CIT v. Annamalai Finance Ltd.

275 ITR 451High Court2005#3506 most cited

What is CIT v. Annamalai Finance Ltd. authority for?

Reassessment proceedings initiated beyond four years are invalid unless the Assessing Officer proves there was a failure to disclose material facts, not just a change of opinion.

34

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,421 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Annamalai Finance Ltd. · section 147 · reassessment · change of opinion · failure to disclose material facts · beyond four years · limitation

Also reported as

186 Taxmann 296

Sections most often in play

Section 1961Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 37(1)Section 10BSection 135 of Companies Act

Issues it is cited on

depreciation on leased assetsicdssection 32(1)section 21section 45revenue expendituremercantile system of accountingsection 32section 37(1)capital expendituresection 37section 263

Judgments citing CIT v. Annamalai Finance Ltd.

Southern Enterprises, Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Ward 22, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2941/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Feb 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy. S

For Appellant: Ms. S. Sanchitha for Mr. R. SivaramanFor Respondent: Mr. Praveen. S, JCIT
Section 10BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…[2003] 264 ITR 566 (SC), it was held that if there is no failure to file return or to disclose fully and truly all material facts, issuance of notice beyond the period of four years is barred by limitation. In the case of CIT v. Annamalai Finance Ltd., [2005] 275 ITR 451 (Mad) it was held that section 147 of the Act does not postulate conferment of power upon the Assessing Officer to initiate reassessment proceedings upon a mere change of opinion. It is incumbent on the Assessing Officer to prove that there was a failure to disclose material facts necessary for the assessment for the issuance of notice beyond the…

Assam Gas Company Limited, Duliajan vs. DCIT/ ACIT, Circle 1/Dbr, Dibrugarh

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 66/GTY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati16 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 438Section 43B

…atch appears plausible, Furthermore, the appellant has demonstrated a history of similar claims being allowed in prior years, which supports its argument for the genuineness of the current claim. 4.3.5 The Supreme Court in CIT v. Annamalai Finance Ltd. (2005) 275 ITR 451 (SC) has held that TDS credit must be allowed if the claim is supported by valid evidence and the deductor has duly deposited the tax with the government. Similarly, the Delhi High Court in Court on its Own Motion v. CIT (2013) 352 ITR 273 (Del) emphasized the importance of ensuring that genuine TDS credits are not denied due to technical mismatc…

Tharmaraj Gopi, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-8(2), Chennai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 682/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकरअपील सं./Ita Nos.682/Chny/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Tharmaraj Gopi, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Plot No.1, Bharathidasan 1St Street, Non-Corp Ward-8(2), Kandasamy Nagar, Chennai. Poonamallee, Chennai-600 056. [Pan: Akqpg3889D]

For Appellant: Mr. Y.Sridhar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 150(1)

…[2003] 264 ITR 566 (SC), it was held that if there is no failure to file return or to disclose fully and truly all material facts, issuance of notice beyond the period of four years is barred by limitation. In the case of CIT v. Annamalai Finance Ltd., [2005] 275 ITR 451 (Mad) it was held that section 147 of the Act does not postulate conferment of power upon the Assessing Officer to initiate reassessment proceedings upon a mere change of opinion. It is incumbent on the Assessing Officer to prove that there was a failure to disclose material facts necessary for the assessment for the issuance of notice beyond the…

DCIT-2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Ntt Global Data Centers Cloud Infrastructure India Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4102/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Br Baskaranshri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Tarang Mehta, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Monika H. Pande, Sr. DR
Section 250

…(AP); Commissioner of Income- Tax Vs. Bansal Credits Ltd., reported in (2003) 259 ITR 69 (Del); COMMISSIONER of Income-Tax Vs. M.G.F. (India) Ltd. reported in (2006) 285 ITR 142 (Del); Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. Annamalai Finance Ltd., reported in (2005) 275 ITR 451 (Mad)]. In each of these cases, the leasing company was held to be the owner of the asset, and accordingly held entitled to claim depreciation and also at the higher rate applicable on the asset hired out. We are in complete agreement with these decisions on the said point. 28. There was some controversy regarding the invoices issued by the manuf…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Hudco Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 3904/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Nov 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Shri Gagan Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Waseem Arshad, CIT DR &
Section 143(3)

