← All Phrases

“block of assets”

DepreciationSection 2(11)Section 2(11)848 judgments

The decision most relied on for block of assets is CIT v. Meghalaya Steels Ltd. (383 ITR 217), cited in 203 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on block of assets

CIT v. Meghalaya Steels Ltd.
383 ITR 217 · 2016 · Supreme Court
203
citing judgments

Subsidies and excise duty refunds that are accounted for in the Profit and Loss account are revenue in nature, form part of business income, and are eligible for deductions under Section 80IB/80IC. Such receipts cannot be reduced from the block of assets for depreciation calculation.

CIT v. Oswal Agro Mills Ltd.
341 ITR 467 · 2012 · High Court
108
citing judgments

The Legislature abolished terminal depreciation under section 32(1)(iii) and the taxing of balancing charge under section 41(2), replacing these provisions with the requirement to reduce sale proceeds of depreciable assets from the block of assets.

CIT, Panji v. Dempo Company Limited
74 Taxmann.com 15 · 2016 · Supreme Court
62
citing judgments

The 20% tax rate under Section 112 applies to capital gains arising from the transfer of a depreciable asset, even if it is deemed a short-term capital gain under Section 50, provided the asset was held for more than 36 months. The fiction created by Section 50 for treating such gains as short-term does not alter the long-term nature of the asset for applying the tax rate under Section 112.

CIT v. Raj Pal Bhatia
333 ITR 315 · 2011 · High Court
54
citing judgments

A statement recorded under Section 132(4) during a search operation is not considered "books of account," "documents," or "assets found or seized" for the purpose of initiating search assessments under Chapter XIVB (e.g., Section 158BD or 153C). Such a statement is created during the search and cannot solely form the basis for assessment without other incriminating material found.

Sharp Business System v. CIT
254 CTR 233 · 2012 · High Court
50
citing judgments

Depreciation is allowable on a non-compete fee as it constitutes an intangible asset, even if the right acquired cannot be transferred, provided it is treated as part of a block of assets.

341 ITR 467 (Del) (3) ACIT v. S.K. Patel Family Trust
38 SOT 208 · 2010 · ITAT
34
citing judgments

Depreciation on a building used for business purposes should be allowed following the rule of consistency if it was allowed in earlier assessment orders and the Assessing Officer raised no doubts about its use.

(1) CIT v. Bharat Aluminium Co. Ltd.
187 Taxmann 111 · 2010 · High Court
25
citing judgments

Depreciation must be allowed on the entire block of assets as defined in Section 2(11) of the Income-tax Act, and individual assets of each unit cannot be considered separately for this purpose.

60 Taxman 412 (SC) II. DIT v. HSBC Asset Management (I)(P) Ltd.
47 Taxmann.com 286 · 2014 · High Court
23
citing judgments

Depreciation on an asset forming part of a block of assets must be allowed in subsequent years if it was allowed in an earlier year. The opening written down value in a year cannot be disputed if it was correctly carried forward.

Judgments citing block of assets

Novartis India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of assessee and revenue and the cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed in the aforesaid terms

ITA 7733/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’Ble & Shri B R Baskaran, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri J D Mistry, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C Kanojiya, CIT-DR

demerger and the appointed date was fixed as 1st April 1996. However, the assessee continued to claim depreciation on the WDV of various block of assets, without excluding the assets so transferred under the scheme of demerger to the above said company. In the earlier years, the AO had disallowed ... confirmed the said disallowance, but accepted the alternative contention of the assessee, i.e., he directed the AO to adopt the consequential WDV of block of assets as per IT records for the AY 1997-98 for computing the depreciation in all these three years. 4.2 We heard the parties

Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank, Mumbai vs. The Dy-CIT (Int. Taxation)-2(1)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 749/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Dcit (International Taxation)- Investment Bank (Formerly 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Known As ‘Calyon Bank’) Vs. 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Pan: Aaccc3872B Appellant) : Respondent)

Section 143(3)

fall within the definition of Commercial Vehicle and accordingly eligible for higher depreciation. The ld AR since there is no addition to the block of assets during the year under consideration the impugned issue is covered by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in assessee's own case

Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank, Mumbai vs. The Dy.CIT of Income Tax (Internationsl Taxation) -2(1) (1), Mumbai

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 1234/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Dcit (International Taxation)- Investment Bank (Formerly 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Known As ‘Calyon Bank’) Vs. 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Pan: Aaccc3872B Appellant) : Respondent)

Section 143(3)

fall within the definition of Commercial Vehicle and accordingly eligible for higher depreciation. The ld AR since there is no addition to the block of assets during the year under consideration the impugned issue is covered by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in assessee's own case

Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank, Mumbai vs. The Jt CIT (International Taxationa), Mumbai

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 1027/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Known As 'Calyon Bank') 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Vs. Dcit (International Taxation)- 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1839/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Adit (International Taxation)- 1(2), Room No. 119, 1St Floor, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank, Vs.11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1273/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Known As 'Calyon Bank') 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Vs. Dcit (International Taxation)- 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1165/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit (International Taxation)- 1(1)(1), Room No. 114, 1St Floor, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) Vs. Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank, 11Th & 12Th & 14Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B : Respondent)

