M.M.Forgings Limited v. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax

349 ITR 673High Court2012#5782 most cited

What is M.M.Forgings Limited v. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax authority for?

A jurisdictional High Court decision in favour of the Revenue on the allowability of additional depreciation cannot be ignored by the Tribunal. The Tribunal should consider such jurisdictional High Court decisions, even if they were not brought to its notice.

20

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Also referred to as

M.M. Forgings Limited · 349 ITR 673 · additional depreciation · Section 32(1)(iia) · jurisdictional High Court · Tribunal · favour of the Revenue · disallowance of additional depreciation

Sections most often in play

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)Section 32(1)(iia)

Judgments citing M.M.Forgings Limited v. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU CIRCLE 1 , CHENNAI vs. E I D PARRY INDIA LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3118/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.Sudarmani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.R. Raghupathy, Addl.CIT
Section 143(1)Section 32(1)(iia)

…igh Court, which is in favour of the Department. Without noting the fact that there were several decisions, one of which, the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in M.M. Forgings Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [2011] 11 taxmann.com 367/200 Taxman 36 (Mag.)/[2012] 349 ITR 673 (Mad.). It appears that the said decision was not brought to the notice of the Tribunal, which choose to follow the decision of High Court of Karnataka. Though the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of M.M. Forgings Ltd. (supra), was available which was in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. 10. Be that as it may,…

JCIT (OSD), CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI vs. INDIA PISTON LTD., CHENNAI

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

ITA 1615/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1615/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Joint Commissioner Of Income M/S. India Piston Ltd., Tax (Osd), Corporate Circle 2(2), Vs. Huzur Gardens, Room No. 512, 5Th Floor, Wanaparthy Madhavaram High Road, Block, No. 121, M.G. Road, Sembiam, Chennai 600 011. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aaaci1439E] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Department By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit Assessee By : Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.03.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.04.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson, Addl. CIT
Section 32(1)Section 32(1)(iia)

…tional depreciation. The Assessing Officer has held that the assessee cannot claim the balance 10% of depreciation in the subsequent year as per provisions of section 32(1)(iia) of the Act by following the decision in the case of MM Forgings Ltd. v. Addl. CIT 349 ITR 673 (Mad). On appeal, by following the decision in the case of Brakes India Ltd. v. DCIT in T.C. A. No. 551 of 2013 dated 14.03.2017 as well as the decisions of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case, the ld. CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made on account of disallowance of additional depreciation claimed by the assessee.…

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI vs. INDIA PISTON LTD., CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 2384/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2339 & 2340/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2010-11 & 2011-12. M/S. India Pistons Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Huzur Gardens, Income Tax, Sembium, Corporate Circle 2(2) Chennai 600 011. Chennai.

For Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, IRS, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32(1)

…ss than one hundred and eighty days in that previous year deduction under this sub-section shall be restricted to fifty per cent of such asset. 3.5 The CIT(A) failed to appreciate the jurisdictional High Court’s decision in the case of M/s. MM Forgings Ltd. (349 ITR 673) which is in favour of the Department. 4. For these and other grounds that may be adduced at the time of hearing, it is prayed that the Order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored’’. The grounds of appeal No.1 & 4 are general in nature 17. therefore, does not require any a…

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI vs. INDIA PISTON LTD., CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 2383/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2339 & 2340/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2010-11 & 2011-12. M/S. India Pistons Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Huzur Gardens, Income Tax, Sembium, Corporate Circle 2(2) Chennai 600 011. Chennai.

For Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, IRS, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32(1)

…ss than one hundred and eighty days in that previous year deduction under this sub-section shall be restricted to fifty per cent of such asset. 3.5 The CIT(A) failed to appreciate the jurisdictional High Court’s decision in the case of M/s. MM Forgings Ltd. (349 ITR 673) which is in favour of the Department. 4. For these and other grounds that may be adduced at the time of hearing, it is prayed that the Order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored’’. The grounds of appeal No.1 & 4 are general in nature 17. therefore, does not require any a…

INDIA PISTONS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 2340/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2339 & 2340/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2010-11 & 2011-12. M/S. India Pistons Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Huzur Gardens, Income Tax, Sembium, Corporate Circle 2(2) Chennai 600 011. Chennai.

For Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, IRS, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32(1)

…ss than one hundred and eighty days in that previous year deduction under this sub-section shall be restricted to fifty per cent of such asset. 3.5 The CIT(A) failed to appreciate the jurisdictional High Court’s decision in the case of M/s. MM Forgings Ltd. (349 ITR 673) which is in favour of the Department. 4. For these and other grounds that may be adduced at the time of hearing, it is prayed that the Order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored’’. The grounds of appeal No.1 & 4 are general in nature 17. therefore, does not require any a…

INDIA PISTONS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 2339/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2339 & 2340/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2010-11 & 2011-12. M/S. India Pistons Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Huzur Gardens, Income Tax, Sembium, Corporate Circle 2(2) Chennai 600 011. Chennai.

For Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, IRS, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32(1)

…ss than one hundred and eighty days in that previous year deduction under this sub-section shall be restricted to fifty per cent of such asset. 3.5 The CIT(A) failed to appreciate the jurisdictional High Court’s decision in the case of M/s. MM Forgings Ltd. (349 ITR 673) which is in favour of the Department. 4. For these and other grounds that may be adduced at the time of hearing, it is prayed that the Order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored’’. The grounds of appeal No.1 & 4 are general in nature 17. therefore, does not require any a…

THE ACIT, ERNAKULAM vs. M/S.NITTA GELATINE INDIA LTD, COCHIN

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

ITA 301/COCH/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

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

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

…t was put to use and disallowed the additional depreciation claimed by the assessee. 5. On appeal, after examining the provisions of section 32 and interpreting the same in the light of the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of MM Forgings Ltd. (349 ITR 673), the decision of the ITAT, Chennai Bench in the case of Brakes India vs. DCIT (144 ITD 403), the decision of the ITAT Cochin Bench in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. (45 taxmann.com 337(Cochin- Trib.), the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Rittal india Private Limited (380 ITR 428)/(66 taxmann.com 4) and other judicial d…

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)

…t was put to use and disallowed the additional depreciation claimed by the assessee. 5. On appeal, after examining the provisions of section 32 and interpreting the same in the light of the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of MM Forgings Ltd. (349 ITR 673), the decision of the ITAT, Chennai Bench in the case of Brakes India vs. DCIT (144 ITD 403), the decision of the ITAT Cochin Bench in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. (45 taxmann.com 337(Cochin- Trib.), the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Rittal india Private Limited (380 ITR 428)/(66 taxmann.com 4) and other judicial d…

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…

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)

…iation. 3.2 Against the order of the Tribunal, the assessee [Brakes India Ltd.] preferred further appeal before the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court. By distinguishing the jugdement of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of M.M. Forgings Ltd. v. Addl. CIT 349 ITR 673 and by referring to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Fresh & Honest Café Ltd v. DCIT in I.T.A. No. 1373/Mds/2016 dated 10.08.2016, wherein, the Tribunal followed its own decision in assessee’s own case for earlier assessment year, in which, the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. Rittal India (P) Ltd. 66…

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

…d. DR has submitted that there is no provision exists in the statute to carry forward the balance additional depreciation to the subsequent years. Moreover, the ld. CIT(A) ignored the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of MM Forging 349 ITR 673 and pleaded that the order of the ld. CIT(A) should be reversed. On the other hand, the ld. Counsel for the assessee strongly supported the orders of the ld. CIT(A) and relied on the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for other assessment years. 4 I.T.A. Nos.2690-2693/M/17 6. We have heard both sides, perused the materials availabl…

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

…d. DR has submitted that there is no provision exists in the statute to carry forward the balance additional depreciation to the subsequent years. Moreover, the ld. CIT(A) ignored the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of MM Forging 349 ITR 673 and pleaded that the order of the ld. CIT(A) should be reversed. On the other hand, the ld. Counsel for the assessee strongly supported the orders of the ld. CIT(A) and relied on the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for other assessment years. 4 I.T.A. Nos.2690-2693/M/17 6. We have heard both sides, perused the materials availabl…

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

…d. DR has submitted that there is no provision exists in the statute to carry forward the balance additional depreciation to the subsequent years. Moreover, the ld. CIT(A) ignored the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of MM Forging 349 ITR 673 and pleaded that the order of the ld. CIT(A) should be reversed. On the other hand, the ld. Counsel for the assessee strongly supported the orders of the ld. CIT(A) and relied on the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for other assessment years. 4 I.T.A. Nos.2690-2693/M/17 6. We have heard both sides, perused the materials availabl…

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI vs. HINDUJA FOUNDRIES LTD., CHENNAI

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

ITA 2690/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

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

…d. DR has submitted that there is no provision exists in the statute to carry forward the balance additional depreciation to the subsequent years. Moreover, the ld. CIT(A) ignored the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of MM Forging 349 ITR 673 and pleaded that the order of the ld. CIT(A) should be reversed. On the other hand, the ld. Counsel for the assessee strongly supported the orders of the ld. CIT(A) and relied on the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for other assessment years. 4 I.T.A. Nos.2690-2693/M/17 6. We have heard both sides, perused the materials availabl…

DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1), CHENNAI vs. FREINS ENGINEERING LTD., CHENNAI

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

ITA 2188/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Feb 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Ms. S. Vijayaprabha, JCITFor Respondent: Shri S. jagannathan, C.A
Section 32(1)(iia)

…of additional depreciation. Against the order of the Tribunal, the assessee preferred further appeal before the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court. 6.1 By distinguishing the jugdement of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of M.M. Forgings Ltd. v. Addl. CIT 349 ITR 673 and by referring to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Fresh & Honest 5 I.T.A. Nos.2147 & 2188/M/17 Café Ltd v. DCIT in I.T.A. No. 1373/Mds/2016 dated 10.08.2016, wherein, the Tribunal followed its own decision in assessee’s own case for earlier assessment year, in which, the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of…

DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1), CHENNAI vs. FREINS ENGINEERING LTD. , CHENNAI

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

ITA 2147/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Feb 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Ms. S. Vijayaprabha, JCITFor Respondent: Shri S. jagannathan, C.A
Section 32(1)(iia)

…of additional depreciation. Against the order of the Tribunal, the assessee preferred further appeal before the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court. 6.1 By distinguishing the jugdement of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of M.M. Forgings Ltd. v. Addl. CIT 349 ITR 673 and by referring to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Fresh & Honest 5 I.T.A. Nos.2147 & 2188/M/17 Café Ltd v. DCIT in I.T.A. No. 1373/Mds/2016 dated 10.08.2016, wherein, the Tribunal followed its own decision in assessee’s own case for earlier assessment year, in which, the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of…

M/S. I.P. RINGS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in I

ITA 2668/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jul 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Respondent: Shri N. Madhavan, JCIT

…reciation made in the assessment years 2010- 11 and 2011-12. 3.3 On being aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal for both the assessment years. The ld. DR vehemently argued that similar issue on identical facts in the case of MM Forgings Ltd. 349 ITR 673, the Hon’ble Madras High Court has decided the issue against the assessee. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) was incorrect to follow a decision of the Tribunal in which other High Court’s decision has been followed to decide the issue in favaour of the assessee. Hence, the ld. DR has pleaded that the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court is b…

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. I.P. RINGS. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in I

ITA 2584/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jul 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Respondent: Shri N. Madhavan, JCIT

…reciation made in the assessment years 2010- 11 and 2011-12. 3.3 On being aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal for both the assessment years. The ld. DR vehemently argued that similar issue on identical facts in the case of MM Forgings Ltd. 349 ITR 673, the Hon’ble Madras High Court has decided the issue against the assessee. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) was incorrect to follow a decision of the Tribunal in which other High Court’s decision has been followed to decide the issue in favaour of the assessee. Hence, the ld. DR has pleaded that the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court is b…

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. I.P. RINGS. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in I

ITA 2583/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jul 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Respondent: Shri N. Madhavan, JCIT

…reciation made in the assessment years 2010- 11 and 2011-12. 3.3 On being aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal for both the assessment years. The ld. DR vehemently argued that similar issue on identical facts in the case of MM Forgings Ltd. 349 ITR 673, the Hon’ble Madras High Court has decided the issue against the assessee. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) was incorrect to follow a decision of the Tribunal in which other High Court’s decision has been followed to decide the issue in favaour of the assessee. Hence, the ld. DR has pleaded that the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court is b…

CARBORUNDUM UNIVERSAL LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

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

ITA 803/CHNY/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jun 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.803/Mds/2014 "नधा+रण वष+ /Assessment Year: 2006-07

For Respondent: 17.04.2017
Section 32(1)(ii)Section 32(1)(iia)

…, Chennai in the case of ABI Showatech India Ltd in ITA Nos.39 to 42 /Mds/12 dated 2.1.2013 for the AYs. 2004-05 to 2007-08 also confirmed the order of the CIT(A) following the decision of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of MM Forgings Ltd v. Addl. CIT (349 ITR 673) holding that the assessee is not entitled for 50% additional depreciation in the subsequent year. Respectfully following the same, the ground is dismissed. 4.0 We heard the rival submissions and perused the material placed on record. The additional depreciation is allowed u/s.32(1)(iia) of IT Act for the new assets added during the year. The a…

M.M.Forgings Limited v. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (349 ITR 673) — Cited in 20 Judgments | BharatTax