ICDS Limited v. CIT (

69 Taxmann.com 317High Court2016#5000 most cited
24

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also reported as

360 ITR 362

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 115BBESection 115JBSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 32Section 37(1)

Issues it is cited on

icdssection 92bmost appropriate methodtransfer pricing adjustmenttnmmsection 32section 92revenue expenditureinternational transactioncapital expendituresection 37(1)section 37

Judgments citing ICDS Limited v. CIT (

MRS. A. SUGANTHI,SALEM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1,, SALEM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2604/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.S. Sridhar (Erode)For Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam
Section 68Section 69A

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक सद" एवं एवं एवं एवं "ी एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सद" के सम" BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.R.RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.2604/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 v. Mrs. A. Suganthi, The DCIT, New.D.No.118, A.V. Iyer Street, Circle-1, Shevapet, Salem-636 002. Salem. [PAN: AVOPS 6102 Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Mr.S. Sridhar (Erode), Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent by : Ms.Gouthami Manivasaga…

VODAFONE IDEA LTD. (EARLIER KNWON AS VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LTD.),MUMBAI vs. ACIT,. CIRCLE-26(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, all above said grounds are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 8361/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shriyogesh Kumar U.S.Vodafone Idea Ltd Vs. Acit, (Earlier Known As Vodafone Circle-26(2), Mobile Services Ltd) New Delhi 10Th Floor, Birla Centurion, Century Mills Compound, Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Worli, Mumbai, Maharastra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacb2100P

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S. K,. Jadav, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “H”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRIYOGESH KUMAR U.S.,JUDICIAL MEMBER Vodafone Idea Ltd Vs. ACIT, (earlier known as Vodafone Circle-26(2), Mobile Services Ltd) New Delhi 10th Floor, Birla Centurion, Century Mills Compound, Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Worli, Mumbai, Maharastra (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AAACB2100P Assessee by : Shri Salil Kapoor, Adv Ms. Soumya Singh, Adv Revenue by: Shri S. K,. Jadav, CIT DR Date of Hearing 13/08/2025 Date of pronouncement 24/10/2025 O R D E R PER SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN: 1. The Assessee Vodafone Idea Ltd…

SREE BALAJI BULLIONS,SALEM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), SALEM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2302/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2302/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sree Balaji Bullions, Dy. Commissioner Of 22/43, Vasagasalai, Income Tax, Shevapet, V. Circle 1(1), Salem– 636002. Salem. [Pan: Aasfs-5947-E] (""यथ"/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : Shri.S.Sridhar, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By & N.Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms.T.M.Suganthamala, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R

For Respondent: Ms.T.M.Suganthamala, CIT
Section 115BSection 69A

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी जॉज" जॉज" के, उपा"य" एवं "ी एस.आर.रघुनाथा, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.: 2302/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sree Balaji Bullions, Dy. Commissioner of 22/43, Vasagasalai, Income Tax, Shevapet, V. Circle 1(1), Salem– 636002. Salem. [PAN: AASFS-5947-E] (""यथ"/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : Shri.S.Sridhar, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by and N.Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से…

RIO TINTO INDIA PVT. LTD. ,HARYANA vs. ACIT CIRCLE 19(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2021/DEL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2024AY 2011-12
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 254Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s Rio Tinto India ACIT Private Ltd. Circle-19(1) 21st Floor, DLF Vs. New Delhi Building No.5 Tower A, DLF Cybercity Phase-III, Gurugram Haryana-122002 PAN:AAACR5591A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Nageshwar Rao, Advocate & Ms Anshika Agarwal, Adv. Respondent by Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT- DR Date of Hearing 16/05/2024 Date of Pronouncement 26/06/2024 ORDER PER S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM: 1. This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the fina…

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)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER NTT 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 Date of Conclusio…

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)

…5 & 1966/Chny/2017 opinion that whatever is the nature of lease, only the lessor is entitled for depreciation as per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in ICDS Limited Vs CIT (350 ITR 527). The decision of Delhi Tribunal in Minda Corporation Ltd. V/s DCIT (69 Taxmann.com 317) has also support the same view. The case of the revenue is that in case of finance lease, substantial risks and rewards of ownership are transferred to the lessee and therefore, the lessee would be entitled to claim depreciation and not the principal component of lease payment. 7. We find that as per Accounting Standard-19 as introduced b…

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)