Section 143(3)

fall within the definition of Commercial Vehicle and accordingly eligible for higher depreciation. The ld AR since there is no addition to the block of assets during the year under consideration the impugned issue is covered by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in assessee's own case

Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank, Mumbai vs. ACIT (It) 2 (1)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 458/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Known As 'Calyon Bank') 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Vs. Dcit (International Taxation)- 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1839/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Adit (International Taxation)- 1(2), Room No. 119, 1St Floor, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank, Vs.11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1273/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Known As 'Calyon Bank') 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Vs. Dcit (International Taxation)- 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) Respondent) 2

Section 143(3)

fall within the definition of Commercial Vehicle and accordingly eligible for higher depreciation. The ld AR since there is no addition to the block of assets during the year under consideration the impugned issue is covered by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in assessee's own case

Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(1)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 4652/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Known As ‘Calyon Bank') 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Vs. Dcit (International Taxation)- 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) : Respondent)

Section 143(3)

fall within the definition of Commercial Vehicle and accordingly eligible for higher depreciation. The ld AR since there is no addition to the block of assets during the year under consideration the impugned issue is covered by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in assessee's own case

Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(1)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 2313/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Known As ‘Calyon Bank’) 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Vs. Dcit (International Taxation)- 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1839/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Adit (International Taxation)- 1(2), Room No. 119, 1St Floor, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank, Vs.11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1273/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Known As 'Calyon Bank') 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Vs. Dcit (International Taxation)- 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) : Respondent) 2

Section 143(3)

fall within the definition of Commercial Vehicle and accordingly eligible for higher depreciation. The ld AR since there is no addition to the block of assets during the year under consideration the impugned issue is covered by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in assessee's own case

Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(1)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 1273/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Known As 'Calyon Bank') 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Vs. Dcit (International Taxation)- 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1839/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Adit (International Taxation)- 1(2), Room No. 119, 1St Floor, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank, Vs. 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Appellant) Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1273/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Known As 'Calyon Bank') 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Vs. Dcit (International Taxation)- 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) Respondent) 2

Section 143(3)

fall within the definition of Commercial Vehicle and accordingly eligible for higher depreciation. The ld AR since there is no addition to the block of assets during the year under consideration the impugned issue is covered by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in assessee's own case

DCIT (It) 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank, Mumbai

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 1165/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Known As 'Calyon Bank') 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Vs. Dcit (International Taxation)- 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1839/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Adit (International Taxation)- 1(2), Room No. 119, 1St Floor, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank, Vs.11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1273/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Known As 'Calyon Bank') 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Vs. Dcit (International Taxation)- 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1165/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit (International Taxation)- 1(1)(1), Room No. 114, 1St Floor, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) Vs. Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank, 11Th & 12Th & 14Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B : Respondent)

Section 143(3)

fall within the definition of Commercial Vehicle and accordingly eligible for higher depreciation. The ld AR since there is no addition to the block of assets during the year under consideration the impugned issue is covered by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in assessee's own case

ADIT (It) 1(2), Mumbai vs. Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank, Mumbai

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 1839/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Dcit (International Taxation)- Investment Bank (Formerly 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Known As ‘Calyon Bank’) Vs. 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Pan: Aaccc3872B Appellant) : Respondent)

Section 143(3)

fall within the definition of Commercial Vehicle and accordingly eligible for higher depreciation. The ld AR since there is no addition to the block of assets during the year under consideration the impugned issue is covered by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in assessee's own case

Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(1)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 1479/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Known As ‘Calyon Bank’) 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Vs. Dcit (International Taxation)- 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) Respondent)

Section 143(3)

fall within the definition of Commercial Vehicle and accordingly eligible for higher depreciation. The ld AR since there is no addition to the block of assets during the year under consideration the impugned issue is covered by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in assessee's own case

Deputy Commissinoer of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Limited, Chennai

ITA 470/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1282, 1283, 1284 & 1285/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 M/S. Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Co. Ltd., Dare House, 2Nd Floor, No.2, N.S.C. Bose Road, Chennai-600 001. V. The Dcit, Non Corporate Circle-8, Chennai. [Pan: Aabcc 6633 K] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.470, 1339, 1438, 1462 & 1463/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2018-19, 2011-12, 2016-17 & 2017-18 The Dcit, Non Corporate Circle-8, Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) M/S. Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Co. Ltd., Dare House, 2Nd Floor, No.2, N.S.C. Bose Road, Chennai-600 001. [Pan: Aabcc 6633 K] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By Mr. Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate; Mr. Balachandar, Fca Department By Mr. Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing 22.01.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 19.03.2025

Section 115JSection 14ASection 2Section 37(1)

that the assessee had claimed depreciation @50% on the additions made between 01.01.2009 and 30.09.2009 to the block of assets under the category of ITA No.1282, 1283 to 1285/Chny/2024 (AYs 2011-12, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19) & ITA Nos.470, 1339, 1438, 1462 & 1463/Chny/2024

