Systems Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 443, Anna Salai, Guna Complex, Income Tax, Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. Central Circle 3(1), Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aabcg2202J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.277 & 278/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 & 2018-19 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Bgr Energy Systems Limited, Income Tax, No. 443, Anna Salai, Guna Complex, Central Circle 3(1), Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. T. Sandhyaarti, Fca Department By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 19.07.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: These Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As Revenue Are Directed Against The Consolidated Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income

For Appellant: Ms. T. Sandhyaarti, FCAFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 37

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer for both the assessment years. 8. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. The ld. DR has submitted that the issue has been considered by the ITAT in assessee’s own case for earlier

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), NUNGAMBAKKAM vs. IDFC LIMITED, TEYNAMPET

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 818/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.818 & 819/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Idfc Limited, 4Th Floor, Capitale Tower, No. 555, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Anna Salai, Thiru Vi Ka Kudiyiruppu, Chennai 600 034. Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. [Pan:Aaaci2663N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ketan Ved, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.08.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.09.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Separate Orders Dated Both Dated 21.09.2022 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Since The Issue Raised In Both The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed To Hear All These Appeals Together & Pass Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: Shri V. Nandakumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri Ketan Ved, C.A
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

90,04,046/- under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short]. The said assessment was 3 I.T.A. Nos.818 & 819/Chny/24 reopened by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act, the reasons of which, reproduced at page 1 to 5 of the assessment order. 7. The assessee filed writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), NUNGAMBAKKAM vs. IDFC LIMITED, TEYNAMPET

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 819/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.818 & 819/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Idfc Limited, 4Th Floor, Capitale Tower, No. 555, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Anna Salai, Thiru Vi Ka Kudiyiruppu, Chennai 600 034. Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. [Pan:Aaaci2663N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ketan Ved, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.08.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.09.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Separate Orders Dated Both Dated 21.09.2022 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Since The Issue Raised In Both The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed To Hear All These Appeals Together & Pass Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: Shri V. Nandakumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri Ketan Ved, C.A
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

90,04,046/- under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short]. The said assessment was 3 I.T.A. Nos.818 & 819/Chny/24 reopened by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act, the reasons of which, reproduced at page 1 to 5 of the assessment order. 7. The assessee filed writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court

THE INDIA CEMENTS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1) CHENNAI, CHENNAI

ITA 2174/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Jan 2026AY 2017-18
Section 10(39)Section 115JSection 14A

90,26,158/-\n7.1 Aggrieved by the above action of the Ld. CIT(A) partly confirming\nthe disallowance made by the AO, the assessee is now in appeal before\nus.\nITA No.2174/Chny/2024 (AY 2017-18)\nM/s. The India Cements Ltd.\n:: 21 ::\n7.2 Heard both the parties. Though the Ld. AR appearing for the\nassessee vehemently contended in support

JERRY NIRMAL FRANCIS ,CHENNAI vs. ADIT , CPC , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 846/CHNY/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2023AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 846/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Jerry Nirmal Francis, Assistant Director Of Income 41A, Balaji Nagar, Off V. Tax, Moogambigai Nagar, 1St Main Centralized Processing Centre, Road, Noombal, Bengaluru. Chennai – 600 077. [Pan: Aaipf-7614-F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. V. Balaji, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.02.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02.2023

For Appellant: Shri. V. Balaji, CAFor Respondent: Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 90

disallowance of FTC is bad in law. He submitted that Section 90 of the Act provides that Government of India

FL SMIDTH PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

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

ITA 3423/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3423/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Flsmidth Private Limited, The Assistant Commissioner Of No.34, Egatoor, Kelambakkam, Vs. Income Tax, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Company Circle – 2 (1), Chennai – 603 103. Chennai – 600 034. [Pan: Aaacf4997N] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri M. Rajan, Cit : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 01.03.2023 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.03.2023 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)-5, Chennai Dated 11.10.2019, Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012–13. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) ['Cit (A)’] Is Contrary To Law, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. Disallowance Under Section 14A Of The Act Read With Rule 8D 2.1. On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ao In Making Disallowance Of Rs. 75,94,632 Under Section 14A Read With Rule 8D.

Section 14A

90,32,144/- and after reducing the voluntary disallowance made by the assessee of ₹.14,37,512/-, the Assessing Officer disallowed ₹.75,94,632/- and added to the total income of the assessee. On appeal, after considering the submissions of the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) upheld the disallowance made under section

ABAN OFFSHORE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, INTL, TAX 1(1), CHENNAI

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

ITA 1240/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Apr 2025AY 2014-15
Section 115ASection 195(2)Section 250Section 44BSection 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)Section 90

90 of Act, India does not have right to tax.\n4.2 Further the Id.AR submitted that provisions of section 195(1)\nare applicable only if the sums payable to non-resident are\nchargeable to tax in India. In the present case payment are made to\nnon-residents/ foreign companies not having any permanent\nestablishment in India, Income of non-residents

M/S. ASHOK LEYLAND LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, NCC-8(1), LTU-II, CHENNAI

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

ITA 2379/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.R. VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Mr.Nathala Ravi Babu, CIT
Section 14A

90,83,894/- by way of administrative expenses by way of administrative expenses under Rule 8D(2)(iii), thereby making aggregate disallowance of under Rule 8D(2)(iii), thereby making aggregate disallowance of under Rule 8D(2)(iii), thereby making aggregate disallowance of Rs.8,69,24,028/-. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) is noted to h . On appeal

AMITSINGH BAID MEHTA,CHENNAI vs. ADIT CPC , BANGALORE

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

ITA 266/CHNY/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 265 & 266/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 Mr. Amitsingh Baid Mehta, The Assistant Director Of A-502, Prince Towers, No. 94, Vs. Income Tax, Purasawalkam High Road, Cpc, Bengaluru. Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aagpm6083R] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri Saroj Kumar Parida, Advocate : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 15.06.2023 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.06.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate But Identical Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi, Both Dated 06.01.2023 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2018-19 & 2019-20. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Resident Individual Received Dividend From Cisco Systems, Usa To The Extent Of ₹.3,22,733/- During The Financial Year 2017-18. As Per Dtaa Between

Section 143(1)Section 90

section 90 of the Act would be denied. 6.4 If the intention of the Legislature was to deny the FTC, either the Act or the Rules would have specifically provided that the FTC would be disallowed

AMITSINGH BAID MEHTA,CHENNAI vs. ADIT CPC , BANGALORE

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

ITA 265/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 265 & 266/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 Mr. Amitsingh Baid Mehta, The Assistant Director Of A-502, Prince Towers, No. 94, Vs. Income Tax, Purasawalkam High Road, Cpc, Bengaluru. Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aagpm6083R] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri Saroj Kumar Parida, Advocate : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 15.06.2023 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.06.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate But Identical Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi, Both Dated 06.01.2023 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2018-19 & 2019-20. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Resident Individual Received Dividend From Cisco Systems, Usa To The Extent Of ₹.3,22,733/- During The Financial Year 2017-18. As Per Dtaa Between

Section 143(1)Section 90

section 90 of the Act would be denied. 6.4 If the intention of the Legislature was to deny the FTC, either the Act or the Rules would have specifically provided that the FTC would be disallowed