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.

36 results for “reassessment”+ Section 43Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai192Delhi63Chennai36Raipur33Kolkata28Bangalore25Cochin24Jaipur22Hyderabad20Ahmedabad18Pune17Indore14Nagpur13Surat12Cuttack8Lucknow7Visakhapatnam5Chandigarh4Allahabad3Jabalpur3Karnataka2Rajkot1Ranchi1Guwahati1Telangana1Varanasi1Jodhpur1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)31Disallowance22Section 41(1)(b)21Deduction16Depreciation13Section 14812Section 43B12Section 10A12Section 26311Double Taxation/DTAA

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2371/CHNY/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2018AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

For Appellant: Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing Counsel

reassessment are allowed. 40. The next issue arises for consideration is disallowance of provision created towards claim incurred but not reported and claim incurred but not enough reported. This issue arises for consideration in Revenue’s appeal for assessment year 2010-11. 41. Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla, the Ld. Sr. counsel for the assessee, submitted that during the relevant year

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1663/CHNY/2011[2003-04]Status: Disposed

Showing 1–20 of 36 · Page 1 of 2

11
Section 72A9
Section 115J9
ITAT Chennai
06 Aug 2018
AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

For Appellant: Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing Counsel

reassessment are allowed. 40. The next issue arises for consideration is disallowance of provision created towards claim incurred but not reported and claim incurred but not enough reported. This issue arises for consideration in Revenue’s appeal for assessment year 2010-11. 41. Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla, the Ld. Sr. counsel for the assessee, submitted that during the relevant year

M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1623/CHNY/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

For Appellant: Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing Counsel

reassessment are allowed. 40. The next issue arises for consideration is disallowance of provision created towards claim incurred but not reported and claim incurred but not enough reported. This issue arises for consideration in Revenue’s appeal for assessment year 2010-11. 41. Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla, the Ld. Sr. counsel for the assessee, submitted that during the relevant year

M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1622/CHNY/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

For Appellant: Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing Counsel

reassessment are allowed. 40. The next issue arises for consideration is disallowance of provision created towards claim incurred but not reported and claim incurred but not enough reported. This issue arises for consideration in Revenue’s appeal for assessment year 2010-11. 41. Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla, the Ld. Sr. counsel for the assessee, submitted that during the relevant year

M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1627/CHNY/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

For Appellant: Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing Counsel

reassessment are allowed. 40. The next issue arises for consideration is disallowance of provision created towards claim incurred but not reported and claim incurred but not enough reported. This issue arises for consideration in Revenue’s appeal for assessment year 2010-11. 41. Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla, the Ld. Sr. counsel for the assessee, submitted that during the relevant year

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1667/CHNY/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

For Appellant: Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing Counsel

reassessment are allowed. 40. The next issue arises for consideration is disallowance of provision created towards claim incurred but not reported and claim incurred but not enough reported. This issue arises for consideration in Revenue’s appeal for assessment year 2010-11. 41. Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla, the Ld. Sr. counsel for the assessee, submitted that during the relevant year

M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1625/CHNY/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

For Appellant: Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing Counsel

reassessment are allowed. 40. The next issue arises for consideration is disallowance of provision created towards claim incurred but not reported and claim incurred but not enough reported. This issue arises for consideration in Revenue’s appeal for assessment year 2010-11. 41. Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla, the Ld. Sr. counsel for the assessee, submitted that during the relevant year

M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1624/CHNY/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

For Appellant: Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing Counsel

reassessment are allowed. 40. The next issue arises for consideration is disallowance of provision created towards claim incurred but not reported and claim incurred but not enough reported. This issue arises for consideration in Revenue’s appeal for assessment year 2010-11. 41. Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla, the Ld. Sr. counsel for the assessee, submitted that during the relevant year

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1662/CHNY/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

For Appellant: Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing Counsel

reassessment are allowed. 40. The next issue arises for consideration is disallowance of provision created towards claim incurred but not reported and claim incurred but not enough reported. This issue arises for consideration in Revenue’s appeal for assessment year 2010-11. 41. Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla, the Ld. Sr. counsel for the assessee, submitted that during the relevant year

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1665/CHNY/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

For Appellant: Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing Counsel

reassessment are allowed. 40. The next issue arises for consideration is disallowance of provision created towards claim incurred but not reported and claim incurred but not enough reported. This issue arises for consideration in Revenue’s appeal for assessment year 2010-11. 41. Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla, the Ld. Sr. counsel for the assessee, submitted that during the relevant year

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1664/CHNY/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

For Appellant: Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing Counsel

reassessment are allowed. 40. The next issue arises for consideration is disallowance of provision created towards claim incurred but not reported and claim incurred but not enough reported. This issue arises for consideration in Revenue’s appeal for assessment year 2010-11. 41. Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla, the Ld. Sr. counsel for the assessee, submitted that during the relevant year

ACIT, CC - I (2),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. BALAJI HOTELS & ENTERPRISES LTD.,, CHENNAI

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

ITA 207/CHNY/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri V. Nandakumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri D. Anand, Advocate
Section 139Section 139(5)Section 143(3)

Section 14A of the Act. Subsequently, the AO issued notice u/s.148 of the Act dated 14.03.2015 and in consequent to the same, the assessee filed a letter dated 26.09.2015 stating that the original ITA Nos.207 to 209/Chny/2020 return of income filed for the relevant assessment year may be treated as return filed in response to notice u/s.148

