Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. ACIT

64 SOT 203Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2014#6528 most cited
18

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 80HHC

Issues it is cited on

section 32(1)(iia)depreciation on goodwillsection 28(iv)additional depreciationcorporate guaranteesection 32(1)put to useintangible assetssection 92ca(3)section 144c(5)book profitschild

Judgments citing Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. ACIT

SRF LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1, LTU, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

ITA 4539/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Dinodia, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jadhav, CIT DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 92BSection 92C

…the assessee filed an additional claim during assessment proceedings for A.Y. 2010-11 however the same was neither entertained by AO nor by DRP. 45. The Ld. Counsel has placed reliance on following judicial pronouncements:  Apollo Tyres Ltd. vs. ACIT (2014) 64 SOT 203  CIT vs. Cosmo Films Ltd. (2012) (ITA 1404/2008)  CIT vs. SIL Investment Ltd. (2012) (ITA No. 24319 (Del) 2010)  TCPL Packaging Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (2019-TIOL-907-ITAT-MUM)  CIT vs. Kalpataru Power Transmission Ltd. [2019-TIOL- 1424-ITAT-AHD] The coordinate Bench in case of CIT vs. Cosmo Films Ltd. (supra) while holding…

SRF LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

ITA 80/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Dinodia, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jadhav, CIT DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 92BSection 92C

…the assessee filed an additional claim during assessment proceedings for A.Y. 2010-11 however the same was neither entertained by AO nor by DRP. 45. The Ld. Counsel has placed reliance on following judicial pronouncements:  Apollo Tyres Ltd. vs. ACIT (2014) 64 SOT 203  CIT vs. Cosmo Films Ltd. (2012) (ITA 1404/2008)  CIT vs. SIL Investment Ltd. (2012) (ITA No. 24319 (Del) 2010)  TCPL Packaging Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (2019-TIOL-907-ITAT-MUM)  CIT vs. Kalpataru Power Transmission Ltd. [2019-TIOL- 1424-ITAT-AHD] The coordinate Bench in case of CIT vs. Cosmo Films Ltd. (supra) while holding…

JCIT CENT. CIR. - 1(4), MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1559/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Grasim Industries Limited, The Dcit Cc-1(4), Corporate Finance Division, Room No. 902, 9Th Floor, Old Vs. A-2, Aditya Birla Centre, S.K. Cgo Building, M.K. Road, Ahire Marg, Worli, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400030. Pan No. Aaacg 4464 B Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Jcit (Osd), Central Circle- Grasim Industries Limited, 1(4), A-Wing, 2Nd Floor, Aditya Room No. 902, Pratishtha Vs. Birla Centre, S.K. Ahire Bhavan, 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Marg, Worli, Building Annexe, Mumbai-400030. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacg 4464 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Yogesh Thar & Mr. Chaitanya Joshi Revenue By : Dr. Kishor Dhule, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 03/04/2024 : Date Of Pronouncement 29/04/2024

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh Thar &For Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153C

…Ltd. us. ACIT (Order dated 13.05.2013 MITC Rolling Mills P. Ltd. us. ACIT (Order dated 13.05.2013 in ITA MITC Rolling Mills P. Ltd. us. ACIT (Order dated 13.05.2013 No. 2789/Mum/2012) (Mumbai ITAT) No. 2789/Mum/2012) (Mumbai ITAT) e) Apollo Tyres Ltd Vs ACTT (64 SOT 203) (Cochin ITAT) Apollo Tyres Ltd Vs ACTT (64 SOT 203) (Cochin ITAT) f) DCIT Vs Cosmos Films Ltd (139 ITD 628)(Delhi ITAT) DCIT Vs Cosmos Films Ltd (139 ITD 628)(Delhi ITAT) g) AMIT Vs SIL Investments Ltd. (148 TTJ 213)(Delhi ITAT) AMIT Vs SIL Investments Ltd. (148 TTJ 213)(Delhi ITAT) h) Century Enka Limited Vs DCIT (154 ITD 426)(Kolkatta Century E…

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENT. CIR. - 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas

ITA 1055/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh Thar &For Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153C

…es Limited Vs ACIT (ITA 790 & 791/Mum/2014) c) CIT, Madurai Vs. Shri T.P.Textiles (P.) Ltd. (246 Тахтап324) (Madras High Court) d) MITC Rolling Mills P. Ltd. us. ACIT (Order dated 13.05.2013 in ITA No. 2789/Mит/2012) (Mumbai ITAT) e) Apollo Tyres Ltd Vs ACTT (64 SOT 203) (Cochin ITAT) f) DCIT Vs Cosmos Films Ltd (139 ITD 628)(Delhi ITAT) g) AMIT Vs SIL Investments Ltd. (148 TTJ 213)(Delhi ITAT) h) Century Enka Limited Vs DCIT (154 ITD 426)(Kolkatta ITAT) 24.4 In view of the above discussion and respectfully following the decision of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs Continental Warehousing Corporati…

