CIT v. Rittal India (P) Limited

380 ITR 423High Court2016#869 most cited

What is CIT v. Rittal India (P) Limited authority for?

Additional depreciation is allowable under section 32(1)(iia) for new machinery or plant even when put to use for less than 180 days, with the unabsorbed balance available for claim in the subsequent year.

121

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Rittal India · Section 32(1)(iia) · additional depreciation · 180 days rule · put to use · half depreciation · subsequent year claim · unabsorbed depreciation · new plant and machinery · Section 32

Also reported as

66 Taxmann.com 4

Sections most often in play

Section 115JBSection 32(1)(iia)Section 143(3)Section 32(1)Section 143(1)Section 14ASection 250Section 43(5)

Issues it is cited on

section 32(1)(iia)additional depreciationsection 32(1)(ii)abatement of assessmentclarificatory amendmentsection 32(1)put to usesection 80hhblock of assetssection 32block periodsection 153a(1)

Judgments citing CIT v. Rittal India (P) Limited

The ACIT, Cochin vs. M/S.Nitta Gelatine India Ltd, Cochin

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

ITA 303/COCH/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

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

Section 143(3)Section 253(1)Section 32Section 40A(3)

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE S/SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, AM & GEORGE GEORGE K., JM I.T.A. No.301 & 303/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11 The Assistant Commissioner of Vs. M/s. Nitta Gelatin India Ltd., Income-tax, Corporate Circle- 50/1002, SBT Avenue, 2(1), Kochi. Panampilly Nagar, Kochi-682 036. [PAN:AABCK 1582H] (Revenue-Appellant) (Assessee-Respondent) Revenue by Smt. A.S. Bindhu, Sr. DR Assessee by Shri V. Satyanarayanan, CA Date of hearing 01/08/2019 Date of pronouncement 26/08/2019 O R D E R Per CHANDRA POOJARI, AM: These two appeals filed b…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-6, Kanpur vs. Commercial Engineers & Body Builders Co. Ltd., Kanpur

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 658/LKW/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow19 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Maduk, CIT (DR)For Respondent: Shri B. L. Gupta, FCA
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)

…d for additional depreciation in the plant & machinery acquired and installed in the preceding assessment year. In our opinion, now this issue is duly covered by the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Rittal India Pvt. Ltd. [2016] 380 ITR 423 (Kar) in which Hon'ble High Court vide its order dated 24/11/2015 by interpreting the provisions of section 32(1)(ii)(a) held as under: “9. The language used in clause (iia) of the said section clearly provides that "a further sum equal to 20 per cent. of the actual cost of such machinery or plant shall be allowed as deduction under clause (ii)".…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-6, Kanpur vs. Commercial Engineers & Body Builders Co. Ltd., Kanpur

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 657/LKW/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow19 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Maduk, CIT (DR)For Respondent: Shri B. L. Gupta, FCA
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)

…d for additional depreciation in the plant & machinery acquired and installed in the preceding assessment year. In our opinion, now this issue is duly covered by the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Rittal India Pvt. Ltd. [2016] 380 ITR 423 (Kar) in which Hon'ble High Court vide its order dated 24/11/2015 by interpreting the provisions of section 32(1)(ii)(a) held as under: “9. The language used in clause (iia) of the said section clearly provides that "a further sum equal to 20 per cent. of the actual cost of such machinery or plant shall be allowed as deduction under clause (ii)".…

ACIT, Circle-4(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Apeejay Tea Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is treated partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1736/KOL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. No. 1736/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Acit, Circle – 4(1) Kolkata...................................………………………….............................Appellant P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700 069. M/S. Apeejay Tea Ltd.....................…………………………..................................................Respondent ‘Apeejay House’, Block-A, 15, Park Street, Kolkata – 700 016. [Pan: Aaeca 1925 D] Appearances By: Shri C.J. Singh, Jcit, Sr. Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri Manish Tiwari, Fca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 20, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 10, 2019 Order Per P.M. Jagtap(Kz) This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) – 16, Kolkata Dated 30.06.2016. 2. In Ground No. 1, The Revenue Has Challenged The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Deleting The Disallowance Of Rs. 31,64,411/- Made By The Ao On Account Of Balance Additional Depreciation.