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 3262/Del/2015 (AY: 2011-12) Housing & Urban Development Vs. Addl CIT, Corporation Ltd (HUDCO), Range-12, HUDCO Bhawan, Lodhi Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN:AAACH0632A Housing & Urban Development Vs. Addl CIT, Corporation Ltd (HUDCO), Range-4, HUDCO Bhawan, Lodhi Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN:AAACH0632A ITA Nos. 3904 &3905/Del/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12) DCIT, Vs. Housing & Urban Circle-11(2), Develo…

M/S. Housing & Urban Development Corporation Ltd. (Hudco), New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 3261/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Nov 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Shri Gagan Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Waseem Arshad, CIT DR &
Section 143(3)

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 3262/Del/2015 (AY: 2011-12) Housing & Urban Development Vs. Addl CIT, Corporation Ltd (HUDCO), Range-12, HUDCO Bhawan, Lodhi Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN:AAACH0632A Housing & Urban Development Vs. Addl CIT, Corporation Ltd (HUDCO), Range-4, HUDCO Bhawan, Lodhi Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN:AAACH0632A ITA Nos. 3904 &3905/Del/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12) DCIT, Vs. Housing & Urban Circle-11(2), Develo…

Ntt Global Data Centers & Cloud Infrastructure India Private Limited (Erstwhile Netmagic It Services Private Limited), Mumbai vs. DCIT-10 (3)(1), Mumbai

In the result the issue under consideration is remitted back to the file of Assessing Officer for statistical purpose

ITA 2784/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blentt Global Data Centers & Cloud V. National E-Assessment Centre Infrastructure India Private Limited {Now Known As National {Erstwhile Netmagic It Services Faceless Appeal Centre} Private Limited} Delhi 7Th Floor, Hiranandani Business Park Sakinaka S.O., Mumbai - 400072 Pan: Aaccn2366D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vijay Mehta, Shri Arpit Doshi & Ms. Payal Mehta Department Represented By : Shri S. Srinivasu

Section 37(1)

…(AP); Commissioner of Income- Tax Vs. Bansal Credits Ltd., reported in (2003) 259 ITR 69 (Del); COMMISSIONER of Income-Tax Vs. M.G.F. (India) Ltd. reported in (2006) 285 ITR 142 (Del); Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. Annamalai Finance Ltd., reported in (2005) 275 ITR 451 (Mad)]. In each of these cases, the leasing company was held to be the owner of the asset, and accordingly held entitled to claim depreciation and also at the higher rate applicable on the asset hired out. We are in complete agreement with these decisions on the said point. 28. There was some controversy regarding the invoices issued by the manuf…

DCIT Circle- 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Reliance Corporate It Park Ltd., Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid findings

ITA 1195/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora a/wFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha, Sr. AR
Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1195/Mum./2020 (Assessment Year : 2012–13) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax ....Appellant Circle–3(3)(1), Mumbai v/s M/s. Reliance Corporate I.T. Park Ltd. Building no.4/5, TTC Industrial Area …………….Respondent Thane–Belapur Road, Rabale Navi Mumbai 400 701 PAN – AABCD7169H Cross Objection no.140/Mum./2021 (Arising out of ITA No.1195/Mum./2020) (Assessment Year : 2012–13) M/s. Reliance Corporate I.T. Park Ltd. ....Cross Objector Building no.4/5, TTC Industrial Area…

Ttk Protective Devices Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 3(1), Chennai

The appeal stand allowed accordingly

ITA 1966/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri ARV. Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 143(3)

…ilar decision rendered in CIT v. A.M. Constructions [1999] 238 ITR 775 (AP); CIT v. Bansal Credits Ltd. [2003] 259 ITR 69/126 Taxman 149 (Delhi); CIT v. M.G.F. (India) Ltd. [2006] 285 ITR 142/[2007] 159 Taxman 335 (Delhi); CIT v. Annamalai Finance Ltd. [2005] 275 ITR 451/146 Taxman 627 (Mad.) and agreed with the ratio contained therein. In each of these cases, the leasing company was held to be the owner of the asset and accordingly held entitled to claim depreciation and also at the higher rate applicable on the asset hired out. 9. Similar is the decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Rajshree R…