…5 & 1966/Chny/2017 opinion that whatever is the nature of lease, only the lessor is entitled for depreciation as per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in ICDS Limited Vs CIT (350 ITR 527). The decision of Delhi Tribunal in Minda Corporation Ltd. V/s DCIT (69 Taxmann.com 317) has also support the same view. The case of the revenue is that in case of finance lease, substantial risks and rewards of ownership are transferred to the lessee and therefore, the lessee would be entitled to claim depreciation and not the principal component of lease payment. 7. We find that as per Accounting Standard-19 as introduced b…

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)

…of the considered opinion that whatever is the nature of lease, only the lessor is entitled for depreciation as per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in ICDS Limited Vs CIT (350 ITR 527). The decision of Delhi Tribunal in Minda Corporation Ltd. V/s DCIT (69 Taxmann.com 317) has also support the same view. The case of the revenue is that in case of finance lease, substantial risks and rewards of ownership are transferred to the lessee and therefore, the lessee would be entitled to claim depreciation and not the principal component of lease payment. 7. We find that as per Accounting Standard-19 as introduced b…

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)

…of the considered opinion that whatever is the nature of lease, only the lessor is entitled for depreciation as per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in ICDS Limited Vs CIT (350 ITR 527). The decision of Delhi Tribunal in Minda Corporation Ltd. V/s DCIT (69 Taxmann.com 317) has also support the same view. The case of the revenue is that in case of finance lease, substantial risks and rewards of ownership are transferred to the lessee and therefore, the lessee would be entitled to claim depreciation and not the principal component of lease payment. 7. We find that as per Accounting Standard-19 as introduced b…

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)

…of the considered opinion that whatever is the nature of lease, only the lessor is entitled for depreciation as per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in ICDS Limited Vs CIT (350 ITR 527). The decision of Delhi Tribunal in Minda Corporation Ltd. V/s DCIT (69 Taxmann.com 317) has also support the same view. The case of the revenue is that in case of finance lease, substantial risks and rewards of ownership are transferred to the lessee and therefore, the lessee would be entitled to claim depreciation and not the principal component of lease payment. 7. We find that as per Accounting Standard-19 as introduced b…

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

…of the considered opinion that whatever is the nature of lease, only the lessor is entitled for depreciation as per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in ICDS Limited Vs CIT (350 ITR 527). The decision of Delhi Tribunal in Minda Corporation Ltd. V/s DCIT (69 Taxmann.com 317) has also support the same view. The case of the revenue is that in case of finance lease, substantial risks and rewards of ownership are transferred to the lessee and therefore, the lessee would be entitled to claim depreciation and not the principal component of lease payment. 7. We find that as per Accounting Standard-19 as introduced b…

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

…of the considered opinion that whatever is the nature of lease, only the lessor is entitled for depreciation as per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in ICDS Limited Vs CIT (350 ITR 527). The decision of Delhi Tribunal in Minda Corporation Ltd. V/s DCIT (69 Taxmann.com 317) has also support the same view. The case of the revenue is that in case of finance lease, substantial risks and rewards of ownership are transferred to the lessee and therefore, the lessee would be entitled to claim depreciation and not the principal component of lease payment. 7. We find that as per Accounting Standard-19 as introduced b…

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

…of the considered opinion that whatever is the nature of lease, only the lessor is entitled for depreciation as per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in ICDS Limited Vs CIT (350 ITR 527). The decision of Delhi Tribunal in Minda Corporation Ltd. V/s DCIT (69 Taxmann.com 317) has also support the same view. The case of the revenue is that in case of finance lease, substantial risks and rewards of ownership are transferred to the lessee and therefore, the lessee would be entitled to claim depreciation and not the principal component of lease payment. 7. We find that as per Accounting Standard-19 as introduced b…

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

…of the considered opinion that whatever is the nature of lease, only the lessor is entitled for depreciation as per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in ICDS Limited Vs CIT (350 ITR 527). The decision of Delhi Tribunal in Minda Corporation Ltd. V/s DCIT (69 Taxmann.com 317) has also support the same view. The case of the revenue is that in case of finance lease, substantial risks and rewards of ownership are transferred to the lessee and therefore, the lessee would be entitled to claim depreciation and not the principal component of lease payment. 7. We find that as per Accounting Standard-19 as introduced b…

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

…of the considered opinion that whatever is the nature of lease, only the lessor is entitled for depreciation as per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in ICDS Limited Vs CIT (350 ITR 527). The decision of Delhi Tribunal in Minda Corporation Ltd. V/s DCIT (69 Taxmann.com 317) has also support the same view. The case of the revenue is that in case of finance lease, substantial risks and rewards of ownership are transferred to the lessee and therefore, the lessee would be entitled to claim depreciation and not the principal component of lease payment. 7. We find that as per Accounting Standard-19 as introduced b…