SRF LTD.,,GURGAON vs. ADDL CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, this ground of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 774/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Yogesh Kumar Ussrf Limited Vs. Acit Unitech Crest, Greenwood Range – 9, City Block – C, Sector – 45, Ltu, New Delhi Gurgaon – 122 003 Pan No. Aaacs 0206 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pradeep Dinodia, Shri R. K. Kapoor C.A. Shri Ravi Kumar Revenue By Shri Mahesh Shah, Cit (Dr) Shri Rajesh Kumar, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 10/01/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 23/02/2023 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Dated 27.09.2016 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-44, New Delhi [For Short, Cit(A)] Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [For Short, 'The Act'] For Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case As Culled Out From The Material On Record Are As Under:-

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 92C

…the assessee filed an additional claim during assessment proceedings for A.Y. 2010-11 however the same was neither entertained by AO nor by DRP. 45. The Ld. Counsel has placed reliance on following judicial pronouncements:  Apollo Tyres Ltd. vs. ACIT (2014) 64 SOT 203  CIT vs. Cosmo Films Ltd. (2012) (ITA 1404/2008)  CIT vs. SIL Investment Ltd. (2012) (ITA No. 24319 (Del) 2010)  TCPL Packaging Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (2019-TIOL-907-ITAT-MUM)  CIT vs. Kalpataru Power Transmission Ltd. [2019-TIOL- 1424-ITAT-AHD] The coordinate Bench in case of CIT vs. Cosmo Films Ltd. (supra) while holding…

SRF LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 1, LTU, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6620/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conferencing) Srf Limited Vs. Acit The Galleria, Dlf Mayur Circle – 1, Vihar, Unit No.236 & 237, Ltu 2Nd Floor, Mayur Place, New Delhi Noida Link Road, Mayur Vihar, Phase-I, Extension, Delhi-110 091 Pan : Aaacs 0206 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pradeep Dinodia, C.A. Revenue By Ms. Meera Srivastava, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 16.09.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.12.2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am :

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

…the assessee filed an additional claim during assessment proceedings for A.Y. 2010-11 however the same was neither entertained by AO nor by DRP. 45. The Ld. Counsel has placed reliance on following judicial pronouncements:  Apollo Tyres Ltd. vs. ACIT (2014) 64 SOT 203  CIT vs. Cosmo Films Ltd. (2012) (ITA 1404/2008)  CIT vs. SIL Investment Ltd. (2012) (ITA No. 24319 (Del) 2010)  TCPL Packaging Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (2019-TIOL-907-ITAT-MUM)  CIT vs. Kalpataru Power Transmission Ltd. [2019-TIOL- 1424-ITAT-AHD] The coordinate Bench in case of CIT vs. Cosmo Films Ltd. (supra) while holding…

SRF LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT (LTU), NEW DELHI

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

ITA 5784/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Dinodia, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Chaudhary, CIT-D.R
Section 10ASection 115JSection 14ASection 92BSection 92C

…m the balance amount of depreciation i.e. Rs.2,50,78,490/- in I.T.A. No.5784/DEL/2016 25 the subsequent year viz. AY 2012-13 under consideration. 29. The Ld. Counsel has placed reliance on following judicial pronouncements: • Apollo Tyres ltd vs ACIT (2014) 64 SOT 203 • CIT vs Cosmo Films Ltd(2012) (ITA 1404/2008) • CIT Vs SIL Investment Limited(2012) (ITA No. 24319 (Del) 2010) • M/s TCPL PACKAGING LTD vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax [2019-TIOL-907- ITAT-MUM] • The Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs Kalpataru Power Transmission Ltd [2019-TIOL-1424-ITAT- AHM] 30. The AR further pointed out that the Finance Act,…

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. ADDISON & COMPANY LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 862/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Aug 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 862/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri. Sahadevan, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. R.Vijayaraghavan, Advocate
Section 32Section 32(1)(iia)

…n. Placing reliance on the decision of this bench of the Tribunal in ITA No.1789/Mds/2014 dated 12.02.2016 submitted that on identical set of facts, this Tribunal by placing reliance on the decision of the Cochin Bench in Apollo Tyres Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2014) 64 SOT 203 and the judgement of the Karnataka High Court in CIT Vs. Rittal India Pvt. Ltd. In ITA No.268/2014 dated 24.11.2015, allowed the claim of the assessee. 3. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the material on record. It is not in dispute that the assessee claimed additional depreciation and the Assessing Officer a…

