(1) CIT v. Chennai Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

358 ITR 314High Court2013#11564 most cited
9

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 32Section 54Section 92BSection 92C(1)

Judgments citing (1) CIT v. Chennai Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

Vermeiren India Rehab Private Limited, Tirupati vs. DCIT., Circle-1(1), Tirupati

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

ITA 1315/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Sri Sandeep Bagmar R, AdvocateFor Respondent: MS. U. Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 32

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD “A” BENCH: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI MANJUNATHA G, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.No.1315/Hyd./2024 Assessment Year 2021-2022 Vermeiren India Rehab The DCIT, Circle-1(1), Private Limited, TIRUPATI PIN – 517 646. vs. TIRUPATI. State of Andhra Pradesh. PAN AADCV9010H (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Sri Sandeep Bagmar R, Advocate For Revenue : MS. U. Mini Chandran, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 02.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 19.11.2025 ORDER PER MANJUNATHA G. : The above appeal has been filed by the assessee against the Final Assessment…

Shri Devkripa Textile Mills (P) Ltd., Bhilwara vs. ACIT, Bhilwara Circle, Bhilwara

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

ITA 467/JODH/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur05 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…rector’s remuneration; out of depreciation and out of Shri Devkripa Textile Mills P. Ltd. other expenses. The ld. AR for the assessee strongly relied upon the two judgment to support his case which reads as under:-  CIT vs. Chennai Petroleum Corporation Ltd. 358 ITR 314 ( Mad H.C.)  CIT vs. Refrigeration and Allied Industries Ltd. 247 ITR 12 (Del H.C.) Per contra, the ld. Sr. DR relied upon the orders of the ld. CIT(A). 8. 9. We have considered the rival contention and perused the materials available on record. It is the submission of the assessee that the business operation has not been discontinued permanent…

DCIT Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai vs. Agile Electric Sub Assembly Pvt Ltd., Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1203/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Apr 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Mr. G.Johnson, Addl.CITFor Respondent: Mr. T.Banusekar, C.A
Section 14A

…jected the depreciation claim on said plant and machinery. 12. The learned CIT(A), on appeal deleted additions made by the Assessing Officer by following the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Chennai Petroleum Corporation (2013) 358 ITR 314(Mad) and also the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Whittle Anderson Ltd. Vs. CIT (1971) 79 ITR 613(Bom) on the ground that C.O. No.122/Chny/2018 where machinery is ready for use though actually not used, depreciation is admissible. 13. The learned DR submitted that the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting disallowance of…

Sahayak Engineering Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1874/HYD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Jun 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Deviassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Sri A. SrinivasFor Respondent: Sri Sandeep Kumar Mehta, DR
Section 143(3)Section 32

…ITA 1874 of 2018 Sahayak Engg P Ltd Hyderabad. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘B’ SMC Bench, Hyderabad Before Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, Judicial Member Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sahayak Engg (P) Ltd Vs. Dy. CIT, Circle 3(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad PAN:AACCS8210P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Sri A. Srinivas Revenue by: Sri Sandeep Kumar Mehta, DR Date of hearing: 04/06/2020 Date of pronouncement: 11/06/2020 ORDER This is assessee’s appeal for the A.Y 2015-16 against the order of the CIT (A)-3, Hyderabad, dated 20.06.18. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company which is eng…

M/S.Muthoott Mini Financiers P. Ltd, Kozhencherry vs. The DCIT, Cen-Circle-2, Ernakulam

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical

ITA 279/COCH/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 14ASection 32

…that in such cases depreciation has to be allowed. The case laws cited by the Ld. AR before both the authorities below and before us in support of his claim are as follows: I.T.A. Nos.277-279/Coch/2019 . (1) CIT vs. Chennai Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (2013) 358 ITR 314 (2) CIT (9)(1) Mumbai vs. Broskalis Dredging India (P) Ltd. (2012) (8) TM 11447-Mumbai ITAT. (3) National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT – Delhi High Court (2013) 357 ITR 253. (4) CIT vs. Geo Tech Construction Corporation (244 ITR 452 (Ker.) 10. In any case, in our view, the assessee has submitted the explanation that during the impugne…

