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 from asst. yr. 1997-98 up to the asst. yr. 2001- 02 got carried forward to the asst. yr. 2002-03 and became part thereof, it came to be governed by the provisions of section 32(2) as amended by Finance Act, 2001 and were available for carry forward and set-off against the profits and gains of subsequent

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 from asst. yr. 1997-98 up to the asst. yr. 2001- 02 got carried forward to the asst. yr. 2002-03 and became part thereof, it came to be governed by the provisions of section 32(2) as amended by Finance Act, 2001 and were available for carry forward and set-off against the profits and gains of subsequent

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 from asst. yr. 1997-98 up to the asst. yr. 2001- 02 got carried forward to the asst. yr. 2002-03 and became part thereof, it came to be governed by the provisions of section 32(2) as amended by Finance Act, 2001 and were available for carry forward and set-off against the profits and gains of subsequent

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 from asst. yr. 1997-98 up to the asst. yr. 2001- 02 got carried forward to the asst. yr. 2002-03 and became part thereof, it came to be governed by the provisions of section 32(2) as amended by Finance Act, 2001 and were available for carry forward and set-off against the profits and gains of subsequent

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 from asst. yr. 1997-98 up to the asst. yr. 2001- 02 got carried forward to the asst. yr. 2002-03 and became part thereof, it came to be governed by the provisions of section 32(2) as amended by Finance Act, 2001 and were available for carry forward and set-off against the profits and gains of subsequent

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 from asst. yr. 1997-98 up to the asst. yr. 2001- 02 got carried forward to the asst. yr. 2002-03 and became part thereof, it came to be governed by the provisions of section 32(2) as amended by Finance Act, 2001 and were available for carry forward and set-off against the profits and gains of subsequent

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 from asst. yr. 1997-98 up to the asst. yr. 2001- 02 got carried forward to the asst. yr. 2002-03 and became part thereof, it came to be governed by the provisions of section 32(2) as amended by Finance Act, 2001 and were available for carry forward and set-off against the profits and gains of subsequent

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 from asst. yr. 1997-98 up to the asst. yr. 2001- 02 got carried forward to the asst. yr. 2002-03 and became part thereof, it came to be governed by the provisions of section 32(2) as amended by Finance Act, 2001 and were available for carry forward and set-off against the profits and gains of subsequent

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 from asst. yr. 1997-98 up to the asst. yr. 2001- 02 got carried forward to the asst. yr. 2002-03 and became part thereof, it came to be governed by the provisions of section 32(2) as amended by Finance Act, 2001 and were available for carry forward and set-off against the profits and gains of subsequent

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 from asst. yr. 1997-98 up to the asst. yr. 2001- 02 got carried forward to the asst. yr. 2002-03 and became part thereof, it came to be governed by the provisions of section 32(2) as amended by Finance Act, 2001 and were available for carry forward and set-off against the profits and gains of subsequent

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 from asst. yr. 1997-98 up to the asst. yr. 2001- 02 got carried forward to the asst. yr. 2002-03 and became part thereof, it came to be governed by the provisions of section 32(2) as amended by Finance Act, 2001 and were available for carry forward and set-off against the profits and gains of subsequent

RURAL EDUCATION AND ACTION FOR LIBERATION,VILLUPURAM vs. ITO WARD 1, VILLUPURAM

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1246/Chny/2019. "नधा$रण वष$ /Assessment Year : 2010-11

127(SC), by which the hon’ble Supreme Court has affirmed the view taken by the Bombay High Court in CIT VS. INSTITUTE OF BANKING PERSONNEL SELECTION (IBPS) reported in [2003] 131 Taxman 386 (Bom). The relevant portion of the said judgement of the Bombay High Court (402 ITR 445) as quoted by the hon’ble Supreme Court and affirmed

ESSK EDUCATIONAL CHARITIES,VILLUPURAM vs. ITO WARD 1, VILLUPURAM

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1246/Chny/2019. "नधा$रण वष$ /Assessment Year : 2010-11

127(SC), by which the hon’ble Supreme Court has affirmed the view taken by the Bombay High Court in CIT VS. INSTITUTE OF BANKING PERSONNEL SELECTION (IBPS) reported in [2003] 131 Taxman 386 (Bom). The relevant portion of the said judgement of the Bombay High Court (402 ITR 445) as quoted by the hon’ble Supreme Court and affirmed

RURAL EDUCATION AND ACTION FOR LIBERATION,VILLUPURAM vs. ITO WARD 1, VILLUPURAM

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1246/Chny/2019. "नधा$रण वष$ /Assessment Year : 2010-11

127(SC), by which the hon’ble Supreme Court has affirmed the view taken by the Bombay High Court in CIT VS. INSTITUTE OF BANKING PERSONNEL SELECTION (IBPS) reported in [2003] 131 Taxman 386 (Bom). The relevant portion of the said judgement of the Bombay High Court (402 ITR 445) as quoted by the hon’ble Supreme Court and affirmed

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1, COIMBATORE vs. CHIRANJEEVI WIND ENERGY LIMITED, COIMBATORE

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

depreciation even prior to AY 2013-14. The copies of various decisions favoring the assessee have been placed on record. 6. Upon perusal of the decision of Chennai Tribunal in M. Satishkumar V/s DIT (33 Taxmann.com 396; 28.09.2012), we find that identical question has been decided by coordinate bench in assessee’s favor as under: - 9. We have heard

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE-1, COIMBATORE vs. M/S. BANNARI AMMAN SUGARS LTD., COIMBATORE

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

depreciation even prior to AY 2013-14. The copies of various decisions favoring the assessee have been placed on record. 6. Upon perusal of the decision of Chennai Tribunal in M. Satishkumar V/s DIT (33 Taxmann.com 396 28.09.2012), we find that identical question has been decided by coordinate bench in assessee’s favor as under: - 9. We have heard

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADURAI vs. RAMASUBBU MINNALKODI, TIRUNELVELI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

depreciation, as her business income. On this\nbasis, the assessee submitted that the business income of Rs.20,64,120/- as\ndisclosed in the return of income filed for the relevant assessment year was in\nline with the statement furnished during the course of survey. It was, therefore,\nrequested that no addition be made to the returned income and that

ESTRA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. ((NOW SUCCESSOR OF M/S. ROVERCO APPAREL COMPANY PVT LTD.) ,CHENNAI vs. DCIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 5(1) , CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri, M. Balaganesh

127,06,914/- after setting off carry forward business loss of 14,45,378/- pertaining to assessment year 2009-10. The assessment was completed u/s.143(3) of the Act on 28.03.2013 determining the total income at `868,02,598/-. The assessee got partial relief before the Ld.CIT(A) against the additions made in this assessment Later both the Revenue