M/S. STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD.,MADURAI vs. ADDITIONAL CIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

depreciation on bogus steel purchases and capitalization of foreign exchange fluctuation. 69. We have heard Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue and the Ld.counsel for the assessee. The only contention of the ITA No.1020,1665 & 1386/Mds/10 Ld.counsel for the assessee is that in the block assessment

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD., TUTICORIN

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

depreciation on bogus steel purchases and capitalization of foreign exchange fluctuation. 69. We have heard Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue and the Ld.counsel for the assessee. The only contention of the ITA No.1020,1665 & 1386/Mds/10 Ld.counsel for the assessee is that in the block assessment

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD., CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

depreciation on bogus steel purchases and capitalization of foreign exchange fluctuation. 69. We have heard Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue and the Ld.counsel for the assessee. The only contention of the ITA No.1020,1665 & 1386/Mds/10 Ld.counsel for the assessee is that in the block assessment

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD., TUTICORIN

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

depreciation on bogus steel purchases and capitalization of foreign exchange fluctuation. 69. We have heard Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue and the Ld.counsel for the assessee. The only contention of the ITA No.1020,1665 & 1386/Mds/10 Ld.counsel for the assessee is that in the block assessment

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. STERLITE INDUSTRIES LTD., TUTICORIN

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

depreciation. 15 I.T.A. No.718/Mds/2011 I.T.A. No.1008/Mds/2011 21. We have carefully gone through the order of this Tribunal for block period. The block assessment

M/S. STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD.,TUTICORIN vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

depreciation. 15 I.T.A. No.718/Mds/2011 I.T.A. No.1008/Mds/2011 21. We have carefully gone through the order of this Tribunal for block period. The block assessment

ADITYA BIRLA MONEY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT COMPANY CIRCLE 1 (1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S.Jayaraman

Assessing Officer has noticed from the depreciation statement that the assessee has claimed depreciation on Office equipments at 15% instead of applicable rate of 10%. Moreover, the assessee has also claimed depreciation on the deletions made to this block

ADITYA BIRLA MONEY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT COMPANY CIRCLE 1 (1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S.Jayaraman

Assessing Officer has noticed from the depreciation statement that the assessee has claimed depreciation on Office equipments at 15% instead of applicable rate of 10%. Moreover, the assessee has also claimed depreciation on the deletions made to this block

ADITYA BIRLA MONEY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT COMPANY CIRCLE 1 (1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S.Jayaraman

Assessing Officer has noticed from the depreciation statement that the assessee has claimed depreciation on Office equipments at 15% instead of applicable rate of 10%. Moreover, the assessee has also claimed depreciation on the deletions made to this block

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADURAI vs. M/S INDUSTRIAL MINERAL CO., 100% EOU, TUTICORIN

In the result, the assessee’s appeal ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.390/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Industrial Mineral Co. 100% Eou Acit बनाम/ 1/1C, Harbour Express Highway, Central Circle-(1), Vs. Thermal Nagar So, Tuticorin-628 006. Madurai "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan No. Aaafi-9714-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.529/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Acit M/S. Industrial Mineral Co. 100% Eou बनाम/ Central Circle-(1), 1/1C, Harbour Express Highway, Vs. Madurai Thermal Nagar So, Tuticorin 628006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan No. Aaafi-9714-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri N. Arjun Raj (Advocate) – Ld.Ar ""थ" की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21-05-2025 आदेश / O R D E R

depreciation component, the net gap was Rs.41.87 Crores. The difference of Rs.32 Crores was nothing but transfer from VV through Arbitration. The remaining difference was on account of difference in closing stock valuation, discrepancy in other income & expenses which has been tabulated at para-131 of the assessment order. Accordingly, Ld. AO added the remaining component of Rs.9.87 Crores

INDUSTRIAL MINERAL CO, 100%EOU,TUTICORIN vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MADURAI, MADURAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.390/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Industrial Mineral Co. 100% Eou Acit बनाम/ 1/1C, Harbour Express Highway, Central Circle-(1), Vs. Thermal Nagar So, Tuticorin-628 006. Madurai "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan No. Aaafi-9714-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.529/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Acit M/S. Industrial Mineral Co. 100% Eou बनाम/ Central Circle-(1), 1/1C, Harbour Express Highway, Vs. Madurai Thermal Nagar So, Tuticorin 628006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan No. Aaafi-9714-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri N. Arjun Raj (Advocate) – Ld.Ar ""थ" की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21-05-2025 आदेश / O R D E R

depreciation component, the net gap was Rs.41.87 Crores. The difference of Rs.32 Crores was nothing but transfer from VV through Arbitration. The remaining difference was on account of difference in closing stock valuation, discrepancy in other income & expenses which has been tabulated at para-131 of the assessment order. Accordingly, Ld. AO added the remaining component of Rs.9.87 Crores