FRESH & HONEST CAFE LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 1485/CHNY/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 May 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1499 & 1500/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years :2009-10 & 2010-11 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1485/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S Fresh & Honest Café Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of C/O Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate, V. Income Tax, New No.14, Old No.82, Flat No.5, Company Circle Ii(1), 1St Avenue, Indira Nagar, Adyar, Chennai - 600 020. Chennai - 600 020. Pan : Aaacf 1516 H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Milind Madhukar Bhusari, CIT
Section 32(1)(iia)

…/s Automotive Coaches & Components Ltd. v. DCIT in I.T.A. No.1789/Mds/2014 dated 12.02.2016, the Ld.counsel submitted that on identical set of facts, this Tribunal by referring to the decision of Cochin Bench of this Tribunal in Apollo Tyres v. ACIT (2014) 64 SOT 203, directed the Assessing Officer to allow the remaining 10% additional 3 I.T.A. Nos.1499 & 1500/Mds/14 I.T.A. No.1485/Mds/15 depreciation for the subsequent year. The Ld.counsel further submitted that the assessee has raised other grounds in the appeal. However, the same are not pressed. 3. We have heard Dr. Milind Madhukar Bhusari, the Ld.…

FRESH & HONEST CAFE LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 1500/CHNY/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 May 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1499 & 1500/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years :2009-10 & 2010-11 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1485/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S Fresh & Honest Café Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of C/O Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate, V. Income Tax, New No.14, Old No.82, Flat No.5, Company Circle Ii(1), 1St Avenue, Indira Nagar, Adyar, Chennai - 600 020. Chennai - 600 020. Pan : Aaacf 1516 H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Milind Madhukar Bhusari, CIT
Section 32(1)(iia)

…/s Automotive Coaches & Components Ltd. v. DCIT in I.T.A. No.1789/Mds/2014 dated 12.02.2016, the Ld.counsel submitted that on identical set of facts, this Tribunal by referring to the decision of Cochin Bench of this Tribunal in Apollo Tyres v. ACIT (2014) 64 SOT 203, directed the Assessing Officer to allow the remaining 10% additional 3 I.T.A. Nos.1499 & 1500/Mds/14 I.T.A. No.1485/Mds/15 depreciation for the subsequent year. The Ld.counsel further submitted that the assessee has raised other grounds in the appeal. However, the same are not pressed. 3. We have heard Dr. Milind Madhukar Bhusari, the Ld.…

FRESH & HONEST CAFE LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 1499/CHNY/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1499 & 1500/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years :2009-10 & 2010-11 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1485/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S Fresh & Honest Café Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of C/O Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate, V. Income Tax, New No.14, Old No.82, Flat No.5, Company Circle Ii(1), 1St Avenue, Indira Nagar, Adyar, Chennai - 600 020. Chennai - 600 020. Pan : Aaacf 1516 H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Milind Madhukar Bhusari, CIT
Section 32(1)(iia)

…/s Automotive Coaches & Components Ltd. v. DCIT in I.T.A. No.1789/Mds/2014 dated 12.02.2016, the Ld.counsel submitted that on identical set of facts, this Tribunal by referring to the decision of Cochin Bench of this Tribunal in Apollo Tyres v. ACIT (2014) 64 SOT 203, directed the Assessing Officer to allow the remaining 10% additional 3 I.T.A. Nos.1499 & 1500/Mds/14 I.T.A. No.1485/Mds/15 depreciation for the subsequent year. The Ld.counsel further submitted that the assessee has raised other grounds in the appeal. However, the same are not pressed. 3. We have heard Dr. Milind Madhukar Bhusari, the Ld.…

MEENAKSHI (INDIA) LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 206/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Apr 2016AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.206/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S Meenakshi (India) Limited, The Assistant Commissioner Of C/O Shri T.N. Seetharaman, V. Income Tax, Advocate, Corporate Circle – 4(1), #384 (Old No.196), Lloyds Road, Chennai - 600 034. Chennai - 600 086. Pan : Aaacm 5386 Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. A.B. Koli, JCIT
Section 32(1)(iia)

…Act to carry forward the depreciation to subsequent year. 5. An identical claim was considered by this Tribunal in M/s Automotive Coaches & Components Ltd. v. DCIT in I.T.A. No.1789/Mds/2014 dated 12.02.2016. This Tribunal, after referring v. ACIT (2014) 64 SOT 203 and the judgment of Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Rittal India Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.268/2014 dated 24.11.2015, found that the assessee is eligible for the balance 10% of the additional depreciation in the next assessment year. In fact, this Tribunal has observed as follows:- “5. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and per…

