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.

10 results for “depreciation”+ Section 144Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi27Bangalore16Mumbai16Lucknow11Kolkata10Chennai10Karnataka8Pune8Jaipur5Agra3Ahmedabad3Indore2Amritsar2Nagpur1Raipur1SC1Patna1Cochin1

Key Topics

Section 143(2)12Section 32(1)8Section 1477Depreciation5Section 143(3)4Section 144C(5)4Section 143(1)3Reassessment3Reopening of Assessment3

ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE-6(2), CHENNAI vs. M/S SUN EDISON SOLAR POWER INDIA PVT LTD, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for the assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 are allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue for the assessment year 2015-16 is dismissed

ITA 427/CHNY/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 32(1)

depreciation as an intangible. The Assessing Officer has discussed at length, considered the explanations of the assessee, judicial precedents and approval of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras vide its order dated 5 I.T.A. Nos.1520/Chny/18, 2164/Chny/19, 570 & 427/Chny/20 28.01.2014 and also obtained directions from the Addl. CIT under section 144A

M/S SUN EDISON SOLAR POWER INDIA PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD - 6 (3),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for the assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 are allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue for the assessment year 2015-16 is dismissed

Section 92B2
Addition to Income2
ITA 2164/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 32(1)

depreciation as an intangible. The Assessing Officer has discussed at length, considered the explanations of the assessee, judicial precedents and approval of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras vide its order dated 5 I.T.A. Nos.1520/Chny/18, 2164/Chny/19, 570 & 427/Chny/20 28.01.2014 and also obtained directions from the Addl. CIT under section 144A

M/S SUN EDISON SOLAR POWER INDIA PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 6 (2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for the assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 are allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue for the assessment year 2015-16 is dismissed

ITA 1520/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 32(1)

depreciation as an intangible. The Assessing Officer has discussed at length, considered the explanations of the assessee, judicial precedents and approval of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras vide its order dated 5 I.T.A. Nos.1520/Chny/18, 2164/Chny/19, 570 & 427/Chny/20 28.01.2014 and also obtained directions from the Addl. CIT under section 144A

M/S. SUN EDITION SOLAR POWER INDIA PVT. LTD.,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE - 6 (2),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for the assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 are allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue for the assessment year 2015-16 is dismissed

ITA 570/CHNY/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 32(1)

depreciation as an intangible. The Assessing Officer has discussed at length, considered the explanations of the assessee, judicial precedents and approval of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras vide its order dated 5 I.T.A. Nos.1520/Chny/18, 2164/Chny/19, 570 & 427/Chny/20 28.01.2014 and also obtained directions from the Addl. CIT under section 144A

INCOME TAX OFFICER , CHENNAI vs. SUNEDISON SOLAR POWER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

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

ITA 1028/CHNY/2024[AY 2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jul 2024

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1028/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Sunedison Solar Power India Private Corporate Ward 6(1), Room No. 704, Limited, No. 6J, Century Plaza,560- Wanaparthy Block, Aayakar Bhawan, 565, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 040 Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aascs6905K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Aroon Prasad, Addl. Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S.K. Gupta, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 09.02.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of Four Days. The Revenue Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Explaining Reasons For The Said Delay & Prayed For Condonation Of That Delay. On Perusal Of The Condonation Petition & Upon Hearing Both The Parties, We Find That The 2

For Appellant: Shri Aroon Prasad, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Gupta, Advocate
Section 144BSection 147Section 260A

section 144A of the Act, for the assessment year 2014-15 is concerned, the conclusion drawn by the Addl. CIT which has been accepted both by the Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A) is totally flawed for the reason that the Addl. CIT went on the wrong premise that goodwill recorded in the books of the assessee company

ACIT, MADURAI vs. ARUNA ALLOY STEELS PRIVATE LTD., MADURAI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal for assessment year

ITA 933/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3, 933 & 847/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2008-09 & 2007-08 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Aruna Alloy Steels (P) Ltd., Income Tax, V. Super B-3, Industrial Estate, Corporate Circle I, K-Pudur, Madurai – 625 007. Madurai. Pan : Aaeca 6781 D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Pathlavath Peerya, CITFor Respondent: Shri K. Ravi, Advocate
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147

depreciation allowance or any other allowance under this Act has been computed. (d) where a person is found to have any asset (including financial interest in any entity) located outside India. Explanation 3.— For the purpose of assessment or reassessment under this section, the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess the income in respect of any issue, which has escaped

ACIT, MADURAI vs. ARUNA ALLOY STEELS PRIVATE LTD., MADURAI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal for assessment year

ITA 847/CHNY/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Apr 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3, 933 & 847/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2008-09 & 2007-08 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Aruna Alloy Steels (P) Ltd., Income Tax, V. Super B-3, Industrial Estate, Corporate Circle I, K-Pudur, Madurai – 625 007. Madurai. Pan : Aaeca 6781 D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Pathlavath Peerya, CITFor Respondent: Shri K. Ravi, Advocate
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147

depreciation allowance or any other allowance under this Act has been computed. (d) where a person is found to have any asset (including financial interest in any entity) located outside India. Explanation 3.— For the purpose of assessment or reassessment under this section, the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess the income in respect of any issue, which has escaped

ACIT, MADURAI vs. ARUNA ALLOY STEELS (P) LTD., MADURAI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal for assessment year

ITA 3/CHNY/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Apr 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3, 933 & 847/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2008-09 & 2007-08 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Aruna Alloy Steels (P) Ltd., Income Tax, V. Super B-3, Industrial Estate, Corporate Circle I, K-Pudur, Madurai – 625 007. Madurai. Pan : Aaeca 6781 D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Pathlavath Peerya, CITFor Respondent: Shri K. Ravi, Advocate
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147

depreciation allowance or any other allowance under this Act has been computed. (d) where a person is found to have any asset (including financial interest in any entity) located outside India. Explanation 3.— For the purpose of assessment or reassessment under this section, the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess the income in respect of any issue, which has escaped

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. V.A. TECH WABAG LIMITED, CHENNAI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 953/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Respondent: Dr. S. Palanikumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92B

144A of the Act,had stated as under: "S 9(1)(vi)(b) itself provides the exception. If the Resident-assessee utilizes the services of the Non-resident, in its business outside India, it is covered under the exception given in the section itself and the payment received by the non-resident cannot be deemed to accrue or arise

VA TECH WABAG LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 807/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Respondent: Dr. S. Palanikumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92B

144A of the Act,had stated as under: "S 9(1)(vi)(b) itself provides the exception. If the Resident-assessee utilizes the services of the Non-resident, in its business outside India, it is covered under the exception given in the section itself and the payment received by the non-resident cannot be deemed to accrue or arise