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.

125 results for “depreciation”+ Section 119clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai697Delhi454Bangalore189Chennai125Kolkata93Ahmedabad62Chandigarh55Jaipur49Raipur45Pune38Indore30Hyderabad28Amritsar23Visakhapatnam20Karnataka20Lucknow19Cuttack10Surat8Cochin8SC8Jodhpur6Ranchi6Guwahati5Rajkot5Telangana5Dehradun4Nagpur3Agra3Calcutta2Patna1Varanasi1Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Section 14A74Disallowance65Section 143(3)64Depreciation53Section 14750Addition to Income49Section 1138Section 26336Section 115J34Reopening of Assessment

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)

section 32 is retrospective. 3.3 The CIT(A) ought to have seen that the quoted decision is not a jurisdictional High Court’s decision and it appears that the issue has not reached finality. 6. The material fact in AY 2008-09 are that during the course of assessment proceedings, it transpired that the assessee claimed set-off of depreciation

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

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

Showing 1–20 of 125 · Page 1 of 7

24
Deduction23
Limitation/Time-bar21
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)

section 32 is retrospective. 3.3 The CIT(A) ought to have seen that the quoted decision is not a jurisdictional High Court’s decision and it appears that the issue has not reached finality. 6. The material fact in AY 2008-09 are that during the course of assessment proceedings, it transpired that the assessee claimed set-off of depreciation

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)

section 32 is retrospective. 3.3 The CIT(A) ought to have seen that the quoted decision is not a jurisdictional High Court’s decision and it appears that the issue has not reached finality. 6. The material fact in AY 2008-09 are that during the course of assessment proceedings, it transpired that the assessee claimed set-off of depreciation

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)

section 32 is retrospective. 3.3 The CIT(A) ought to have seen that the quoted decision is not a jurisdictional High Court’s decision and it appears that the issue has not reached finality. 6. The material fact in AY 2008-09 are that during the course of assessment proceedings, it transpired that the assessee claimed set-off of depreciation

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)

section 32 is retrospective. 3.3 The CIT(A) ought to have seen that the quoted decision is not a jurisdictional High Court’s decision and it appears that the issue has not reached finality. 6. The material fact in AY 2008-09 are that during the course of assessment proceedings, it transpired that the assessee claimed set-off of depreciation

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)

section 32 is retrospective. 3.3 The CIT(A) ought to have seen that the quoted decision is not a jurisdictional High Court’s decision and it appears that the issue has not reached finality. 6. The material fact in AY 2008-09 are that during the course of assessment proceedings, it transpired that the assessee claimed set-off of depreciation

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)

section 32 is retrospective. 3.3 The CIT(A) ought to have seen that the quoted decision is not a jurisdictional High Court’s decision and it appears that the issue has not reached finality. 6. The material fact in AY 2008-09 are that during the course of assessment proceedings, it transpired that the assessee claimed set-off of depreciation

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)

section 32 is retrospective. 3.3 The CIT(A) ought to have seen that the quoted decision is not a jurisdictional High Court’s decision and it appears that the issue has not reached finality. 6. The material fact in AY 2008-09 are that during the course of assessment proceedings, it transpired that the assessee claimed set-off of depreciation

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)

section 32 is retrospective. 3.3 The CIT(A) ought to have seen that the quoted decision is not a jurisdictional High Court’s decision and it appears that the issue has not reached finality. 6. The material fact in AY 2008-09 are that during the course of assessment proceedings, it transpired that the assessee claimed set-off of depreciation

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)

section 32 is retrospective. 3.3 The CIT(A) ought to have seen that the quoted decision is not a jurisdictional High Court’s decision and it appears that the issue has not reached finality. 6. The material fact in AY 2008-09 are that during the course of assessment proceedings, it transpired that the assessee claimed set-off of depreciation

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)

section 32 is retrospective. 3.3 The CIT(A) ought to have seen that the quoted decision is not a jurisdictional High Court’s decision and it appears that the issue has not reached finality. 6. The material fact in AY 2008-09 are that during the course of assessment proceedings, it transpired that the assessee claimed set-off of depreciation

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)

section 32 is retrospective. 3.3 The CIT(A) ought to have seen that the quoted decision is not a jurisdictional High Court’s decision and it appears that the issue has not reached finality. 6. The material fact in AY 2008-09 are that during the course of assessment proceedings, it transpired that the assessee claimed set-off of depreciation

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)

section 32 is retrospective. 3.3 The CIT(A) ought to have seen that the quoted decision is not a jurisdictional High Court’s decision and it appears that the issue has not reached finality. 6. The material fact in AY 2008-09 are that during the course of assessment proceedings, it transpired that the assessee claimed set-off of depreciation

TRIVITRON HEALTH CARE PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

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

ITA 1340/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1340/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 V. M/S.Trivitron Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner- “Sapthagiri Bhavan”, Of Income Tax, New No.15, Old No.25, Corporate Circle-3(1), Trivitron Sapthagiri Bhawan, Chennai. 4Th Street, Abhiramapuram, Chennai. [Pan: Aaact 9378 H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Mr.M.Rajan, CIT
Section 119Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)

