Search: depreciation | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

1,018 results for “depreciation”+ Exemptionclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,499 Delhi1,932 Chennai1,018 Bangalore877 Ahmedabad601 Kolkata504 Jaipur269 Pune254 Hyderabad208 Chandigarh190 Karnataka155 Raipur128 Cochin114 Visakhapatnam99 Indore81 Lucknow72 Surat65 Cuttack60 Amritsar48 Guwahati41 Rajkot40 SC35 Telangana25 Jodhpur24 Nagpur23 Ranchi19 Calcutta10 Panaji9 Agra8 Patna7 Varanasi7 Kerala6 Allahabad5 Rajasthan5 Orissa3 Dehradun3 Gauhati2 Jabalpur2 A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1 Punjab & Haryana1 ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)100 Section 14A83 Disallowance67 Addition to Income54 Section 4044 Section 14743 Deduction43 Depreciation42 Exemption35 Section 11

MADRAS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY,CHENNAI vs. ITO (EXEMPTIONS) III, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1538/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Mr.Nandita S.Das, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.B.Sagadevan, JCIT, DR

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 2(45)

depreciation. The income of the assessee being exempt, the assessee was only claiming that depreciation should be reduced from the income

BHARAT TECHNOLOGIES AUTO COMPONENTS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ITO, COMPANY WARD 1(1), CHENNAI

Showing 1–20 of 1,018 · Page 1 of 51

...

34

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 1841/CHNY/2024[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Nov 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1841, 1842 & 1843/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2003-04, 2004-05 & 2006-07 V. M/S. Bharat Technologies Auto – The Ito, Components Ltd., Company Ward-1(1), 177 Raheja Towers, Chennai. 7Th Floor, Unit No.708, Beta Wing, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. [Pan: Aabcb 9835 A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl.CIT

Section 41(1)(b)Section 72ASection 72A(2)

exemption under Section 72A(2) of Income Tax Act, 1961 to UCAL Division of BTACL (UDB) to enable it to carry ITA Nos.1841, 1842 & 1843/Chny/2024 (AYs 2003-04, 2004-05 & 2006-07) M/s. Bharat Technologies – Auto Components Ltd. :: 7 :: forward the accumulated business losses and unabsorbed depreciation

BHARAT TECHNOLOGIES AUTO COMPONENTS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ITO, COMPANY WARD 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 1843/CHNY/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Nov 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1841, 1842 & 1843/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2003-04, 2004-05 & 2006-07 V. M/S. Bharat Technologies Auto – The Ito, Components Ltd., Company Ward-1(1), 177 Raheja Towers, Chennai. 7Th Floor, Unit No.708, Beta Wing, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. [Pan: Aabcb 9835 A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl.CIT

Section 41(1)(b)Section 72ASection 72A(2)

exemption under Section 72A(2) of Income Tax Act, 1961 to UCAL Division of BTACL (UDB) to enable it to carry ITA Nos.1841, 1842 & 1843/Chny/2024 (AYs 2003-04, 2004-05 & 2006-07) M/s. Bharat Technologies – Auto Components Ltd. :: 7 :: forward the accumulated business losses and unabsorbed depreciation

BHARAT TECHNOLOGIES AUTO COMPONENTS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ITO, COMPANY WARD 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 1842/CHNY/2024[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Nov 2024AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1841, 1842 & 1843/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2003-04, 2004-05 & 2006-07 V. M/S. Bharat Technologies Auto – The Ito, Components Ltd., Company Ward-1(1), 177 Raheja Towers, Chennai. 7Th Floor, Unit No.708, Beta Wing, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. [Pan: Aabcb 9835 A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl.CIT

Section 41(1)(b)Section 72ASection 72A(2)

exemption under Section 72A(2) of Income Tax Act, 1961 to UCAL Division of BTACL (UDB) to enable it to carry ITA Nos.1841, 1842 & 1843/Chny/2024 (AYs 2003-04, 2004-05 & 2006-07) M/s. Bharat Technologies – Auto Components Ltd. :: 7 :: forward the accumulated business losses and unabsorbed depreciation

COIMBATORE MASONIC CHARITY TRUST,,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, EXEMPTIONS, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2177/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Dec 2017AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Mr.B.Sagadevan, JCIT, D.R

Section 10Section 11Section 11(6)Section 12ASection 143(3)

depreciation is not allowable while granting exemption u/s.11 of the Act since the cost of the asset was already allowed

THE SOCIETY FOR SOCIAL EDUCATION & RESEARCH,CHENNAI vs. ADIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 838/CHNY/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Nov 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Mr.B.Sagadevan, JCIT, D.RFor Respondent: 06.11.2017

Section 10Section 11Section 11(6)

depreciation as application of income while granting exemption u/s.11 of the Act. 2 3. I have heard both the parties

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. TAMIL NADU CRICKET ASSOCIATION, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue as well as the cross-objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2557/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2556 & 2557/Mds/2016 & C.O. Nos.158 & 159/Mds/2016 (In Ita Nos.2556 & 2557/Mds/2016) "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Dr. Milind Madhukar Bhusari, CITFor Respondent: Shri V. Ravichandran, CA

Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

exemption under Section 11 of the Act. 6. Now coming to the cross-objections of the assessee, the only issue raised by the assessee is depreciation

