“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

Ocl India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 4068/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandraआअसं.4068/िद"ी/2015(िन.व. 2007-08) Dalmia Bharat Ltd., (Successor In The Interest Of Ocl India Ltd.) 11Th & 12Th Floor, Hansalaya Building, 15, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi 110001 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aabco-8750-F बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Circle 19(1), C R Building New Delhi 110095 आअसं.3767/िद"ी/2015(िन.व. 2007-08) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhawan, Uditnagar, Rourkela, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Dist. Sundargarh, Odisha 769012 बनाम Vs. Dalmia Bharat Ltd., Successor Of Ocl India Ltd., 11Th & 12Th Floor, Hansalaya Building, 15, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi 110001 ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Pan: Aabco-8750-F

For Appellant: S/Shri Vijay Shah, Navin Verma &For Respondent: Shri Amaninder Singh Dhindsa &

Section 43(5)Section 43ASection 53A

vide application dated 18.05.2022 has raised additional grounds of appeal in respect of claim of pre operative expenses as Revenue expenditure and claim of additional depreciation in second and subsequent assessment years. Apart from above two issues, the assessee has raised two more additional grounds of appeal i.e. ground ... appeal. In respect of additional ground of appeal no. 2, 3 and 4 i.e. in respect of pre operative expenses and additional depreciation. He submitted that these grounds are legal in nature and no additional/fresh documentary evidences are required for adjudicating these grounds. Therefore, this ground should be admitted

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Ocl India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 3767/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2025AY 2007-08

For Appellant: S/Shri Vijay Shah, Navin Verma &For Respondent: Shri Amaninder Singh Dhindsa &

Section 43(5)Section 43ASection 53A

Gsp Crop Science Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr.CIT-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 987/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT- DR

Section 135Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 35Section 37(1)Section 40Section 80G

facts, in holding that the appellant has claimed excess depreciation of Rs.1,80,783/-, ignoring the fact that the appellant has claimed additional depreciation and depreciation as per law. (4) That the learned PCIT has grievously erred in law, and on facts, in holding that CSR expenses are not allowable ... certified in Form 3CL. Second, with respect to depreciation, Principal CIT noted that the assessee had claimed Rs. 12,05,222/- as balance 50% additional depreciation related to the previous year’s assets put to use for less than 180 days. However, the A.O. failed to adjust this from

Star Wire (India) Vidyut Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-22(2), Delhi

ITA 4259/DEL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Accountnat Member & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 270ASection 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

Maxxis Rubber India Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1129/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32Section 32(1)

reveals that in the preceding assessment year the assessee had acquired Plant & Machinery on which alongwith normal depreciation @ 15%, it was eligible to claim additional depreciation also@ 20% of the cost of the asset in terms of section 32 of the Act. However, since those assets were ... less than 180 days the assessee had claimed 50% of the eligible additional depreciation, i.e 10% of the cost of eligible assets in the preceding year as per law and the balance 50% was claimed in the impugned year. The Ld. PCIT noted that while computing the normal Maxxis Rubber

Assistant Commissoner of Income Tax-Circle-3.3.1, Mumbai vs. Jamnagar Utilities Power Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4766/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal / Shri Nimesh Vora /For Respondent: Shri Ashish Heliwal (CIT DR)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80Section 80I

under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which is in violation of provisions of the Act and judicial precedents. ii) Claim of additional depreciation: The ld.CIT(A) erred in not directing to allow claim of additional depreciation of Rs. 14,39,95,837/-which was allowed in original ... press this ground before us which is therefore, dismissed. 10. In respect of the ground no.ii) above, pertaining to the claim of additional depreciation,it is contented that the ld.CIT(A) erred in not directing to allow claim of additional depreciation of Rs.14,39,95,837/- which was allowed

Akry Organics Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Central Circle 1(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, we allow the claim of the assessee for deduction under section 80-IA(4) to the extent of ₹17,40,75,413/-, as made in the revised return of income

ITA 3014/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 80

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)(iia) of the Act. As per the settled position of law, an assessee claiming exemption has to strictly and literally