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

…of the considered opinion that whatever is the nature of lease, only the lessor is entitled for depreciation as per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in ICDS Limited Vs CIT (350 ITR 527). The decision of Delhi Tribunal in Minda Corporation Ltd. V/s DCIT (69 Taxmann.com 317) has also support the same view. The case of the revenue is that in case of finance lease, substantial risks and rewards of ownership are transferred to the lessee and therefore, the lessee would be entitled to claim depreciation and not the principal component of lease payment. 7. We find that as per Accounting Standard-19 as introduced b…

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

…of the considered opinion that whatever is the nature of lease, only the lessor is entitled for depreciation as per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in ICDS Limited Vs CIT (350 ITR 527). The decision of Delhi Tribunal in Minda Corporation Ltd. V/s DCIT (69 Taxmann.com 317) has also support the same view. The case of the revenue is that in case of finance lease, substantial risks and rewards of ownership are transferred to the lessee and therefore, the lessee would be entitled to claim depreciation and not the principal component of lease payment. 7. We find that as per Accounting Standard-19 as introduced b…

ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-4, NEW DELHI vs. GILLETTEE DIVERSIFIED OPERATIONS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1698/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. R.K. Kapoor, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Surender Pal, Sr. DR
Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘I-1’ NEW DLEHI BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. Gillette Diversified Operations vs. DCIT, Circle – 10(1), Pvt. Ltd., P & G Plaza, GadinalGracious New Delhi -110002 Road,.ChakalaAndhery(East), Mumbai – 99. PAN : AAACG2469C (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Addl. CIT, Spcl. Range-4, vs. M/s. Gillette Diversified Operations, New Delhi. Pvt. Ltd., P & G Plaza, GadinalGracious Road,.ChakalaAndhery(East), Mumbai – 99. PAN : AAACG2469C (Appellant/…

GILLETTEE DIVERSIFIED OPERATIONS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-10(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1161/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. R.K. Kapoor, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Surender Pal, Sr. DR
Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘I-1’ NEW DLEHI BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. Gillette Diversified Operations vs. DCIT, Circle – 10(1), Pvt. Ltd., P & G Plaza, GadinalGracious New Delhi -110002 Road,.ChakalaAndhery(East), Mumbai – 99. PAN : AAACG2469C (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Addl. CIT, Spcl. Range-4, vs. M/s. Gillette Diversified Operations, New Delhi. Pvt. Ltd., P & G Plaza, GadinalGracious Road,.ChakalaAndhery(East), Mumbai – 99. PAN : AAACG2469C (Appellant/…

RELIANCE CORPORATE IT PARK LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 3, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2748/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.2748/Mum/2015 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11) Reliance Corporate It Park Ltd., बनधम/ Principal Commissioner Of Maker Tower E, 7Th Floor, Income Tax-6, Vs. A Wing- Cuff Parade Mumbai- 612, Aayakar Bhavan, 400005 Mk Road, Mumbai-400020 स्थधयी ऱेखध सं./ Pan : Aabcd7169H (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. अऩीराथी की ओय से/Appellant By : Shri Arvind Sonde प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Respondent By : Shri Rajesh Kumar सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 14.12.2016 घोषणा की तायीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 3.2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am : The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Impugned Order Dated 20.3.2015, Passed By Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax -3, Mumbai Under Section 263, Setting Aside The Order Of The Assessing Officer Dated 20.3.2013 For Passing It Afresh. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. Ground No.1 (I) The Learned Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax- 3, (Hereinafter Referred To As Cit) Erred In Passing The Order Under Section 263 Of The Act, By Holding That The Assessment Order Passed By The Oy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle -3(3), Mumbai (Hereinafter

For Appellant: Shri Arvind SondeFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ “एच” म ुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री अमभत शुक्रा, न्मायमक सदस्म एवं श्री याजेशकुभाय, रेखा सदस्म के सभक्ष । BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.2748/Mum/2015 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11) Reliance Corporate IT Park Ltd., बनधम/ Principal Commissioner of Maker Tower E, 7th floor, Income Tax-6, Vs. A Wing- Cuff Parade Mumbai- 612, Aayakar Bhavan, 400005 MK Road, Mumbai-400020 स्थधयी ऱेखध सं./ PAN : AABCD7169H (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. अऩीराथी की ओय से/Appellant by : Shri…

Showing 1–20 of 24 · Page 1 of 2