Ttk Protective Devices Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 3(1), Chennai

The appeal stand allowed accordingly

ITA 1965/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri ARV. Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 143(3)

…ilar decision rendered in CIT v. A.M. Constructions [1999] 238 ITR 775 (AP); CIT v. Bansal Credits Ltd. [2003] 259 ITR 69/126 Taxman 149 (Delhi); CIT v. M.G.F. (India) Ltd. [2006] 285 ITR 142/[2007] 159 Taxman 335 (Delhi); CIT v. Annamalai Finance Ltd. [2005] 275 ITR 451/146 Taxman 627 (Mad.) and agreed with the ratio contained therein. In each of these cases, the leasing company was held to be the owner of the asset and accordingly held entitled to claim depreciation and also at the higher rate applicable on the asset hired out. 9. Similar is the decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Rajshree R…

M/S Sundaram Infotech Solutions Limited (Merged With Sundaram Finance Limited), Chennai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 6 (2), Chennai

The appeal stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 2517/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 143(3)

…ilar decision rendered in CIT v. A.M. Constructions [1999] 238 ITR 775 (AP); CIT v. Bansal Credits Ltd. [2003] 259 ITR 69/126 Taxman 149 (Delhi); CIT v. M.G.F. (India) Ltd. [2006] 285 ITR 142/[2007] 159 Taxman 335 (Delhi); CIT v. Annamalai Finance Ltd. [2005] 275 ITR 451/146 Taxman 627 (Mad.) and agreed with the ratio contained therein. In each of these cases, the leasing company was held to be the owner of the asset and accordingly held entitled to claim depreciation and also at the higher rate applicable on the asset hired out. ITA Nos.2515, 2516 & 2517/Chny/2019 9. Similar is the decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan…

M/S Sundaram Infotech Solutions Limited (Merged With Sundaram Finance Limited), Chennai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 6 (2), Chennai

The appeal stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 2516/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 143(3)

…ilar decision rendered in CIT v. A.M. Constructions [1999] 238 ITR 775 (AP); CIT v. Bansal Credits Ltd. [2003] 259 ITR 69/126 Taxman 149 (Delhi); CIT v. M.G.F. (India) Ltd. [2006] 285 ITR 142/[2007] 159 Taxman 335 (Delhi); CIT v. Annamalai Finance Ltd. [2005] 275 ITR 451/146 Taxman 627 (Mad.) and agreed with the ratio contained therein. In each of these cases, the leasing company was held to be the owner of the asset and accordingly held entitled to claim depreciation and also at the higher rate applicable on the asset hired out. ITA Nos.2515, 2516 & 2517/Chny/2019 9. Similar is the decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan…

M/S Sundaram Infotech Solutions Limited (Merged With Sundaram Finance Limited), Chennai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 6 (2), Chennai

The appeal stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 2515/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 143(3)

…ilar decision rendered in CIT v. A.M. Constructions [1999] 238 ITR 775 (AP); CIT v. Bansal Credits Ltd. [2003] 259 ITR 69/126 Taxman 149 (Delhi); CIT v. M.G.F. (India) Ltd. [2006] 285 ITR 142/[2007] 159 Taxman 335 (Delhi); CIT v. Annamalai Finance Ltd. [2005] 275 ITR 451/146 Taxman 627 (Mad.) and agreed with the ratio contained therein. In each of these cases, the leasing company was held to be the owner of the asset and accordingly held entitled to claim depreciation and also at the higher rate applicable on the asset hired out. ITA Nos.2515, 2516 & 2517/Chny/2019 9. Similar is the decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan…

M/S. Tristar Container Services (Asia) Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 292/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.937/Chny/2016 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.938/Chny/2016 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.939/Chny/2016 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.940/Chny/2016 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.941/Chny/2016 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.942/Chny/2016 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.292/Chny/2019 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. Tristar Container Services Acit बनाम/ (Asia) Private Limited Company Circle Iii (1), No. 18, Swamy Sivananda Salai, Chennai – 600 034. Vs. Chepauk, Chennai 600 005. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaact-4043-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri S. Palani Kumar (Cit)–Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 06-05-2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 15-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri S. Palani Kumar (CIT)–Ld. DR