M/S.Apollo Tyres Ltd, Cochin vs. The Principal Commissioner of Incometax, Cochin

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

ITA 609/COCH/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14 Apollo Tyres Ltd. .......... Appellant 3Rd Floor, Areekal Mansion, Panampilly Nagar, Kochi 682036 [Pan: Aaaca6990Q] Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(1), Kochi ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Abraham Joseph Markos, Adv. Revenue By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 01.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri Abraham Joseph Markos, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 32Section 32(1)(iia)Section 35Section 43(1)Section 92C

144C(1) of the Act on 30.12.2016 proposing to make the following additions: - i. TP adjustment – Rs. 3,48,96,832/- ii. Disallowance of additional depreciation u/s. 32(1)(iia) of the Act on the ground that the plant and machinery was acquired and put to use during the previous ... year relevant to AY 2012- 13. Since the assets were put to use for less than 180 days, additional depreciation was allowed only at 10% as per second proviso to section 32 of the Act. Balance additional depreciation cannot be allowed in subsequent AY, i.e. the year under consideration

Keystone Foundation, Nilgiris vs. ACIT, Exemptions Ward, Coimbatore

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

ITA 1680/CHNY/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Aug 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1680/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2023-24 Keystone Foundation, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of P.B. No. 35, Groves Hill Road, Income Tax, Kotagiri, Nilgiris 643 217. Exemptions Ward, Coimbatore. [Pan:Aaatk0218N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N. Rajakumar, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 26.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.05.2025 Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A)-9, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2023-24. 2. The Ld. Ar Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate Submits That The Assessee Raised 9 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates In Challenging The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Confirming The Disallowance Made On Account Of Non-Filing Of Audit Report In Form 10B In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Rajakumar, Addl. CIT

Section 11Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(A)Section 164(2)

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 as claimed 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 Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Shivanand Electronics

JCIT(OSD), Cir011(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Philips Carbon Black Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 234/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No.234/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Jcit(Osd), Circle-11(1), Kolkata........................…...........................……….……Appellant Vs. M/S Philips Carbon Black Ltd.............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Duncan House, 31 Netaji Subhas Road, Kol-1. [Pan: Aabcp5762E] Appearances By: Shri Praveen Kishore, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Akkal Dudhewala, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 30, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 29Th, 2025 Order Per Rajesh Kumar:

Section 144CSection 250Section 32(1)Section 32(1)(ii)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 80Section 80I

first issue raised in ground nos. 1 & 2 by the Revenue is against the Ld. CIT(A) deleting the disallowance of additional depreciation of Rs.2,48,47,865/-. 3. The brief facts of this issue are that, the assessee during the financial year 2012-13 purchased and installed new plant ... less than 180 days during the said financial year and in respect of such plant and machinery, the assessee claimed only 50% of additional depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) of the Act in view of the second proviso to section 32(1) of the Act. Now, during the year under

Electronica Finance Limited, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Pmt Building, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1112/PUN/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Aug 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1111 & 1112/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2022-23 & 2023-24 Electronica Finance Limited, Vs. Dcit, Cpc, Bengaluru. Audumber, 101/1, Dr. Ketkar Road, Pune City, Deccan, Gymkhana, S.O., Pune- 411004. Pan : Aaace4577B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Narendra Joshi (Virtual) Revenue By Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde : Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 28.02.2025 Passed By Ld. Addl./Jcit(A)-1, Surat [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Years 2022-23 & 2023-24 Respectively. 2. Since Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.1111/Pun/2025 For Assessment Year 2022-23 As The Lead Case For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Joshi (Virtual)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 80J

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

Electronica Finance Limited, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Pmt Building, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1111/PUN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Joshi (Virtual)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 80J

Bsc C&C Jv, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-62(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4546/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshm/S. Bsc C&C Joint Venture, Vs. Acit, 74, Hemkunt Colony, Circle-62(1), New Delhi-110048 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadfb8115G Assessee By : Shri Rohit Jain, Adv Shri Deepesh Jain, Adv Revenue By: Shri Jitender Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 05/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 20/08/2025

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80I

during the course of assessment proceedings. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of G M Knitting supra held that where claim of additional depreciation is made in the return, filing of Form 3AA is directory in nature. In our considered opinion, we hold that the decision