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. TAMIL NADU CRICKET ASSOCIATION, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue as well as the cross-objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2556/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2556 & 2557/Mds/2016 & C.O. Nos.158 & 159/Mds/2016 (In Ita Nos.2556 & 2557/Mds/2016) "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Dr. Milind Madhukar Bhusari, CITFor Respondent: Shri V. Ravichandran, CA

Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

exemption under Section 11 of the Act. 6. Now coming to the cross-objections of the assessee, the only issue raised by the assessee is depreciation

CHETTINAD ACADEMY OF RESEARCH AND EDUCATION,CHENNAI vs. DDIT, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for assessment years 2010-11 & 2011-12 are allowed

ITA 1475/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George Mathan

For Appellant: Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan,AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.K.Ravi, JCIT,DR

Section 11Section 14Section 6

depreciation on the same assets again would tantamount to double deduction and was therefore not allowable. The AO further noticed that in the case of trusts claiming exemption

CHETTINAD ACADEMY OF RESEARCH AND EDUCATION,CHENNAI vs. DDIT, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for assessment years 2010-11 & 2011-12 are allowed

ITA 1474/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George Mathan

For Appellant: Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan,AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.K.Ravi, JCIT,DR

Section 11Section 14Section 6

depreciation on the same assets again would tantamount to double deduction and was therefore not allowable. The AO further noticed that in the case of trusts claiming exemption

RAJA MUTHIAH CHETTIAR CHARITABLE AND EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DDIT, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for assessment years 2011-12 & 2012-13 are allowed

ITA 1473/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George Mathan

For Appellant: Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan,AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.K.Ravi, JCIT,DR

Section 11Section 14Section 6

depreciation on the same assets again would tantamount to double deduction and was therefore not allowable. The AO further noticed that in the case of trusts claiming exemption

RAJA MUTHIAH CHETTIAR CHARITABLE AND EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DDIT, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for assessment years 2011-12 & 2012-13 are allowed

ITA 1472/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George Mathan

For Appellant: Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan,AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.K.Ravi, JCIT,DR

Section 11Section 14Section 6

depreciation on the same assets again would tantamount to double deduction and was therefore not allowable. The AO further noticed that in the case of trusts claiming exemption

M/S. LAKSHMI AMMAL MEMORIAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, TIRUPPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2852/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jul 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Mr.V.Sreenivasan, JICIT, D.RFor Respondent: 20.06.2017

Section 11Section 11(4)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 2Section 2(15)

exemption u/s 11 of the Act. The assessee can also claim depreciation in case the exemption u/s 11 was denied

SUGUNA CHARITABLE TRUST,COIMBATORE vs. ITO, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2172/CHNY/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jun 2016AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G.Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram,AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Durai Pandian,ACIT DR

Section 11Section 2(15)

exemption u/s 11 of the Act. The assessee can also claim depreciation in case the exemption u/s 11 was denied

THE MUSIC ACADEMY MADRAS,CHENNAI vs. DDIT, CHENNAI

Accordingly, the same is dismissed

ITA 1098/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Apr 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1098/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Music Academy Madras, The Deputy Director Of Income Tax No.168 (Old No.306), Ttk Road, V. (Exemptions), Royapettah, Chennai - 600 014. Chennai - 600 034 . Pan : Aaatt 0256 B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. P. Radhakrishnan, JCIT

Section 11Section 12ASection 32

depreciation is allowable while computing income under the head “business or profession”. Referring to Section 11 of the Act, the Ld.counsel submitted that Section 11 provides for exemption

ITO, TRICHY vs. GRAMA VIDIYAL TRUST, TRICHY

In the result, appeal of Revenue in 345/2013 is partly allowed for

ITA 392/CHNY/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jun 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G.Pavan Kumar

For Respondent: 23-06-2016

Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 80G

exemption u/s 11 of the Act. The assessee can also claim depreciation in case the exemption u/s 11 was denied

ACIT, TRICHY vs. GRAMA VIDIYAL TRUST, TRICHY

In the result, appeal of Revenue in 345/2013 is partly allowed for

ITA 345/CHNY/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G.Pavan Kumar

For Respondent: 23-06-2016

Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 80G

exemption u/s 11 of the Act. The assessee can also claim depreciation in case the exemption u/s 11 was denied

ACIT, TRICHY vs. GRAMA VIDIYAL TRUST, TRICHY

In the result, appeal of Revenue in 345/2013 is partly allowed for

ITA 1437/CHNY/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jun 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G.Pavan Kumar

For Respondent: 23-06-2016

Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 80G

exemption u/s 11 of the Act. The assessee can also claim depreciation in case the exemption u/s 11 was denied

SENGUNTHA MUDALIAR KALYANA MANDAPAM,SALEM vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, SALEM

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

ITA 79/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan

For Appellant: Shri A.R.V. Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT

Section 11Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(15)

depreciation in case exemption was granted u/s. 11 of the Act, if the exemption u/s. 11 of the Act was not granted

SENGUNTHA MUDALIAR KALYANA MANDAPAM,SALEM vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, SALEM

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

ITA 80/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan

For Appellant: Shri A.R.V. Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT

Section 11Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(15)

depreciation in case exemption was granted u/s. 11 of the Act, if the exemption u/s. 11 of the Act was not granted