M/S FINANCIAL SOFTWARE AND SYSTEM PRIVATE LIMITED ,CHENNAI vs. DCIT , CORPORATE CIRCLR -2 [1], CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.439/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Financial Software & Systems Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, 42, “Saradha”, Ground Income Tax, Corporate Circle 2(1), Floor, 3Rd Main Road, Gandhi Nagar, Room No. 511, 5Th Floor, Wanaparthy Adyar, Chennai 600 020. Block, #121 Uttamar Gandhi Salai, Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aaacf2351C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ashik Shah, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri A.S. Sumanth, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17.08.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.08.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per G. Manjunatha: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 18, Chennai, Dated 25.02.2022, Relevant To The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 31 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal Due To Outbreak Of Covid-19 Pandemic & Accordingly, The Delay Is Condoned & Admitted The Appeal For Adjudication.

assessment years 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, wherein it is held as follows. “6. We have heard the rival submissions. The primary facts stated hereinabove remain undisputed and hence the same are not reiterated for the sake of brevity. he short point that arise for our consideration is as to whether the ATMs are eligible for depreciation at the rate

ADP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Jagadishआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita Nos.: 2670, 2671, 2672 & 2698/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Adp India Private Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of Thamarai Tech Park, 6Th Floor, Vs. Income Tax, Sp Plot No. 16 To 20 & 20A, Thiru Vi Ka Corporate Circle 1(1), Industrial Estate, Inner Ring Road, Chennai. Guindy Industrial Estate So, Guindy, Chennai 600 032. [Pan: Aadcm-5547-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri V. Justin, Cit & Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.05.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R Per George George K: These Four Appeals Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Four Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (All Dated 21.08.2024) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21. Ita Nos.2670 To 2672 & 2698/Chny/2024

Assessing Officer to disallow the depreciation is totally incorrect, devoid of merit and thus, rejected. 16. The assessee had also relied upon the decision of ITAT Chennai in the case of Trivitron Healthcare P. Ltd. Vs. CIT (supra). The ITAT in the context of goodwill arising on account of amalgamation has considered the issue in light of provisions of section

ADP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Jagadishआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita Nos.: 2670, 2671, 2672 & 2698/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Adp India Private Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of Thamarai Tech Park, 6Th Floor, Vs. Income Tax, Sp Plot No. 16 To 20 & 20A, Thiru Vi Ka Corporate Circle 1(1), Industrial Estate, Inner Ring Road, Chennai. Guindy Industrial Estate So, Guindy, Chennai 600 032. [Pan: Aadcm-5547-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri V. Justin, Cit & Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.05.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R Per George George K: These Four Appeals Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Four Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (All Dated 21.08.2024) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21. Ita Nos.2670 To 2672 & 2698/Chny/2024

Assessing Officer to disallow the depreciation is totally incorrect, devoid of merit and thus, rejected. 16. The assessee had also relied upon the decision of ITAT Chennai in the case of Trivitron Healthcare P. Ltd. Vs. CIT (supra). The ITAT in the context of goodwill arising on account of amalgamation has considered the issue in light of provisions of section

TRIVITRON HEALTHCARE P LTD.,CHENNAI vs. PCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

assessment order u/s.263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the issue of depreciation claimed on goodwill arose out of amalgamation. The sole basis for the PCIT to assume jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act is applicability of 5th proviso to section 32(1) of the Act and restriction of depreciation in a scheme of amalgamation. According to the PCIT

SHRIRAM EPC LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

assessment year 2010-2011 for adjudication. 14. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:- ‘’1. The order of the learned CIT(A) is contrary to law and facts of the case. 2.The Id CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to allow the 100% depreciation on addition to leased building of Rs.13,16,008/- 2.1) CIT(A) erred

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SHRIRAM EPC LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

assessment year 2010-2011 for adjudication. 14. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:- ‘’1. The order of the learned CIT(A) is contrary to law and facts of the case. 2.The Id CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to allow the 100% depreciation on addition to leased building of Rs.13,16,008/- 2.1) CIT(A) erred

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SHRIRAM EPC LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

assessment year 2010-2011 for adjudication. 14. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:- ‘’1. The order of the learned CIT(A) is contrary to law and facts of the case. 2.The Id CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to allow the 100% depreciation on addition to leased building of Rs.13,16,008/- 2.1) CIT(A) erred