FRESH & HONEST CAFE LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1499 & 1500/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years :2009-10 & 2010-11 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1485/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S Fresh & Honest Café Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of C/O Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate, V. Income Tax, New No.14, Old No.82, Flat No.5, Company Circle Ii(1), 1St Avenue, Indira Nagar, Adyar, Chennai - 600 020. Chennai - 600 020. Pan : Aaacf 1516 H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

additional depreciation. The Income-tax Act is silent about the allowance of the balance 10% additional depreciation in the subsequent

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. ADDISON & COMPANY LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 862/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12

additional depreciation. The Income- tax Act is silent about the allowance of the balance 10% additional depreciation in the subsequent

AUTOMOTIVE COACHES & COMPONENTS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1789/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 M/S Automotive Coaches & The Deputy Commissioner Of Components Ltd., V. Income Tax, C1 & D6 Sipcot Industrial Company Circle – I, Complex, Chennai - 600 034. Gummidipoondi – 601 201. Pan : Aaaca 3150 E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

additional depreciation. The Income-tax Act is silent about the allowance of the balance 10% additional depreciation in the subsequent

M/S. ASHOK LEYLAND LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, NCC-8(1), LTU-II, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

additional depreciation made by the Appellant during the course of made by the Appellant during the course of assessment proceedings is permissible, even if the claim was not originally assessment proceedings is permissible, even if the claim was not originally assessment proceedings is permissible, even if the claim was not originally made in the return of income

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, TIRUVANNAMALAI,

depreciation penalty is not leviable.\nThe additions in assessment proceedings will not automatically lead to\ninference of levying penalty. The Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT v.\nSuresh Chand Bansal [2010] 329 ITR 330 held that where there was an\noffer of additional income

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, TIRUVANNAMALAI

In the result, all the six appeals of the Revenue are\ndismissed

depreciation penalty is not leviable.\nThe additions in assessment proceedings will not automatically lead to\ninference of levying penalty. The Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT v.\nSuresh Chand Bansal [2010] 329 ITR 330 held that where there was an\noffer of additional income

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, CHENNAI

In the result, all the six appeals of the Revenue are\ndismissed

depreciation penalty is not leviable.\nThe additions in assessment proceedings will not automatically lead to\ninference of levying penalty. The Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT v.\nSuresh Chand Bansal [2010] 329 ITR 330 held that where there was an\noffer of additional income

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, THIRUVANNAMALAI

In the result, all the six appeals of the Revenue are\ndismissed

depreciation penalty is not leviable.\nThe additions in assessment proceedings will not automatically lead to\ninference of levying penalty. The Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT v.\nSuresh Chand Bansal [2010] 329 ITR 330 held that where there was an\noffer of additional income

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, TIRUVANNAMALAI

depreciation penalty is not leviable.\nThe additions in assessment proceedings will not automatically lead to\ninference of levying penalty. The Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT v.\nSuresh Chand Bansal [2010] 329 ITR 330 held that where there was an\noffer of additional income

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, THIRUVANNAMALAI

depreciation penalty is not leviable.\nThe additions in assessment proceedings will not automatically lead to\ninference of levying penalty. The Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT v.\nSuresh Chand Bansal [2010] 329 ITR 330 held that where there was an\noffer of additional income

MEENAKSHI (INDIA) LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.206/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S Meenakshi (India) Limited, The Assistant Commissioner Of C/O Shri T.N. Seetharaman, V. Income Tax, Advocate, Corporate Circle – 4(1), #384 (Old No.196), Lloyds Road, Chennai - 600 034. Chennai - 600 086. Pan : Aaacm 5386 Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

additional depreciation. The Income-tax Act is silent about the allowance of the 6 I.T.A. No.206/Mds/16 balance 10% additional depreciation

S.P.MANI AND MOHAN DAIRY,ERODE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1, ERODE

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee and revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar

addition as held by the Honorable Madras High court in the case of "CIT Vs. Kadar Khan son", which was affirmed by the Honorable Supreme Court. 05. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have understood that the both Chilling units were put in to commercial use during the course of the year and the disallowance of depreciation

M/S. ASHOK LEYLAND LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, NCC-8(1), LTU-II,, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

income of the assessee at Rs.328,87,81,902/-, after inter alia disallowing additional depreciation to the extent of Rs.9

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. ASHOK LEYLAND LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2825, 2826 & 2827/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-2008. The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Ashok Leyland Ltd, Income Tax, Vs. No.1, Sardar Patel Road, Large Taxpayer Unit -Ii, Guindy, Chennai 600 101. Chennai 600 032. [Pan Aaaca 4651L] (Department) (Assessee )

Income Tax (Appeals) erred in forming the disallowance by wrongly assuming that the claim is the balance of 50% of additional depreciation

ASHOK LEYLAND LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2825, 2826 & 2827/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-2008. The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Ashok Leyland Ltd, Income Tax, Vs. No.1, Sardar Patel Road, Large Taxpayer Unit -Ii, Guindy, Chennai 600 101. Chennai 600 032. [Pan Aaaca 4651L] (Department) (Assessee )

Income Tax (Appeals) erred in forming the disallowance by wrongly assuming that the claim is the balance of 50% of additional depreciation

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. ASHOK LEYLAND LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2825, 2826 & 2827/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-2008. The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Ashok Leyland Ltd, Income Tax, Vs. No.1, Sardar Patel Road, Large Taxpayer Unit -Ii, Guindy, Chennai 600 101. Chennai 600 032. [Pan Aaaca 4651L] (Department) (Assessee )

Income Tax (Appeals) erred in forming the disallowance by wrongly assuming that the claim is the balance of 50% of additional depreciation

TAGROS CHEMICALS INDIA LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.703/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 M/S Tagros Chemicals India Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of Jhaver Centre, Raja Annamalai V. Income Tax, Building, Corporate Circle – 3(1), 72 (Old No.19), Marshals Road, Chennai - 600 034. Egmore, Chennai - 600 008. Pan : Aaact 2952 K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

additional depreciation. The Income-tax Act is silent about the allowance of the balance 10% additional depreciation in the subsequent

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 6(2), CHENNAI vs. SUNDARAM CLAYTON LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by Revenue and the assessee

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G.Manjunatha

additional depreciation was allowable on the plant and machinery only for the year in which the capacity expansion had taken place 4) For these and other grounds that may be adduced at the time of hearing, it is prayed that the Order of the Commissioner of Income