Deputy Commissioner of Incometax, Chennai vs. Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Limited, Chennai

ITA 1463/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1282, 1283, 1284 & 1285/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 M/S. Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Co. Ltd., Dare House, 2Nd Floor, No.2, N.S.C. Bose Road, Chennai-600 001. V. The Dcit, Non Corporate Circle-8, Chennai. [Pan: Aabcc 6633 K] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.470, 1339, 1438, 1462 & 1463/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2018-19, 2011-12, 2016-17 & 2017-18 The Dcit, Non Corporate Circle-8, Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. M/S. Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Co. Ltd., Dare House, 2Nd Floor, No.2, N.S.C. Bose Road, Chennai-600 001. [Pan: Aabcc 6633 K] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By Department By : Mr. Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate; Mr. Balachandar, Fca : Mr. Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22.01.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.03.2025

For Respondent: Mr. Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate
Section 115JSection 14ASection 2Section 37(1)

that the assessee had claimed depreciation @50% on the additions made between 01.01.2009 and 30.09.2009 to the block of assets under the category of ITA No.1282, 1283 to 1285/Chny/2024 (AYs 2011-12, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2019) & ITA Nos.470, 1339, 1438, 1462 & 1463/Chny/2024

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Limited, Chennai

In the result, Revenue Appeal for AY 2012-13 stands dismissed

ITA 1462/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Mr. Sandeep BagmarFor Respondent: Mr. Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 115JSection 14ASection 2Section 37(1)

that the assessee had claimed depreciation @50% on the additions made between 01.01.2009 and 30.09.2009 to the block of assets under the category of ITA No.1282, 1283 to 1285/Chny/2024 (AYs 2011-12, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19) & ITA Nos.470, 1339, 1438, 1462 & 1463/Chny/2024

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Nungambakkam Chennai vs. Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Limited, Chennai

In the result, Revenue Appeal for AY 2012-13 stands dismissed

ITA 1438/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Mr. Sandeep BagmarFor Respondent: Mr. Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 115JSection 14ASection 2Section 37(1)

that the assessee had claimed depreciation @50% on the additions made between 01.01.2009 and 30.09.2009 to the block of assets under the category of ITA No.1282, 1283 to 1285/Chny/2024 (AYs 2011-12, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19) & ITA Nos.470, 1339, 1438, 1462 & 1463/Chny/2024

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Officer, Chennai vs. Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Limited, Chennai

In the result, Revenue Appeal for AY 2012-13 stands dismissed

ITA 1339/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Mr. Sandeep BagmarFor Respondent: Mr. Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 115JSection 14ASection 2Section 37(1)

that the assessee had claimed depreciation @50% on the additions made between 01.01.2009 and 30.09.2009 to the block of assets under the category of ITA No.1282, 1283 to 1285/Chny/2024 (AYs 2011-12, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19) & ITA Nos.470, 1339, 1438, 1462 & 1463/Chny/2024

Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Non Corp Ward 8, Chennai

In the result, Revenue Appeal for AY 2012-13 stands dismissed

ITA 1285/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Mr. Sandeep BagmarFor Respondent: Mr. Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 115JSection 14ASection 2Section 37(1)

that the assessee had claimed depreciation @50% on the additions made between 01.01.2009 and 30.09.2009 to the block of assets under the category of ITA No.1282, 1283 to 1285/Chny/2024 (AYs 2011-12, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19) & ITA Nos.470, 1339, 1438, 1462 & 1463/Chny/2024

Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Non Corp Circle 8, Chennai

In the result, Revenue Appeal for AY 2012-13 stands dismissed

ITA 1284/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Mr. Sandeep BagmarFor Respondent: Mr. Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 115JSection 14ASection 2Section 37(1)

that the assessee had claimed depreciation @50% on the additions made between 01.01.2009 and 30.09.2009 to the block of assets under the category of ITA No.1282, 1283 to 1285/Chny/2024 (AYs 2011-12, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19) & ITA Nos.470, 1339, 1438, 1462 & 1463/Chny/2024

Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Non Corp Circle 8, Chennai

ITA 1282/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Mar 2025AY 2011-12
Section 115JSection 14ASection 2Section 37(1)Section 40

that the assessee had claimed depreciation @50% on the additions made between 01.01.2009 and 30.09.2009 to the block of assets under the category of 'Commercial Vehicles' which was restricted by the AO @15% on the ground that the assets for which depreciation @50% was claimed was not used

The ACIT, Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad vs. Neptune Plastic Corporation, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1370/AHD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Soparkar, AR
Section 143(3)Section 147

assessee had, however, shown the net sale consideration of Rs.2.50 Crores only in its books of accounts, which was reduced from the block of assets, as the gain derived on sale of property was short term capital gain. (iv) The assessee had claimed payment of Rs.2.39 Crores ... submitted that the AO had rightly treated the sale consideration of property at Rs.5,04,80,000/- and reduced it from WDV of block of assets. Accordingly, the disallowance of depreciation of Rs.25,48,000/- on account of reduction of WDV was also justified. 7. Per contra, Shri Saurabh Soparkar