ACIT, CC - I (2),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. BALAJI HOTELS & ENTERPRISES LTD.,, CHENNAI

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

ITA 209/CHNY/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri V. Nandakumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri D. Anand, Advocate
Section 139Section 139(5)Section 143(3)

Section 14A of the Act. Subsequently, the AO issued notice u/s.148 of the Act dated 14.03.2015 and in consequent to the same, the assessee filed a letter dated 26.09.2015 stating that the original ITA Nos.207 to 209/Chny/2020 return of income filed for the relevant assessment year may be treated as return filed in response to notice u/s.148

ACIT, CC - I (2),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. BALAJI HOTELS & ENTERPRISES LTD.,, CHENNAI

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

ITA 208/CHNY/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri V. Nandakumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri D. Anand, Advocate
Section 139Section 139(5)Section 143(3)

Section 14A of the Act. Subsequently, the AO issued notice u/s.148 of the Act dated 14.03.2015 and in consequent to the same, the assessee filed a letter dated 26.09.2015 stating that the original ITA Nos.207 to 209/Chny/2020 return of income filed for the relevant assessment year may be treated as return filed in response to notice u/s.148

SUNDARAM FASTENERS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 74/CHNY/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Jun 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Vikram VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson, Addl.CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 195Section 40Section 43Section 43B

43B () which can be allowable only in the year in which it was actually paid. Further it is seen that as per Sl. No. 14(4) under schedule XVII- Notes on account - the short term compensated absences and long term absences are provided based on actuarial valuation made at the end of year thus falling squarely under section43

DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE 6(2), CHENNAI vs. SUNDARAM FASTENERS LTD, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 317/CHNY/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Jun 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Vikram VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson, Addl.CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 195Section 40Section 43Section 43B

43B () which can be allowable only in the year in which it was actually paid. Further it is seen that as per Sl. No. 14(4) under schedule XVII- Notes on account - the short term compensated absences and long term absences are provided based on actuarial valuation made at the end of year thus falling squarely under section43

ASHOK LEYLAND FINANCE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

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

ITA 1013/CHNY/2017[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Dec 2017AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1013/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2002-03 M/S. Ashok Leyland Finance Limited The Assistant Commissioner Of [Now Indusind Bank Ltd.], Vs. Income Tax, Company Circle 1(1), No. 115/116, G.N. Chetty Road, 121 Mahathma Gandhi Road, T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aaaca4656P] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Mrs. S. Vijayaprabha, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.11.2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.12.2017 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 5, Chennai Dated 20.02.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2002-03. The First Ground Challenged By The Assessee Is With Regard To Confirmation Of Order Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] & The Second Ground Relates To Confirmation Of Disallowance Of ₹.2,34,03,271/- Under 2

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. S. Vijayaprabha, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 154Section 251Section 263Section 43B

43B of the Act, no statutory liability, unless it is paid before the due date of filing of the return is allowable as an expenditure, the amount of expenditure claimed by the assessee deserves disallowance and accordingly, notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 29.09.2008 by communicating the reasons recorded for reopening of assessment. The assessee, vide

ACIT, TRICHY vs. JENNYS HOTEL PVT. LTD., TRICHY

In the result the appeal of the Revenue for the assessment year 2003-04 is allowed and the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1348/CHNY/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jan 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: 06.12.2017For Respondent: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCA
Section 115JSection 250Section 43B

Section 43B of the Act due to non-payment of interest to M/s.Tourism Finance Corporation of India a Government of India Undertaking. B) Assessee’s Cross Objection:- The assessee has raised the following cross objections: 1. For that the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to law facts and circumstances of the case to the extent

SRINIVASA FASHIONS PVT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos 1965, 1966 & 1967 are

ITA 1966/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968 /Mds/2016 & 2096/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2008-09, 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12& 2009-10 M/S. Srinivasa Fashions Pvt. Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, 1A, Regency Apartments, Vs. Corporate Circle -6(2), No. 5, 1St Lane, Aayakar Bhavan, New Block, 7Th Floor, 121 M.G. Road, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai - 600 034. Chennai - 600 034. [Pan: Aaics 9511R]

For Appellant: ShriT. Banusekar, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. Bharath, CIT
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 32(1)(ii)Section 47

reassessment is bad in law. 4. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer erred in disallowing depreciation to the tune of Rs.89,27,762/-. 5. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer erred in invoking proviso to section 32(1 )(ii) and holding that

SRINIVASA FASHIONS PVT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos 1965, 1966 & 1967 are

ITA 1968/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968 /Mds/2016 & 2096/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2008-09, 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12& 2009-10 M/S. Srinivasa Fashions Pvt. Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, 1A, Regency Apartments, Vs. Corporate Circle -6(2), No. 5, 1St Lane, Aayakar Bhavan, New Block, 7Th Floor, 121 M.G. Road, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai - 600 034. Chennai - 600 034. [Pan: Aaics 9511R]

For Appellant: ShriT. Banusekar, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. Bharath, CIT
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 32(1)(ii)Section 47

reassessment is bad in law. 4. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer erred in disallowing depreciation to the tune of Rs.89,27,762/-. 5. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer erred in invoking proviso to section 32(1 )(ii) and holding that