“additional depreciation”

DepreciationSection 32(1)(iia)Section 32(1)(iia)604 judgments

The decision most relied on for additional depreciation is Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v. CIT (196 ITR 188), cited in 289 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on additional depreciation

Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v. CIT

196 ITR 188 · 1992 · Supreme Court

289

citing judgments

Provisions in taxing statutes that grant incentives, concessions, or exemptions for promoting economic growth and industrialization must be interpreted liberally and purposively. Any restrictions placed on such provisions should also be construed reasonably to advance their objective, not frustrate it.

CIT v. Chaphalkar Brothers

400 ITR 279 · 2018 · Supreme Court

136

citing judgments

A subsidy is classified as a capital receipt if its object is to enable the assessee to set up or expand a new or existing unit. Conversely, it is a revenue receipt if its purpose is to help the assessee run the business more profitably.

CIT v. Rittal India (P) Limited

380 ITR 423 · 2016 · High Court

121

citing judgments

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.

CIT v. Sesa Goa Ltd.

271 ITR 331 · 2004 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

Extraction and processing of iron ore constitutes "production" for the purpose of claiming tax benefits like investment allowance under Section 32A and additional depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia), even if it does not amount to "manufacture".

CIT v. Shri T.P. Textiles (P.) Ltd.

394 ITR 483 · 2017 · High Court

citing judgments

An assessee is entitled to claim the balance 10% of additional depreciation in the succeeding assessment year if the new plant and machinery were put to use for less than 180 days in the previous year.

CIT v. Hi Tech Arai Ltd.

321 ITR 477 · 2010 · High Court

citing judgments

The court may allow additional depreciation under section 32(1)(iia) for new machinery if it is used in the business of any article or thing, even if not directly linked to increasing production capacity.

CIT v. VTM Ltd.

319 ITR 336 · 2009 · High Court

citing judgments

An assessee engaged in the manufacture or production of an article or thing is entitled to additional depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia) for new machinery or plant, such as a windmill for power generation, even if it is not directly used in the primary manufacturing activity.

South Indian Bank Ltd. v. CIT

262 ITR 579 · 2003 · High Court

citing judgments

For banks, bad debts written off from non-rural advances are not subject to the limitations of the provisos to sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viii), as these provisos apply only to rural advances; section 36(1)(viia) also applies exclusively to rural advances. Additionally, depreciation on investments valued at market price on the balance sheet date is eligible for deduction.

Judgments citing additional depreciation

Akshay Nitin Malu, Sangli vs. Income Tax Officer, Sangli

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

ITA 1651/PUN/2024[AY 2022-23]Status: HeardITAT Pune03 Jan 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 115BSection 139Section 32

option. He accordingly upheld the action of the CPC in making an adjustment of Rs.71,31,899/- by denying the claim of additional depreciation u/s 32(1A) of the Act. The Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) also upheld the action of the CPC in disallowing the deduction claimed under Chapter ... appellant had not opted for the same in the ITR filed by him and thereby denying the following deductions to the appellant: a. Additional Depreciation u/s 32(1A) on new plant machinery acquired and put to use during the year Rs.71,31,899 b. Deduction under Chapter VIA Rs.1

DCIT, Central Circle, Noida vs. Sunny Entertainment P.Ltd, Panchkulla

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4951/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 154

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘E’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH

DCIT, Central Circle, Noida vs. Sunny Entertainment P.Ltd, Panchkulla

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4950/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 154

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘E’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH

Roxiler Systems Private Limited, Pune vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward5(4), Pune

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2078/PUN/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Dec 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2078/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23 Roxiler Systems Pvt. Ltd., A 508, Kamal Green Leaf, Vs The Income Tax Officer, Khadakwasala, Pune – 411024. Ward-5(4), Pune. Pan: Aahcr8766J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By : Shri Sharad S. Vaze & Shri Amod S. Vaze – Ar’S Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai – Add.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 18/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/12/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)Addl./Jcit(A), Mysore For Assessment Year 2022-23Dated 20/08/2024 Passed U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Emanating From An Order U/S 143(1) Of The Act Dated 19/08/2023.The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Basis Of Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & As Per Law, Rejection Of Claim U/S 80Iac Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (Act) Is Beyond The Powers Of Cpc, Bengaluru In The Powers Of Cps, Bengaluru In Proceedings U/S 143(1) Of The Act. 2. On The Basis Of Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & As Per Law, The Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Appeals)-Nfac Delhi Is Not Justified In Rejecting The Claim Of The Assessee U/S 80Iac Of The Act. 3. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Omit Or Substitute Any Of The Grounds At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri Sharad S. Vaze and Shri Amod S. Vaze – AR’sFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai – Add.CIT(DR)