Brahmos Realty Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 9(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4119/MUM/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Aug 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.4119/Mum/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2024-25 Brahmos Realty Private Limited A-10002, Aristo Sappyhire, 2Nd Floor, Hasnabad Lane, Santakruz (W), Mumbai-400 054 (M.H) Pan: Aadcr5685C ...........अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(2)(1),Mumbai (M.H.) .......प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By Revenue By : Shri B.N Rao : Shri Aditya Rai, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing :13.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 19.08.2025 2 Brahmos Realty Private Limited Vs. Ito, Ward-9(2)(1)

For Respondent: Shri B.N Rao

Section 115BSection 115JSection 143(1)Section 250

Supreme Court in the case of CIT VS. G.M Knitting Industries Pvt. Ltd (2015) 376 ITR 456 (SC), wherein the claim of additional depreciation made by the assessee was upheld even though the claim in Form 3AA was not made while filing the return of income, which was furnished subsequently ... Supreme Court in the case of CIT VS. G.M Knitting Industries Pvt. Ltd (2015) 376 ITR 456 (SC), wherein the claim of additional depreciation made by the assessee was upheld even though the claim in Form 3AA was not made while filing the return of income, which was furnished subsequently

India Japan Lighting Private Limited, Chennai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 4, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1427/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1427/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 V. M/S. India Japan Lighting Pvt. Ltd., The Pcit-4, No.1, Tiruvallur High Road, Chennai. Puduchatram B.O., Thirumazhisai, Tiruvallur-600 124. [Pan: Aaaci 2673 L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263

vide impugned order as under: M/s. India Japan Lighting Pvt. Ltd. :: 4 :: 6.1 On the issue of its claim for depreciation as well as additional depreciation in respect of the assets of Gujarat plant which was closed down before the commencement of operations, the assessee contended that the said assets ... destruction, which has not taken place in its case. Accordingly, the assessee contended that it is entitled to claim depreciation as well as additional depreciation for the assets of the Gujarat plant. On this contention of the assessee, it is noted that as per Income tax Act, an assessee

DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Aia Engineering Limited, Ahmedabad

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2170/AHD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Us. He Pointed Out That There Were Common Issues In All The Appeals Pertaining To The Following Additions:

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT. DR

Section 250Section 80G

hands of the Appellant?" 2. "Whether the CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in deleting the Disallowance of additional depreciation of Rs.2,78,58,045/- without appreciating the facts of the case? 3. Disallowance of depreciation on intangible assets (Goodwill) of Rs.80,97,963/- without appreciating

DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Aia Engineering Limited, Ahmedabad

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2169/AHD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Us. He Pointed Out That There Were Common Issues In All The Appeals Pertaining To The Following Additions:

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT. DR

Section 250Section 80G

Whether the CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in deleting the Disallowance of additional depreciation of Rs.2,78,58,045/- without appreciating the facts of the case? 3. Disallowance of depreciation on intangible assets (Goodwill) of Rs.80,97,963/- without appreciating the facts of the case

DCIT, Circle - 1(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Aia Engineering Ltd, Ahmedabad

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2168/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Date of Hearing

Section 250Section 80G

DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Aia Engineering Limited, Ahmedabad

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2167/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us. He Pointed Out That There Were Common Issues In All The Appeals Pertaining To The Following Additions:

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT. DR

Section 250Section 80G

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Mrf Limited, Chennai

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

ITA 911/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr.Vikram VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Mr.Shiva Srinivas, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

towards litigation and Related disputes ₹ 21,08,19,169 (ii) Disallowance of depreciation claimed on Retention money ₹ 68,42,373 payable (iii) Disallowance of additional depreciation Claimed on retention ₹ 1,49,77,463 money payable (iv) Disallowance of expenditure incurred On clubs ₹ 36,92,352 ------------------- Revised Assessed Income ... account and expenditure on revenue account by the Respondent to the vendors is contingent in nature and is to be disallowed; and accordingly disallowed additional depreciation claimed on the retention money on capital account amounting to ₹1,49,77,463/- (20% of ₹7,48,87,316). 5. Aggrieved, the assessee