SUNDARAM FASTENERS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

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

ITA 688/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Mar 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 688/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S Sundaram Fasteners Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of 98-A, 7Th Floor, V. Income Tax, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Corporate Circle – 6(2), Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. Chennai - 600 034. Pan : Aaacs 8779 D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Pathlavath Peerya, CIT

…ciation for the year under consideration in respect of the plant and machinery which were put to use in the earlier assessment year for less than 180 days. Placing reliance on the decision of Cochin Bench of this Tribunal in Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. ACIT (2014) 64 SOT 203, the Ld.counsel submitted that the assessee is entitled for additional depreciation. 16. On the contrary, Sh. Pathlavath Peerya, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that the additional depreciation has to be allowed in the year in which the machinery was put to use. Since the assessee put to use the machinery for less than 180 days…

HINDUJA FOUNDRIES LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, I.T.A. Nos

ITA 1593/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Feb 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1590, 1591, 1592 & 1593/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2007-08, 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Pathlavath Peerya, CIT
Section 32(1)(ii)

…consideration is whether the additional depreciation which could not be allowed in the earlier year can be allowed during the year under consideration or not? This issue was examined by the Cochin Bench of this Tribunal in Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. ACIT (2014) 64 SOT 203. The Cochin Bench found that the additional depreciation can be allowed in the next year in case the same cannot be allowed in the earlier year. In fact, the Cochin Bench has observed as follows:- “9. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and also perused the material available on record. Section 32(1)(iia) reads as follows:…

HINDUJA FOUNDRIES LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, I.T.A. Nos

ITA 1592/CHNY/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Feb 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1590, 1591, 1592 & 1593/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2007-08, 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Pathlavath Peerya, CIT
Section 32(1)(ii)

…consideration is whether the additional depreciation which could not be allowed in the earlier year can be allowed during the year under consideration or not? This issue was examined by the Cochin Bench of this Tribunal in Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. ACIT (2014) 64 SOT 203. The Cochin Bench found that the additional depreciation can be allowed in the next year in case the same cannot be allowed in the earlier year. In fact, the Cochin Bench has observed as follows:- “9. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and also perused the material available on record. Section 32(1)(iia) reads as follows:…

HINDUJA FOUNDRIES LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, I.T.A. Nos

ITA 1591/CHNY/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Feb 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1590, 1591, 1592 & 1593/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2007-08, 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Pathlavath Peerya, CIT
Section 32(1)(ii)

…consideration is whether the additional depreciation which could not be allowed in the earlier year can be allowed during the year under consideration or not? This issue was examined by the Cochin Bench of this Tribunal in Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. ACIT (2014) 64 SOT 203. The Cochin Bench found that the additional depreciation can be allowed in the next year in case the same cannot be allowed in the earlier year. In fact, the Cochin Bench has observed as follows:- “9. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and also perused the material available on record. Section 32(1)(iia) reads as follows:…

HINDUJA FOUNDRIES LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, I.T.A. Nos

ITA 1590/CHNY/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Feb 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1590, 1591, 1592 & 1593/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2007-08, 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Pathlavath Peerya, CIT
Section 32(1)(ii)

…consideration is whether the additional depreciation which could not be allowed in the earlier year can be allowed during the year under consideration or not? This issue was examined by the Cochin Bench of this Tribunal in Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. ACIT (2014) 64 SOT 203. The Cochin Bench found that the additional depreciation can be allowed in the next year in case the same cannot be allowed in the earlier year. In fact, the Cochin Bench has observed as follows:- “9. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and also perused the material available on record. Section 32(1)(iia) reads as follows:…

AUTOMOTIVE COACHES & COMPONENTS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1789/CHNY/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Feb 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1789/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 M/S Automotive Coaches & The Deputy Commissioner Of Components Ltd., V. Income Tax, C1 & D6 Sipcot Industrial Company Circle – I, Complex, Chennai - 600 034. Gummidipoondi – 601 201. Pan : Aaaca 3150 E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.V. Sreekanth, JCIT
Section 32(1)Section 32(1)(iia)

…he Ld. counsel, further found that there is no provision in the Income-tax Act for allowing 50% in the succeeding assessment 3 I.T.A. No.1789/Mds/14 year. Placing reliance on the decision of Cochin Bench of this Tribunal in Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. ACIT (2014) 64 SOT 203, the Ld.counsel submitted that an identical issue was considered by the Cochin Bench and the Cochin Bench found that the balance 50% of the additional depreciation has to be allowed in the subsequent year. In view of this decision of Cochin Bench, according to the Ld. counsel, the assessee is eligible for the balance additional depreciation in…