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 44ASection 80ISection 80J

suffice to reproduce para 2 of the impugned order whereby action of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was held to be justified in allowing additional depreciation asclaimed by the respondent-assessee herein: — "Additional depreciation is denied to the assessee on the ground that the assessee has failed to furnish form ... Admittedly, Form 3AA was submitted during the course of assessment proceedings and it is not in dispute that the assessee is entitled to the additional depreciation. In these circumstances, in the light of the judgment of this 6 Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Shivanand Electronics

Desai Infra Projects (I) Private Limited, Pune vs. CIT(A), Pune-11, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands

ITA 1852/PUN/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Dec 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 143(1)Section 288Section 44ASection 801ASection 801A(7)Section 80I

occasion to examine the action of Bombay High Court holding that if Form 3AA is filed before the assessment proceedings culminated, then additional depreciation shall be allowed and such a claim should not be denied only because assessee did not furnish Form 3AA along with return of income ... learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee is concerned, Section 10B (8) is an exemption provision which cannot be compared with claiming an additional depreciation under section 32(1) (ii-a) of the Act. As per the settled position of law, an assessee claiming exemption has to strictly

M/S. Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Circle-1, Bengaluru

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

ITA 1333/BANG/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd. Plot No.1, Bidadi Industrial Area So Bidadi Acit Vs. Ramanagar Ltu, Circle-1 Bengaluru 562 109 Banalore Pan No : Aaact5415B Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Padam Chand Kincha, A.R. Respondent By : Smt. Kumutha D., D.R. Date Of Hearing : 24.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.12.2024

For Appellant: Sri Padam Chand Kincha, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Kumutha D., D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234B(3)Section 250

scrutiny by issue of notice under section 143(2) on 06.08.2012. Notice u/s 142(l) was issued calling for various details wherein details of additional depreciation was also called for. The Appellant provided requisite information/details including financial statement, Form 3CD, etc. Further enquiry was made by AO vide Notice dated ... perused the materials available on record. The issue in appeal relates to disallowance of sum of Rs. 52,00,057/- as excess depreciation & additional depreciation claimed on the asset capitalized on the basis of year end provision. The assessee had also disclosed the details on the capitalization of assets

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-5(4), Mumbai vs. Larsen and Toubro Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3369/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt Beena Pillaishri Omkareshwar Chidara

Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 48Section 50B

section 48? 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting disallowance of additional depreciation of Rs.3,38,66,060/- on computers ignoring the fact that assessee has failed to establish that these 'computer', on which additional depreciation ... instead of slum sale by the assessee, and therefore to that extent income escaped assessment. • Another reason for reopening was that, the assessee claimed additional depreciation in respect of certain additions to computers during the year, which is not admissible and therefore, to the extent the additional depreciation was claimed

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, Hisar vs. Synergy Waste Management Private Limited, Hisar

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 3557/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahmanita No. 3557/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Dcit, Vs Synergy Waste Management Pvt. Circle, Ltd., #168, Sector-27-28, Hisar, Hisar, Haryana-125001 Haryana-125001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaics9088H Assessee By : Sh. S. K. Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.12.2024 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2017-18, Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/105727025(1) Dated 20.10.2023, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. S. K. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 4Section 801A(4)Section 80I

Supreme Court in CIT vs. G.M. Knitting Industries (P.) Ltd. (2015) 376 ITR 456 (SC) came across a situation in which the assessee claimed additional depreciation in Form 3AA but the Form was not furnished along with the return of income. Such Form was submitted during the course of assessment ... High Court having the effect that the requirement of filing Form 3AA was a necessary 11 Synergy Waste Management Pvt. Ltd. ingredient for claiming additional depreciation, but the timing of filing the Form was a directory requirement, which was fulfilled on filing it even during the course of assessment proceedings

The DCIT, Circle-1(1), Now Circle-1(1)(1), Baroda vs. Gujarat State Electricity Corporation Ltd., Baroda

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 3164/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 28Section 37Section 43(1)

claimed in earlier years. 4.0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts has confirmed the disallowance of the additional depreciation amounting to Rs.55,03,67,064/- claimed under section 32(1)(iia) of the IT Act on the ground that the appellant ... required by the Act. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), however, brushed aside the appellant's contention and disallowed the claim of additional depreciation. 5.0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Assessing Officer in treating

Gujarat State Electricity Corporation Ltd., Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1), Baroda

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 3124/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 28Section 37Section 43(1)

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-6, Kanpur vs. M/S Rohit Surfactants Pvt. Ltd., Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and Cross Objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 605/LKW/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow17 Dec 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 139(1)Section 32Section 801Section 801BSection 80A

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in allowing the relief Rs.50,26,571/- on account of disallowance in additional depreciation without appreciating the fact that the items on which additional depreciation were claimed by the assessee do not fall in category of plant ... Machinery as per provisions of Section 32(ia) for claiming additional depreciation. 6. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in allowing the relief Rs.12,34,049/- on account of depreciation claimed @60% without appreciating the fact that the assets mentioned in the tabulated

