ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1, MADURAI vs. J.K.FENNER (INDIA) LTD., MADURAI

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

depreciation allowance was originally computed continued to be carried on in that year. A similar condition in section 72 for the purpose of carry forward and set-off of unabsorbed business loss

ACIT, MADURAI vs. J.K.FENNER (INDIA) LIMITED, MADURAI

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

depreciation allowance was originally computed continued to be carried on in that year. A similar condition in section 72 for the purpose of carry forward and set-off of unabsorbed business loss

J.K.FENNER (INDIA) LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. JCIT, MADURAI

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

depreciation allowance was originally computed continued to be carried on in that year. A similar condition in section 72 for the purpose of carry forward and set-off of unabsorbed business loss

ACIT, MADURAI vs. J.K.FENNER (INDIA) LTD., MADURAI

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

depreciation allowance was originally computed continued to be carried on in that year. A similar condition in section 72 for the purpose of carry forward and set-off of unabsorbed business loss

ACIT, MADURAI vs. J.K.FENNER (INDIA) LTD., MADURAI

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

depreciation allowance was originally computed continued to be carried on in that year. A similar condition in section 72 for the purpose of carry forward and set-off of unabsorbed business loss

J.K.FENNER (INDIA) LIMITED,MADURAI vs. ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1, MADURAI

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

depreciation allowance was originally computed continued to be carried on in that year. A similar condition in section 72 for the purpose of carry forward and set-off of unabsorbed business loss

J.K.FENNER (INDIA) LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. JCIT, MADURAI

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

depreciation allowance was originally computed continued to be carried on in that year. A similar condition in section 72 for the purpose of carry forward and set-off of unabsorbed business loss

J.K.FENNER (INDIA) LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, MADURAI

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

depreciation allowance was originally computed continued to be carried on in that year. A similar condition in section 72 for the purpose of carry forward and set-off of unabsorbed business loss

ACIT, MADURAI vs. J.K.FENNER (INDIA) LTD., MADURAI

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

depreciation allowance was originally computed continued to be carried on in that year. A similar condition in section 72 for the purpose of carry forward and set-off of unabsorbed business loss

J.K.FENNER (INDIA) LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. JCIT, MADURAI

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

depreciation allowance was originally computed continued to be carried on in that year. A similar condition in section 72 for the purpose of carry forward and set-off of unabsorbed business loss

ACIT, MADURAI vs. J.K.FENNER (INDIA) LTD., MADURAI

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

depreciation allowance was originally computed continued to be carried on in that year. A similar condition in section 72 for the purpose of carry forward and set-off of unabsorbed business loss

AGILE ELECTRIC SUB ASSEMBLY (P) LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2497/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12

carry forward loss and depreciation allowance shall apply accordingly. The law deeming the brought forward loss and depreciation as the loss

M/S. BAY FORGE PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CO, CIRCLE-1(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

carry forward business loss on 13.03.2006. The liability under the provisions of MAT was also Nil in view of the amount of loss brought forward or unabsorbed depreciation

M/S. THE INDIA CEMENTS LTD.,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE - 2 (1),, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

losses in terms of section 115JB of the Act was already examined by the Assessing Officer in the original assessment proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Act and had indeed considered the assessee’s entitlement of carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation

ACIT CIRCLE 1, ERODE vs. SKM EGG PRODUCTS EXPORT (I) LTD., ERODE

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

depreciation of one year can be set off against the profit of subsequent year only and till such set off, the amounts are carried forward or brought forward in the subsequent year from earlier year and are available for set off as per provisions. :-3-: ITA No: 1708/Chny/2018 iii. It is incorrect to propose to set off losses

RAJ TELEISION NETWORK LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, NON CORPORAE CIRCLE-20, CHENNAI

In the result both appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R.Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 530 & 531/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2018-19 Acit, Raj Television Network V. Non Corporate Circle 20, Limited, Chennai – 34. No. 32, Poes Road 2Nd Street, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018. [Pan: Aaacr-3580-P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri.K. Balasubramanian, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri.T.M. Suganthamala, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 31.07.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

carried forward by the assessee to set off is as follows: 1. Brought forward long term capital loss PY 2010-11 Rs.1,24,154 2. Brought Forward Short Term Capital Loss P.Y s 2013-14 & 2014-15 Rs.85,99,141 3. Unabsorbed depreciation

RAJTELEVISION NETWORK LIMITED,CHNNAI vs. ACIT, NON CORPORAE CIRCLE-20, CHENNAI

In the result both appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R.Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 530 & 531/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2018-19 Acit, Raj Television Network V. Non Corporate Circle 20, Limited, Chennai – 34. No. 32, Poes Road 2Nd Street, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018. [Pan: Aaacr-3580-P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri.K. Balasubramanian, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri.T.M. Suganthamala, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 31.07.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

carried forward by the assessee to set off is as follows: 1. Brought forward long term capital loss PY 2010-11 Rs.1,24,154 2. Brought Forward Short Term Capital Loss P.Y s 2013-14 & 2014-15 Rs.85,99,141 3. Unabsorbed depreciation

M/S. TRIVITRON HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. PCIT, , CHENNAI-3

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly\nallowed

carried forward and brought forward\nloss was very much available to the assessee thereby negating the\npresumption of any prejudice to the revenue. Therefore, the\npresumption of lack enquiry with respect to the quantification of\ncarried forward loss / depreciation