BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

271 results for “depreciation”+ Deemed Dividendclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai937Delhi501Chennai271Bangalore240Kolkata208Ahmedabad100Chandigarh53Raipur39Jaipur37Hyderabad35Pune26Lucknow23Cochin19Karnataka17SC14Surat13Indore13Nagpur10Telangana8Guwahati7Cuttack6Visakhapatnam3Rajkot2Jodhpur2Calcutta2ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1

Key Topics

Section 14A99Disallowance86Addition to Income49Section 143(3)47Section 10B42Deduction39Depreciation36Section 115J34Section 80I34Section 147

EMPEE HOLDINGS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

ITA 1503/CHNY/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Nov 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

deeming fiction of provisions of Sec.2(22)(e) of the 1961 Act are not attracted. 3.2 The AO on the other hand referred to provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the 1961 Act and held that provision of Section 2(22)(e) of the 1961 Act are clearly applicable and said sum is chargeable to income

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI vs. AATHMIKA HOLDINGS PVT LTD, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stand dismissed and the

ITA 836/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai

Showing 1–20 of 271 · Page 1 of 14

...
26
Section 36(1)(vii)22
Section 153A22
29 Jul 2025
AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr.Vikram VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Mr.Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 56(2)(x)Section 92C

deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) in the income-tax assessments of the M3 companies, and therefore the said amount was rightly excluded by the AO by way of ‘amount set apart for dividends’ while working out the total liabilities to be reduced for the purposes of valuation of shares in terms of Rule 11UA. He further submitted that

CAVINKARE PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2 (1), CHENNAI

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

ITA 1598/CHNY/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Oct 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1597 & 1598/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2005-06 & 2006-07 M/S.Cavinkare Private The Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, V. Income Tax, No. 12, Cenotaph Road, Central Circle 2(1), Teynampet, Chennai. Chennai – 600 018. Pan: Aaacb 3754B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri T. Banusekar, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Smt. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 28.09.2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08.10.2021

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)Section 35

depreciation on vehicles u/s. 35 of the Act, disallowance of expenses relatable to exempt income u/s. 14A of the Act and additions towards deemed dividend

CAVINKARE PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2 (1), CHENNAI

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

ITA 1597/CHNY/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Oct 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1597 & 1598/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2005-06 & 2006-07 M/S.Cavinkare Private The Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, V. Income Tax, No. 12, Cenotaph Road, Central Circle 2(1), Teynampet, Chennai. Chennai – 600 018. Pan: Aaacb 3754B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri T. Banusekar, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Smt. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 28.09.2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08.10.2021

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)Section 35

depreciation on vehicles u/s. 35 of the Act, disallowance of expenses relatable to exempt income u/s. 14A of the Act and additions towards deemed dividend

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

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

ITA 1060/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2022AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 32(2)

deemed as part thereof. If, however, there is no current depreciation for such succeeding year, the unabsorbed depreciation becomes the depreciation allowance for such succeeding year. We are of the considered opinion that any unabsorbed depreciation available to an assessee on 1st April, 2002 (asst. yr. 2002-03) will be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of section

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

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

ITA 1062/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 32(2)

deemed as part thereof. If, however, there is no current depreciation for such succeeding year, the unabsorbed depreciation becomes the depreciation allowance for such succeeding year. We are of the considered opinion that any unabsorbed depreciation available to an assessee on 1st April, 2002 (asst. yr. 2002-03) will be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of section

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

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

ITA 1272/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 32(2)

deemed as part thereof. If, however, there is no current depreciation for such succeeding year, the unabsorbed depreciation becomes the depreciation allowance for such succeeding year. We are of the considered opinion that any unabsorbed depreciation available to an assessee on 1st April, 2002 (asst. yr. 2002-03) will be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of section

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

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

ITA 947/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 32(2)

deemed as part thereof. If, however, there is no current depreciation for such succeeding year, the unabsorbed depreciation becomes the depreciation allowance for such succeeding year. We are of the considered opinion that any unabsorbed depreciation available to an assessee on 1st April, 2002 (asst. yr. 2002-03) will be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of section

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

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

ITA 967/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 32(2)

deemed as part thereof. If, however, there is no current depreciation for such succeeding year, the unabsorbed depreciation becomes the depreciation allowance for such succeeding year. We are of the considered opinion that any unabsorbed depreciation available to an assessee on 1st April, 2002 (asst. yr. 2002-03) will be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of section