Section 32Section 40

…aim for additional depreciation of 10% as made in the year under consideration is squarely covered in favour of the assessee, besides various decisions of this Tribunal, by the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs Rittal India Pvt. Ltd. 380 ITR 423 wherein it was held that additional depreciation u/s 32(iia) is a onetime benefit given to encourage industrialisation and on the plant and machinery purchased and put to use in the 2nd half of the immediately preceding year, the assessee can claim half of the additional depreciation of 20% in the next assessment year. Respectfully following the…

Tcpl Packaging Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 7370/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharm/S Tcpl Packaging Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Empire Mills Complex, Tax- 8(3)(1) 414, Senapati Bapat Marg, Mumbai V. Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400013 Pan – Aaact1406E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle Haria &For Respondent: Shri V. Justin, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(iia)

…n which, the machinery had been bought and used, albeit, for less than 180 days.” 8. As can be seen from the above decision the Hon'ble Madras High Court, following the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Rittal India (P) Ltd. (380 ITR 423) and also considering the amendment brought in by way of proviso to section 32(1) wherein it has been specifically stated that 50% of additional depreciation which was not allowed in the preceding assessment year shall be allowed in the subsequent assessment year, concluded that the assessee is entitled for additional 50% depreciation in the asse…

Samarth Fablon Private Limited, Kolkata vs. Principal CIT, Central - 1, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1120/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 263Section 32(1)Section 32(1)(ii)Section 32(1)(iia)

…1 Samarth Fablon Private Ltd., AY 2013-14 आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “D” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH: KOLKATA (सम") "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं डॉ. अजु"न लाल सैनी, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, JM & Dr. A. L. Saini, AM] I.T.A. No. 1120/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Samarth Fablon Private Ltd. Vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax, (PAN: AAKCS7663N) Central-1, Kolkata Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing 24.01.2019 Date of Pronouncement 13.03.2019 For the Appellant Shri Sarvesh Chhaparia, FCA For the Respondent Shri A. K. Nayak, CIT, DR ORDER Per Shri A.T.Varkey, J…

ACIT, Circle-8(2), Kolkata vs. Tata Steel Processing and Distribution Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2237/KOL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Dec 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A T Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 2237/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Acit, Circle-8(2), Kolkata -Vs- Tata Steel Processing & Distribution Ltd. [Pan: Aabct 1029 L ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Shri A T Varkey, JM, & Shri M.Balaganesh, AM] I.T.A No. 2237/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 ACIT, Circle-8(2), Kolkata -vs- Tata Steel Processing and Distribution Ltd. [PAN: AABCT 1029 L ] (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 96/Kol/2016 (Arising out of I.T.A No. 2237/Kol/2016 ) Assessment Year : 2011-12 Tata Steel Processing and Distribution Ltd. -vs- ACIT, Circle-8(2), Kolkata [PAN: AABCT 1029 L ] (Appellant) (Respondent) For the Appellant : Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT Sr. DR For the Respondent : Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. C…

DCIT Corporate Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Hinduja Foundries Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2694/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Oct 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I T.A. No. 2694/Mds/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Hinduja Foundries Ltd., Income Tax, Corporate Circle 2(2), Vs. [Merged With M/S. Ashok Leyland Ltd.] Room No. 512, 5Th Floor, Wanaparthy Kathivakkam High Road, Block, 121, M.G. Road, Ennore, Chennai 600 057. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aaace1078K] (Appellant) (Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar, Addl. Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Saroj Kumar, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 28.08.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.10.2018 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 6, Chennai Dated 31.05.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2014-15. In This Appeal, The Revenue Has Raised Two Effective Grounds Viz., (I) The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Directing The Assessing Officer To Allow The Claim Of Additional Depreciation For The Year Under Consideration & (Ii) The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In In Holding That No Disallowance Is Warranted Under Section 14A Of The Act, Wherein No Dividend/Exempt Income Has Been Reported By The Assessee During The 2

For Appellant: Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar, Advocate
Section 14ASection 32

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी अ"ाहम पी. जॉज", लेखा सद" एवं "ी धु"ु" आर.एल रे"ी, "ाियक सद" के सम" Before Shri Abraham P. George, Accountant Member & Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं./I T.A. No. 2694/Mds/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner of M/s. Hinduja Foundries Ltd., Income Tax, Corporate Circle 2(2), Vs. [Merged with M/s. Ashok Leyland Ltd.] Room No. 512, 5th Floor, Wanaparthy Kathivakkam High Road, Block, 121, M.G. Road, Ennore, Chennai 600 057. Chennai 600 034. [PAN:AAACE1078K] (Appellant) (Resp…