119 of Income Tax Act, 1961. 4) which is not in accordance with any decision of jurisdictional High Court or Supreme Court which is prejudicial to the assessee or any other person. In other words, where jurisdictional High Court or Supreme Court's decision is against the assessee or any other personal and AO passed their order without considering such

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2329/CHNY/2024[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Dec 2025AY 2005-06

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

For Appellant: Shri. R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, C.I.T
Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147

Section 115JB of the Act as under: Year Depreciation Business Business Adjustment Remarks cumulative Ending Loss Loss without business loss Depreciation as per books 31.03.1997 (2,848,288) (1,78,66,281) (15,017,993) (1,78,66,281) (2,848,288) (1,78,66,281) (15,017,993) 31.03.1998 (14,872,413) (28,351,317) 5,912,166 Prior

VICTORIA EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-3,, CHENNAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 946/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:946/Chny/2025 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2022-23 Victoria Educational Trust, Ito, 62, 6Th Street, Vs. Exemptions Ward 3, S.R.P.Colony, Chennai. Peravallur, Chennai – 600 082. [Pan:Aabtv-0115-A] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Kumar Chandan, J.C.I.T.

For Appellant: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Kumar Chandan, J.C.I.T
Section 11Section 12(1)(ac)Section 12ASection 143(1)

119(2)(b) of the Act was disposed of by the CIT(Exemptions), Chennai dated 11.01.2025 in DIN & Order No. ITBA/COM/F/17/2024-25/1072095396(1) by rejecting the plea for condonation of delay in filing the audit report in Form No. 10B for the reasons stated thereon. 11. The assessee in the pending first appeal against the intimation order dated had assailed

KEYSTONE FOUNDATION,NILGIRIS vs. ACIT, EXEMPTIONS WARD,, COIMBATORE

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

ITA 1680/CHNY/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Aug 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1680/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2023-24 Keystone Foundation, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of P.B. No. 35, Groves Hill Road, Income Tax, Kotagiri, Nilgiris 643 217. Exemptions Ward, Coimbatore. [Pan:Aaatk0218N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N. Rajakumar, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 26.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.05.2025 Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A)-9, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2023-24. 2. The Ld. Ar Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate Submits That The Assessee Raised 9 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates In Challenging The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Confirming The Disallowance Made On Account Of Non-Filing Of Audit Report In Form 10B In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Rajakumar, Addl. CIT
Section 11Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(A)Section 164(2)

depreciation by the said assessee, the ratio is equally applicable to the instance at hand, i.e. audit report in Form No.10B filed belatedly, however the same was made available before the passing of intimation order. 23. Thus, respectfully drawing an analogy from the decision of G.M.Knitting Industries (supra), we hold that intimation order passed by the CPC in terms

G.C.T.ALUMNI ASSOCIATION,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, EXEMPTIONS,, COIMBATORE

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3673/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3673/Chny/2025 िनधा&रण वष& /Assessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. M.D. Vijay Kumar, JCIT
Section 11Section 119Section 13(9)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250

depreciation by the said assessee, the ratio is equally applicable to the instance at hand, i.e. audit report in Form No.10B filed belatedly, however the same was made available before the passing of intimation order. 23. Thus, respectfully drawing an analogy from the decision of G.M.Knitting Industries (supra), we hold that intimation order passed by the CPC in terms

SANTECH SOLUTONS PVT LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as 9

ITA 1036/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Dec 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1036/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2008-2009

For Appellant: Shri. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. S. Pandian, IRS, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 28

119(2)(a) of the Act, the Board has issued circulars by Notification No. F. No. 400/234/95-IT(B), dated May 23, 1996. As per this circular, it has empowered that the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax and Director-General of Income-tax may waive or reduce interest charged under sections 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act in the class

DCIT LTPU 1, CHENNAI vs. M/S MAHINDRA HOLIDAYS & RESORTS (P) LTD, CHENNAI

In the result the appeals of the assessee i

ITA 1089/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.936 To 941/Chny/2018 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील & आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.1012/Chny/2019 अपील (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years:2009-2010 To 2015-2016) वष" M/S Mahindra Holidays & Resorts Ltd Vs The Dcit (Ltu), Chennai-600001 Mahindra Towers, 2Nd Floor, 17/18, Pattulos Road, Chennai-600002 Pan No. :Aaacm 6469 L (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" (""यथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) ""यथ" .. & आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.942 To 944/Chny/2018 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील & आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.1089/Chny/2018 अपील (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years:2011-2012 To 2014-2015) वष" The Dcit (Ltu), Chennai-600001 Vs M/S Mahindra Holidays & Resorts Ltd Mahindra Towers, 2Nd Floor, 17/18, Pattulos Road, Chennai-600002 Pan No. :Aaacm 6469 L (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" (""यथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) ""यथ" ..

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32

depreciation schedule as depreciation/amortization was not claimed on the same. ii) We have clarified the same along with copies of the relevant pages of the Form 3GI) in the earlier paragraph. iii) There is no provision for depreciation on land and hence was not shown in the Form 3CD. This is in itself is a proof that we have