M/S.Muthoott Mini Financiers P. Ltd, Kozhencherry vs. The DCIT, Cen-Circle-2, Ernakulam

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical

ITA 278/COCH/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 14ASection 32

…that in such cases depreciation has to be allowed. The case laws cited by the Ld. AR before both the authorities below and before us in support of his claim are as follows: I.T.A. Nos.277-279/Coch/2019 . (1) CIT vs. Chennai Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (2013) 358 ITR 314 (2) CIT (9)(1) Mumbai vs. Broskalis Dredging India (P) Ltd. (2012) (8) TM 11447-Mumbai ITAT. (3) National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT – Delhi High Court (2013) 357 ITR 253. (4) CIT vs. Geo Tech Construction Corporation (244 ITR 452 (Ker.) 10. In any case, in our view, the assessee has submitted the explanation that during the impugne…

M/S.Muthoott Mini Financiers P. Ltd, Kozhencherry vs. The DCIT, Cen-Circle-2, Ernakulam

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical

ITA 277/COCH/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 14ASection 32

…that in such cases depreciation has to be allowed. The case laws cited by the Ld. AR before both the authorities below and before us in support of his claim are as follows: I.T.A. Nos.277-279/Coch/2019 . (1) CIT vs. Chennai Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (2013) 358 ITR 314 (2) CIT (9)(1) Mumbai vs. Broskalis Dredging India (P) Ltd. (2012) (8) TM 11447-Mumbai ITAT. (3) National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT – Delhi High Court (2013) 357 ITR 253. (4) CIT vs. Geo Tech Construction Corporation (244 ITR 452 (Ker.) 10. In any case, in our view, the assessee has submitted the explanation that during the impugne…

G Shoe Export, Mumbai vs. ACIT 25(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 5736/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm Acit 25(1) Vs. M/S. G. Shoe Export 2Nd Floor, Bandra Kurla 1, Hitex Industrial Estate Complex, S.V.Road, Dahisar (E) Bandra Mumbai – 400 068 Mumbai – 400 081 Pan/Gir No. Aacfg5376P Appellant) Respondent) .. M/S. G. Shoe Export Vs. Acit 25(1) 2Nd 1, Hitex Industrial Estate Floor, Bandra Kurla S.V.Road, Dahisar (E) Complex, Mumbai – 400 068 Bandra Mumbai – 400 081 Pan/Gir No. Aacfg5376P Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM ACIT 25(1) Vs. M/s. G. Shoe Export 2nd Floor, Bandra Kurla 1, Hitex Industrial Estate Complex, S.V.Road, Dahisar (E) Bandra Mumbai – 400 068 Mumbai – 400 081 PAN/GIR No. AACFG5376P Appellant) Respondent) .. M/s. G. Shoe Export Vs. ACIT 25(1) 2nd 1, Hitex Industrial Estate Floor, Bandra Kurla S.V.Road, Dahisar (E) Complex, Mumbai – 400 068 Bandra Mumbai – 400 081 PAN/GIR No. AACFG5376P Appellant) .. Respondent) Assessee by Shri N.R.Agrawal Revenue by Shri V.V.Vidhyadhar Date of Hearing 04/01/2018 Date of…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Mustang Trading & Investments Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3309/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Apr 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Mr.G.Gireesh, CAFor Respondent: 22.02.2017
Section 32Section 36(1)(iii)

…consideration it is incumbent upon the AO to grant relief u/s.32 of the Act and it is not necessary to the assessee to use the asset year after year. The Ld.CIT(A) relied on the decision of CIT vs. Oswal Agro Mills Ltd 341 ITR 467(Delhi) and the decision of (358 ITR 314) (Mad). :- 4 -: 5.0 Aggrieved by the Order of the Ld.CIT(A), the Revenue is on appeal before us. Appearing for the Revenue, the Learned Departmental Representative (in short ‘Ld.DR’) argued that the machinery was kept idle during the previous year relevant to the Assessment Year and the assessee has not put to use for the purpose of business…

(1) CIT v. Chennai Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (358 ITR 314) — Cited in 9 Judgments | BharatTax