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.

203 results for “depreciation”+ Section 154clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai764Delhi689Bangalore337Chennai203Kolkata117Ahmedabad115Jaipur61Pune53Raipur44Chandigarh42Hyderabad38Lucknow33Cochin25Visakhapatnam19Jodhpur16Indore14SC14Surat10Amritsar10Panaji9Cuttack8Kerala7Rajkot7Guwahati6Nagpur6Karnataka6Jabalpur3Telangana3Dehradun2Patna2Calcutta2Agra2Rajasthan1Himachal Pradesh1Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Disallowance78Section 143(3)74Depreciation65Section 14758Addition to Income57Section 15429Deduction26Section 14823Reopening of Assessment20Section 153A

SREE VENKATESWARA EDUCATIONAL TRUST,KRISHNAGIRI vs. ITO, EXEMPTIONS WARD,, SALEM

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1339/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1338 & 1339/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sree Venkateswara Educational Trust, The Income Tax Officer, 655/20 & 600, Jagilkathirampatti Vs. Exemptions Ward, Village & Post, Pochampalli Taluk, Salem. Krishnagiri District 635 206. [Pan:Aaits5220J ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 10.12.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.12.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Salem, Both Dated 25.03.2019 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Passed Against The Order Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] As Well As Under Section 154 Of The Act. Against The Order Under Section 154 Of The Act, The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds: “1. The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Is Not Justified In Holding That Non-Allowance Of Expenditure Incurred To Earn Gross Receipts From A College & School Involves A Complex & Debatable Legal Issue.

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 139(1)

Showing 1–20 of 203 · Page 1 of 11

...
19
Section 13218
Section 14218
Section 139(4)
Section 143(1)
Section 154

154 dated 06.11.2015 filed on 09.11.2015. 2. Against the order under section 143(1) of the Act, the assessee has raised following grounds: “1. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is not justified in holding that the assesse trust made a fresh claim of expenses of salaries, interest to Bank, depreciation

SREE VENKATESWARA EDUCATIONAL TRUST,KRISHNAGIRI vs. ITO, EXEMPTIONS WARD,, SALEM

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1338/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1338 & 1339/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sree Venkateswara Educational Trust, The Income Tax Officer, 655/20 & 600, Jagilkathirampatti Vs. Exemptions Ward, Village & Post, Pochampalli Taluk, Salem. Krishnagiri District 635 206. [Pan:Aaits5220J ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 10.12.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.12.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Salem, Both Dated 25.03.2019 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Passed Against The Order Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] As Well As Under Section 154 Of The Act. Against The Order Under Section 154 Of The Act, The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds: “1. The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Is Not Justified In Holding That Non-Allowance Of Expenditure Incurred To Earn Gross Receipts From A College & School Involves A Complex & Debatable Legal Issue.

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 154

154 dated 06.11.2015 filed on 09.11.2015. 2. Against the order under section 143(1) of the Act, the assessee has raised following grounds: “1. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is not justified in holding that the assesse trust made a fresh claim of expenses of salaries, interest to Bank, depreciation

TRIVITRON HEALTHCARE P LTD.,CHENNAI vs. PCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 97/CHNY/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Mr. M.Rajan, CITFor Respondent: 17.05.2022
Section 2Section 263Section 32(1)

section 32(1) of the Act is to restrict depreciation claimed on the asset by the amalgamated company, because there may be situation where predecessor company and successor company claims depreciation on same asset, which may be over and above normal depreciation allowable on said asset. Therefore, under those facts, a specific proviso has been introduced to curtail practice

M/S ARKEMA PEROXIDES INDIA LTD.,CHENNAI vs. THE ASSTT. COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CORPORATE CIRCLE1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 897/CHNY/2020[2016-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Jul 2022AY 2016-13

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

For Appellant: Mr. R.Vijayaraghavan, Advocate
Section 32(1)(ii)

depreciation under section 32{1){ii) of the Act. 14. In the decision in the case of Asianet Communications Ltd. v. CIT [2018] 96 taxmann.com 3991257 Taxman 4731407 /TR 706, a Division Bench of this Court, to which, one of us (TSSJ) was a party, had considered the same issue as to, where the non compete fee paid

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)

depreciation as available with the assessee far exceeded the year-end investment of Rs.5397.85 Lacs and therefore, it not be said that the borrowed funds were utilized for the purpose of business. Further, major portion of investment was made in earlier years and only a part of investment was made in one scrip during the year. Also, as per settled