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Turbo Energy Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeals as well as Revenue’s appeals are dismissed’’

ITA 2494/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathan

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. S. Bharath, IRS, CIT
Section 35

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी अ"ाहम पी. जॉज", लेखासद"य एवं "ी जॉज" माथन, "या"यक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P.GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2493/CHNY/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment year : 2010-2011 Turbo Energy Private Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of 67, Chamiers Road, Income Tax, Chennai 600 028. Large Tax Payer Unit -1, Chennai 600 034. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2494/CHNY/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment year : 2010-2011 The Deputy Commissioner of Vs. Turbo Energy Private Lim…

Turbo Energy Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeals as well as Revenue’s appeals are dismissed’’

ITA 2493/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathan

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. S. Bharath, IRS, CIT
Section 35

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी अ"ाहम पी. जॉज", लेखासद"य एवं "ी जॉज" माथन, "या"यक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P.GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2493/CHNY/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment year : 2010-2011 Turbo Energy Private Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of 67, Chamiers Road, Income Tax, Chennai 600 028. Large Tax Payer Unit -1, Chennai 600 034. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2494/CHNY/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment year : 2010-2011 The Deputy Commissioner of Vs. Turbo Energy Private Lim…

Tata Steel Processing and Distribution Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-8(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 508/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Aug 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 508/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Tata Steel Processing & Distribution Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-8(2), Kolkata [Pan: Aabct 1029 L] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel Shri P. Jhunjhunwala, Ar For The Respondent : Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.08.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.08.2018

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. CIT DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Shri M.Balaganesh, AM & Hon’ble Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, JM] I.T.A No. 508/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Tata Steel Processing and Distribution Ltd. -vs- DCIT, Circle-8(2), Kolkata [PAN: AABCT 1029 L] (Appellant) (Respondent) For the Appellant : Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel Shri P. Jhunjhunwala, AR For the Respondent : Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. CIT DR Date of Hearing : 09.08.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 24.08.2018 ORDER Per M.Balaganesh, AM 1. This appeal by the assessee arises out of the order of the Learned Commissioner of…

ACIT 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Modison Metals Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 7030/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai, DRFor Respondent: Shri Satish Modi, AR
Section 143(3)Section 32(1)Section 32(1)(ii)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 32(2)

…is squarely covered by the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shri T. P. Textiles Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 394 ITR 483 (Mad.), wherein following the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Rital India (P.) Ltd. (2016) 380 ITR 423 (Karn). In view of the above decisions of the Hon’ble Madras ITA Nos. 7028-7030, 3663/Mum/2016 High Court and Karnataka High Court in the case of T. P. Textiles Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and Rital India (P.) Ltd. (supra), we affirm the order of CIT(A) allowing additional depreciation. Appeals of Revenue on this issue are dismissed. All these four appeal…

ACIT 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Modison Metals Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 7029/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai, DRFor Respondent: Shri Satish Modi, AR
Section 143(3)Section 32(1)Section 32(1)(ii)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 32(2)

…is squarely covered by the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shri T. P. Textiles Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 394 ITR 483 (Mad.), wherein following the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Rital India (P.) Ltd. (2016) 380 ITR 423 (Karn). In view of the above decisions of the Hon’ble Madras ITA Nos. 7028-7030, 3663/Mum/2016 High Court and Karnataka High Court in the case of T. P. Textiles Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and Rital India (P.) Ltd. (supra), we affirm the order of CIT(A) allowing additional depreciation. Appeals of Revenue on this issue are dismissed. All these four appeal…

ACIT 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Modison Metals Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 7028/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai, DRFor Respondent: Shri Satish Modi, AR
Section 143(3)Section 32(1)Section 32(1)(ii)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 32(2)

…is squarely covered by the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shri T. P. Textiles Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 394 ITR 483 (Mad.), wherein following the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Rital India (P.) Ltd. (2016) 380 ITR 423 (Karn). In view of the above decisions of the Hon’ble Madras ITA Nos. 7028-7030, 3663/Mum/2016 High Court and Karnataka High Court in the case of T. P. Textiles Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and Rital India (P.) Ltd. (supra), we affirm the order of CIT(A) allowing additional depreciation. Appeals of Revenue on this issue are dismissed. All these four appeal…

DCIT Cir 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Modison Metals Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 3663/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai, DRFor Respondent: Shri Satish Modi, AR
Section 143(3)Section 32(1)Section 32(1)(ii)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 32(2)