…ilar decision rendered in CIT v. A.M. Constructions [1999] 238 ITR 775 (AP); CIT v. Bansal Credits Ltd. [2003] 259 ITR 69/126 Taxman 149 (Delhi); CIT v. M.G.F. (India) Ltd. [2006] 285 ITR 142/[2007] 159 Taxman 335 (Delhi); CIT v. Annamalai Finance Ltd. [2005] 275 ITR 451/146 Taxman 627 (Mad.) and agreed with the ratio contained therein. In each of these cases, the leasing company was held to be the owner of the asset and accordingly held entitled to claim depreciation and also at the higher rate applicable on the asset hired out. 9. Similar is the decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Rajshree R…

Tristar Container Services (Asia) Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 942/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.937/Chny/2016 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.938/Chny/2016 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.939/Chny/2016 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.940/Chny/2016 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.941/Chny/2016 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.942/Chny/2016 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.292/Chny/2019 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. Tristar Container Services Acit बनाम/ (Asia) Private Limited Company Circle Iii (1), No. 18, Swamy Sivananda Salai, Chennai – 600 034. Vs. Chepauk, Chennai 600 005. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaact-4043-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri S. Palani Kumar (Cit)–Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 06-05-2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 15-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri S. Palani Kumar (CIT)–Ld. DR

…ilar decision rendered in CIT v. A.M. Constructions [1999] 238 ITR 775 (AP); CIT v. Bansal Credits Ltd. [2003] 259 ITR 69/126 Taxman 149 (Delhi); CIT v. M.G.F. (India) Ltd. [2006] 285 ITR 142/[2007] 159 Taxman 335 (Delhi); CIT v. Annamalai Finance Ltd. [2005] 275 ITR 451/146 Taxman 627 (Mad.) and agreed with the ratio contained therein. In each of these cases, the leasing company was held to be the owner of the asset and accordingly held entitled to claim depreciation and also at the higher rate applicable on the asset hired out. 9. Similar is the decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Rajshree R…

Tristar Container Services (Asia) Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 941/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.937/Chny/2016 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.938/Chny/2016 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.939/Chny/2016 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.940/Chny/2016 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.941/Chny/2016 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.942/Chny/2016 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.292/Chny/2019 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. Tristar Container Services Acit बनाम/ (Asia) Private Limited Company Circle Iii (1), No. 18, Swamy Sivananda Salai, Chennai – 600 034. Vs. Chepauk, Chennai 600 005. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaact-4043-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri S. Palani Kumar (Cit)–Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 06-05-2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 15-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri S. Palani Kumar (CIT)–Ld. DR

…ilar decision rendered in CIT v. A.M. Constructions [1999] 238 ITR 775 (AP); CIT v. Bansal Credits Ltd. [2003] 259 ITR 69/126 Taxman 149 (Delhi); CIT v. M.G.F. (India) Ltd. [2006] 285 ITR 142/[2007] 159 Taxman 335 (Delhi); CIT v. Annamalai Finance Ltd. [2005] 275 ITR 451/146 Taxman 627 (Mad.) and agreed with the ratio contained therein. In each of these cases, the leasing company was held to be the owner of the asset and accordingly held entitled to claim depreciation and also at the higher rate applicable on the asset hired out. 9. Similar is the decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Rajshree R…

Tristar Container Services (Asia) Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 940/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.937/Chny/2016 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.938/Chny/2016 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.939/Chny/2016 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.940/Chny/2016 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.941/Chny/2016 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.942/Chny/2016 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.292/Chny/2019 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. Tristar Container Services Acit बनाम/ (Asia) Private Limited Company Circle Iii (1), No. 18, Swamy Sivananda Salai, Chennai – 600 034. Vs. Chepauk, Chennai 600 005. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaact-4043-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri S. Palani Kumar (Cit)–Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 06-05-2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 15-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri S. Palani Kumar (CIT)–Ld. DR

…ilar decision rendered in CIT v. A.M. Constructions [1999] 238 ITR 775 (AP); CIT v. Bansal Credits Ltd. [2003] 259 ITR 69/126 Taxman 149 (Delhi); CIT v. M.G.F. (India) Ltd. [2006] 285 ITR 142/[2007] 159 Taxman 335 (Delhi); CIT v. Annamalai Finance Ltd. [2005] 275 ITR 451/146 Taxman 627 (Mad.) and agreed with the ratio contained therein. In each of these cases, the leasing company was held to be the owner of the asset and accordingly held entitled to claim depreciation and also at the higher rate applicable on the asset hired out. 9. Similar is the decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Rajshree R…