Indus Towers Limited (Formerly Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd and As Successor in Interest of Erstwhile Indus Tower Ltd), Gurugram, Haryana vs. DCIT, Circle 12(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2762/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarindus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Acit, Vs. Indus Towers Ltd, 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, Central Circle-10, New Delhi Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Indus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv Shri Rohit Jain, Adv Shri Deepesh Jain, Adv Ms. Shaurya Jain, Ca Revenue By: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 12/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10/12/2024

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 139(5)Section 142Section 143(3)Section 148

proceedings, the assessee also filed a detailed letter dated 6-2-2019 correcting/re-computing the following claim as per the return of income: -Claim of additional depreciation on energy saving devices amounting to Rs. 1534,67,20,392/- and -Offering disallowance of Rs.3,32,37,255/- under section

ACIT, Circle 10, New Delhi vs. Indus Tower Limited, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2212/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 139(5)Section 142Section 143(3)Section 148

Indus Towers Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT Circle 12(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1962/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 139(5)Section 142Section 143(3)Section 148

Robert Bosch Engineering and Business Solutions Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Large Tax Payers Unit, Bangalore

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

ITA 593/BANG/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Sridhar E, CIT (DR)For Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 115Section 115JSection 237Section 80J

grounds 12 to 14 of its appeal, is that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of the claim for additional depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. 17. The assessee, in its return of income, claimed additional depreciation under section ... production of an article or thing, and that the computers used for software production qualify as plant and machinery, thus making them eligible for additional depreciation. 17.1 On the other hand, the AO held that computer software is not an article or thing. The AO noted that while the term

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2, Ltu, Bengaluru vs. M/S. Robert Bosch Engineering and Business Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore

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

ITA 446/BANG/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Sridhar E, CIT (DR)For Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 115Section 115JSection 237Section 80J

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai, Aayakar Bhavan vs. Firefly Market Research India Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4184/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Ajit JainFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40Section 40A(2)(b)Section 40a

restricted to the following issues mentioned under CASS: – 3 (i) High ratio of refund to TDS. (ii) Depreciation claimed at higher rate/higher additional depreciation claimed. (iii) Mismatch in the amount paid to related persons under section 40A(2)(b) reported in the Audit Report and ITR. 6. Vide order dated

Iljin Automotive Private Limited, Kanchipuram vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 2(2), Chennai

The appeal stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1834/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1834/Chny/2017 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S. Iljin Automotive Private Limited Dcit बनाम/ Plot No.B1 & B2, Sipcot Industrial Park Corporate Circle-2(2), Irungattukottai, Sriperumbudur Chennai. Vs. Kanchipuram-602 105. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aaaci-2641-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Sandeep Bagmar (Advocate) - Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri A. Sasikumar (Cit) - Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19-11-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-12-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Bagmar (Advocate) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar (CIT) - Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 32Section 43ASection 92CSection 92C(3)

Appellant and the comparable companies. Other than Transfer Pricing The learned AO, under the directions issued by the Hon'ble DRP: Claim of Additional Depreciation 3.1 Erred in law by rejecting the claim of additional depreciation of INR 13,426,943 on new Plant and machinery made during the course ... claim was not supported by a revised return. 3.2 The Learned AO has failed to appreciate that the Appellant is eligible for claim of additional depreciation in accordance with Explanation 5 to clause (1) of Section 32 of the Act irrespective of whether the Appellant has claimed the same

Ramasamy HUF, Chennai vs. DCIT, Non Corp Ward 10(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2403/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.2402 & 2403/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2014-2015) Shri Ramasamy Huf, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 11, 4Th Main Road, Income Tax, Kamaraj Nagar, Non Corporate Ward 10(1) Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai. Chennai 600 041. [Pan: Aafhr 1520R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr. Kathir & Ms. B. Agnus Jennifer, Advocates. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. Kavitha, Irs, Addl. Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 20.11.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.11.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Mr. Kathir and Ms. B. AgnusFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha, IRS, Addl. CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

under Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS) for the reason that "Large Increase of unsecured loans during the year and Depreciation claimed at higher rates/Higher additional depreciation claimed." A notice u/s 143(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 31.08.2015 was issued to the assessee. The same was duly served ... dated 13/10/2016 directed the assessee to explain the reason for large increase of unsecured loans during the year and Depreciation claimed at higher rates/Higher additional depreciation claimed and produce relevant documentary evidences. On 24/10/2016, the assessee submitted the reason for claiming depreciation and confirmation letter for unsecured loans. On examination

Ramasamy HUF Chennai, Chennai vs. DCIT, Non Corp Ward 10(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2402/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Mr. Kathir and Ms. B. AgnusFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha, IRS, Addl. CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)