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

ITA 1846/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 32(2)

deemed as part thereof. If, however, there is no current depreciation for such succeeding year, the unabsorbed depreciation becomes the depreciation allowance for such succeeding year. We are of the considered opinion that any unabsorbed depreciation available to an assessee on 1st April, 2002 (asst. yr. 2002-03) will be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of section

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

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

ITA 1076/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2022AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 32(2)

deemed as part thereof. If, however, there is no current depreciation for such succeeding year, the unabsorbed depreciation becomes the depreciation allowance for such succeeding year. We are of the considered opinion that any unabsorbed depreciation available to an assessee on 1st April, 2002 (asst. yr. 2002-03) will be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of section

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

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

ITA 1077/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2022AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 32(2)

deemed as part thereof. If, however, there is no current depreciation for such succeeding year, the unabsorbed depreciation becomes the depreciation allowance for such succeeding year. We are of the considered opinion that any unabsorbed depreciation available to an assessee on 1st April, 2002 (asst. yr. 2002-03) will be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of section

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

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

ITA 1061/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 32(2)

deemed as part thereof. If, however, there is no current depreciation for such succeeding year, the unabsorbed depreciation becomes the depreciation allowance for such succeeding year. We are of the considered opinion that any unabsorbed depreciation available to an assessee on 1st April, 2002 (asst. yr. 2002-03) will be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of section

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

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

ITA 1059/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2022AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 32(2)

deemed as part thereof. If, however, there is no current depreciation for such succeeding year, the unabsorbed depreciation becomes the depreciation allowance for such succeeding year. We are of the considered opinion that any unabsorbed depreciation available to an assessee on 1st April, 2002 (asst. yr. 2002-03) will be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of section

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

ITA 1883/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 32(2)

deemed as part thereof. If, however, there is no current depreciation for such succeeding year, the unabsorbed depreciation becomes the depreciation allowance for such succeeding year. We are of the considered opinion that any unabsorbed depreciation available to an assessee on 1st April, 2002 (asst. yr. 2002-03) will be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of section

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

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

ITA 1063/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 32(2)

deemed as part thereof. If, however, there is no current depreciation for such succeeding year, the unabsorbed depreciation becomes the depreciation allowance for such succeeding year. We are of the considered opinion that any unabsorbed depreciation available to an assessee on 1st April, 2002 (asst. yr. 2002-03) will be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of section

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

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

ITA 1078/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 32(2)

deemed as part thereof. If, however, there is no current depreciation for such succeeding year, the unabsorbed depreciation becomes the depreciation allowance for such succeeding year. We are of the considered opinion that any unabsorbed depreciation available to an assessee on 1st April, 2002 (asst. yr. 2002-03) will be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, COIMBATORE vs. MS.PROMETHEAN MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2532/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2532/Chny/2024 िनधा9रण वष9 /Assessment Year: 2015-16 The Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Promethean Media Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Vs. 53 Ganesh Nagar, Corporate Circle-1, Gn Mill Post, Coimbatore. Coimbatore – 641 029. [Pan: Aahcp 6412H]

For Appellant: Shri R.K.V. Sundar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

depreciation. The Ld. CIT(A) after calling the remand report has allowed the appeal as the assessee has submitted all the relevant documents to establish that machines have been installed and production has started. The assessee before us has also submitted the evidence of installation, electricity bill and sales bills in support of the claim the production has already been

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 2577/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2018-19
Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

deemed dividend u/s.2(22)(e) of the Act at para 6.5.3 and confirmed the addition of Rs.92,95,305/- made u/s.56(2)(viii)(c) of the Act at para 6.6.5 of the impugned order of the first appeal.\n\n27. The assessee aggrieved with the said order of the Ld.CIT(A) had filed the present appeal before us, by raising

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

ITA 2570/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2011-12
Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

dividend u/s 2(22)(e) (as Rs. 1,38,70,048/-\nin paras 14.1 to 14.13)\nAdd: Addition u/s 56(2) (vii)(c) (as in Rs. 92,95,305/-\nparas 15.1 to 15.5)\nGross Total income Rs. 2,37,25,823/-\nLess: Deduction under Chapter VIA Rs. 2,60,72,169/-\nRs. 1,00,000/-\nTotal income