…is squarely covered by the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shri T. P. Textiles Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 394 ITR 483 (Mad.), wherein following the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Rital India (P.) Ltd. (2016) 380 ITR 423 (Karn). In view of the above decisions of the Hon’ble Madras ITA Nos. 7028-7030, 3663/Mum/2016 High Court and Karnataka High Court in the case of T. P. Textiles Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and Rital India (P.) Ltd. (supra), we affirm the order of CIT(A) allowing additional depreciation. Appeals of Revenue on this issue are dismissed. All these four appeal…

Viki Industries Pvt Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 852/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.852/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 M/S. Viki Industries Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 1, Krishna Street, Vs. Income Tax, Nungambakkam, Corporate Circle 3(2), Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aaacv2003P] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Shri D. Anand, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Mrs. S. Vijayaprabha, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.06.2018 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) 13, Chennai Dated 20.01.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Chennai, Is Wrong, Illegal & Is Opposed To Law & Facts Of The Case.

For Respondent: Mrs. S. Vijayaprabha, JCIT
Section 32(1)(iia)Section 40A(3)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, “डी” "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी ए. मोहन अलंकामणी, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी, "या"यक सद"य के सम" Before Shri A. Mohan Alankamony, Accountant Member & Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.852/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 M/s. Viki Industries Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner of No. 1, Krishna Street, Vs. Income Tax, Nungambakkam, Corporate Circle 3(2), Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 034. [PAN: AAACV2003P] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Shri D. Anand, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant by…

Emerson Climate Technologies (India) Private Limited, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1(2), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and stay application moved by assessee is dismissed

ITA 2432/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jun 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 2432/Pun/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Danesh BafnaFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 92C

…depreciation was made by assessee in subsequent year i.e. 2013-14. However, the same was denied to the assessee. 23. The issue stands covered by the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Rittal India ( P.) Ltd, reported as 380 ITR 423 (Kar.). The Hon'ble High Court held as under: “10. It has been consistently held by this Court, as well as the Apex Court, that beneficial legislation, as in the present case, should be given liberal interpretation so as to benefit the assessee. In this case, the intention of the legislation is absolutely clear, that the assessee shall be allowe…

DCIT Corporate Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Hinduja Foundries Ltd., Chennai

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

ITA 2693/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 May 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri N. Madhavan, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Parida, Advocate

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘‘सी’’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एस जयरामन, लेखा सद"य के सम" Before Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Judicial Member & Shri S. Jayaraman, Accountant Member I.T.A. Nos. 2690, 2691, 2692 and 2693/Mds/2017 Assessment Years:2008-09, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner of M/s. Hinduja Foundries Ltd., Income Tax, Corporate Circle 2(2), Vs. [Merged with M/s. Ashok Leyland Ltd.] Room No. 512, 5th Floor, Wanaparthy Kathivakkam High Road, Block, 121, M.G. Road, Ennore, Chennai 600 057. Chennai 600 034. [PAN:AAACE…

DCIT Corporate Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Hinduja Foundries Ltd., Chennai

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

ITA 2692/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri N. Madhavan, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Parida, Advocate

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘‘सी’’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एस जयरामन, लेखा सद"य के सम" Before Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Judicial Member & Shri S. Jayaraman, Accountant Member I.T.A. Nos. 2690, 2691, 2692 and 2693/Mds/2017 Assessment Years:2008-09, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner of M/s. Hinduja Foundries Ltd., Income Tax, Corporate Circle 2(2), Vs. [Merged with M/s. Ashok Leyland Ltd.] Room No. 512, 5th Floor, Wanaparthy Kathivakkam High Road, Block, 121, M.G. Road, Ennore, Chennai 600 057. Chennai 600 034. [PAN:AAACE…

DCIT Corporate Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Hinduja Foundries Ltd., Chennai

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

ITA 2691/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri N. Madhavan, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Parida, Advocate

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘‘सी’’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एस जयरामन, लेखा सद"य के सम" Before Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Judicial Member & Shri S. Jayaraman, Accountant Member I.T.A. Nos. 2690, 2691, 2692 and 2693/Mds/2017 Assessment Years:2008-09, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner of M/s. Hinduja Foundries Ltd., Income Tax, Corporate Circle 2(2), Vs. [Merged with M/s. Ashok Leyland Ltd.] Room No. 512, 5th Floor, Wanaparthy Kathivakkam High Road, Block, 121, M.G. Road, Ennore, Chennai 600 057. Chennai 600 034. [PAN:AAACE…