Tristar Container Services (Asia) Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 939/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.937/Chny/2016 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.938/Chny/2016 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.939/Chny/2016 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.940/Chny/2016 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.941/Chny/2016 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.942/Chny/2016 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.292/Chny/2019 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. Tristar Container Services Acit बनाम/ (Asia) Private Limited Company Circle Iii (1), No. 18, Swamy Sivananda Salai, Chennai – 600 034. Vs. Chepauk, Chennai 600 005. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaact-4043-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri S. Palani Kumar (Cit)–Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 06-05-2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 15-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri S. Palani Kumar (CIT)–Ld. DR

…ilar decision rendered in CIT v. A.M. Constructions [1999] 238 ITR 775 (AP); CIT v. Bansal Credits Ltd. [2003] 259 ITR 69/126 Taxman 149 (Delhi); CIT v. M.G.F. (India) Ltd. [2006] 285 ITR 142/[2007] 159 Taxman 335 (Delhi); CIT v. Annamalai Finance Ltd. [2005] 275 ITR 451/146 Taxman 627 (Mad.) and agreed with the ratio contained therein. In each of these cases, the leasing company was held to be the owner of the asset and accordingly held entitled to claim depreciation and also at the higher rate applicable on the asset hired out. 9. Similar is the decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Rajshree R…

Tristar Container Services (Asia) Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 938/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.937/Chny/2016 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.938/Chny/2016 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.939/Chny/2016 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.940/Chny/2016 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.941/Chny/2016 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.942/Chny/2016 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.292/Chny/2019 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. Tristar Container Services Acit बनाम/ (Asia) Private Limited Company Circle Iii (1), No. 18, Swamy Sivananda Salai, Chennai – 600 034. Vs. Chepauk, Chennai 600 005. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaact-4043-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri S. Palani Kumar (Cit)–Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 06-05-2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 15-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri S. Palani Kumar (CIT)–Ld. DR

…ilar decision rendered in CIT v. A.M. Constructions [1999] 238 ITR 775 (AP); CIT v. Bansal Credits Ltd. [2003] 259 ITR 69/126 Taxman 149 (Delhi); CIT v. M.G.F. (India) Ltd. [2006] 285 ITR 142/[2007] 159 Taxman 335 (Delhi); CIT v. Annamalai Finance Ltd. [2005] 275 ITR 451/146 Taxman 627 (Mad.) and agreed with the ratio contained therein. In each of these cases, the leasing company was held to be the owner of the asset and accordingly held entitled to claim depreciation and also at the higher rate applicable on the asset hired out. 9. Similar is the decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Rajshree R…

Tristar Container Services (Asia) Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 937/CHNY/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jun 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.937/Chny/2016 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.938/Chny/2016 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.939/Chny/2016 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.940/Chny/2016 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.941/Chny/2016 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.942/Chny/2016 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.292/Chny/2019 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. Tristar Container Services Acit बनाम/ (Asia) Private Limited Company Circle Iii (1), No. 18, Swamy Sivananda Salai, Chennai – 600 034. Vs. Chepauk, Chennai 600 005. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaact-4043-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri S. Palani Kumar (Cit)–Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 06-05-2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 15-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri S. Palani Kumar (CIT)–Ld. DR

…ilar decision rendered in CIT v. A.M. Constructions [1999] 238 ITR 775 (AP); CIT v. Bansal Credits Ltd. [2003] 259 ITR 69/126 Taxman 149 (Delhi); CIT v. M.G.F. (India) Ltd. [2006] 285 ITR 142/[2007] 159 Taxman 335 (Delhi); CIT v. Annamalai Finance Ltd. [2005] 275 ITR 451/146 Taxman 627 (Mad.) and agreed with the ratio contained therein. In each of these cases, the leasing company was held to be the owner of the asset and accordingly held entitled to claim depreciation and also at the higher rate applicable on the asset hired out. 9. Similar is the decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Rajshree R…