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)

depreciation as available with the assessee far exceeded the year-end investment of Rs.5397.85 Lacs and therefore, it not be said that the borrowed funds were utilized for the purpose of business. Further, major portion of investment was made in earlier years and only a part of investment was made in one scrip during the year. Also, as per settled

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)

depreciation as available with the assessee far exceeded the year-end investment of Rs.5397.85 Lacs and therefore, it not be said that the borrowed funds were utilized for the purpose of business. Further, major portion of investment was made in earlier years and only a part of investment was made in one scrip during the year. Also, as per settled

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)

depreciation as available with the assessee far exceeded the year-end investment of Rs.5397.85 Lacs and therefore, it not be said that the borrowed funds were utilized for the purpose of business. Further, major portion of investment was made in earlier years and only a part of investment was made in one scrip during the year. Also, as per settled

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)

depreciation as available with the assessee far exceeded the year-end investment of Rs.5397.85 Lacs and therefore, it not be said that the borrowed funds were utilized for the purpose of business. Further, major portion of investment was made in earlier years and only a part of investment was made in one scrip during the year. Also, as per settled

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)

depreciation as available with the assessee far exceeded the year-end investment of Rs.5397.85 Lacs and therefore, it not be said that the borrowed funds were utilized for the purpose of business. Further, major portion of investment was made in earlier years and only a part of investment was made in one scrip during the year. Also, as per settled

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)

depreciation as available with the assessee far exceeded the year-end investment of Rs.5397.85 Lacs and therefore, it not be said that the borrowed funds were utilized for the purpose of business. Further, major portion of investment was made in earlier years and only a part of investment was made in one scrip during the year. Also, as per settled

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)

depreciation as available with the assessee far exceeded the year-end investment of Rs.5397.85 Lacs and therefore, it not be said that the borrowed funds were utilized for the purpose of business. Further, major portion of investment was made in earlier years and only a part of investment was made in one scrip during the year. Also, as per settled

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)

depreciation as available with the assessee far exceeded the year-end investment of Rs.5397.85 Lacs and therefore, it not be said that the borrowed funds were utilized for the purpose of business. Further, major portion of investment was made in earlier years and only a part of investment was made in one scrip during the year. Also, as per settled

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)

depreciation as available with the assessee far exceeded the year-end investment of Rs.5397.85 Lacs and therefore, it not be said that the borrowed funds were utilized for the purpose of business. Further, major portion of investment was made in earlier years and only a part of investment was made in one scrip during the year. Also, as per settled

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)

depreciation as available with the assessee far exceeded the year-end investment of Rs.5397.85 Lacs and therefore, it not be said that the borrowed funds were utilized for the purpose of business. Further, major portion of investment was made in earlier years and only a part of investment was made in one scrip during the year. Also, as per settled

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)

depreciation as available with the assessee far exceeded the year-end investment of Rs.5397.85 Lacs and therefore, it not be said that the borrowed funds were utilized for the purpose of business. Further, major portion of investment was made in earlier years and only a part of investment was made in one scrip during the year. Also, as per settled

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)

depreciation as available with the assessee far exceeded the year-end investment of Rs.5397.85 Lacs and therefore, it not be said that the borrowed funds were utilized for the purpose of business. Further, major portion of investment was made in earlier years and only a part of investment was made in one scrip during the year. Also, as per settled

ILJIN AUTOMOTIVE PRIVATE LIMITED,IRUNGATTUKOTTAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), ),, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1495/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 154(3)

section 154(3) of the Act which is in violation of principles of natural justice and thereby, liable to be quashed. 3. The Ld.DR opposed admitting of the aforesaid additional ground. However, we note that this is a legal issue and adjudication of the said ground is essential for rendering substantial justice and doesn’t require any fresh investigation into

ILJIN AUTOMOTIVE PRIVATE LIMITED,,KANCHIPURAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1496/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 154(3)

section 154(3) of the Act which is in violation of principles of natural justice and thereby, liable to be quashed. 3. The Ld.DR opposed admitting of the aforesaid additional ground. However, we note that this is a legal issue and adjudication of the said ground is essential for rendering substantial justice and doesn’t require any fresh investigation into

ILJIN AUTOMOTIVE PRIVATE LIMITED,KANCHIPURAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1494/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 154(3)

section 154(3) of the Act which is in violation of principles of natural justice and thereby, liable to be quashed. 3. The Ld.DR opposed admitting of the aforesaid additional ground. However, we note that this is a legal issue and adjudication of the said ground is essential for rendering substantial justice and doesn’t require any fresh investigation into