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.

181 results for “depreciation”+ Section 200clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai771Delhi675Bangalore294Ahmedabad181Chennai181Kolkata148Jaipur133Hyderabad92Cochin66Pune63Chandigarh51Raipur41Cuttack39Visakhapatnam30Indore26Karnataka23Surat23Lucknow20Rajkot20Ranchi17Dehradun10Amritsar8Telangana8Guwahati8SC7Jodhpur7Agra6Kerala6Nagpur4Allahabad4Panaji4Jabalpur2Patna2S. B. SINHA MARKANDEY KATJU1Rajasthan1Punjab & Haryana1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Varanasi1Calcutta1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)81Addition to Income57Section 14A51Disallowance43Section 153A42Depreciation33Deduction29Section 3528Section 115J25Section 115W

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

depreciation u/s.115JB of the Act as 31.03.2005 for the A.Y.2005- 06. This is erroneous and contrary to the provisions of Section 115JB of the Act. The relevant date is 31.03.2004. In the similar set of facts the issue has been decided in favour of the assessee by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Sumi

Showing 1–20 of 181 · Page 1 of 10

...
18
Section 143(1)17
Section 13215

TAMIL NADU CRICKET ASSOCIATION,CHENNAI vs. DDIT, CHENNAI

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

ITA 1537/CHNY/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2015AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1535, 1536 & 1537/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2010-11 M/S Tamil Nadu Cricket Association, The Deputy Director Of No.5, M.A.Chidambaram Stadium, V. Income Tax (Exemptions), Victoria Hostel Road, Chennai - 600 034. Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005. Pan : Aaaat 0398 M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri V. Ravichandran, CAFor Respondent: Shri N. Rengaraj, CIT
Section 12A

Section 11(2) of the Act. Referring to the order of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for assessment year 2007-08 in I.T.A. No.1851/Mds/201(1) dated 10.04.2012, the Ld. representative submitted that in the assessee's own case for assessment year 2007-08, this Tribunal granted depreciation after following its earlier order in Sri Mariamman Educational Health

TAMIL NADU CRICKET ASSOCIATION,CHENNAI vs. DDIT, CHENNAI

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

ITA 1535/CHNY/2014[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2015AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1535, 1536 & 1537/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2010-11 M/S Tamil Nadu Cricket Association, The Deputy Director Of No.5, M.A.Chidambaram Stadium, V. Income Tax (Exemptions), Victoria Hostel Road, Chennai - 600 034. Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005. Pan : Aaaat 0398 M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri V. Ravichandran, CAFor Respondent: Shri N. Rengaraj, CIT
Section 12A

Section 11(2) of the Act. Referring to the order of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for assessment year 2007-08 in I.T.A. No.1851/Mds/201(1) dated 10.04.2012, the Ld. representative submitted that in the assessee's own case for assessment year 2007-08, this Tribunal granted depreciation after following its earlier order in Sri Mariamman Educational Health

TAMIL NADU CRICKET ASSOCIATION,CHENNAI vs. DDIT, CHENNAI

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

ITA 1536/CHNY/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2015AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1535, 1536 & 1537/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2010-11 M/S Tamil Nadu Cricket Association, The Deputy Director Of No.5, M.A.Chidambaram Stadium, V. Income Tax (Exemptions), Victoria Hostel Road, Chennai - 600 034. Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005. Pan : Aaaat 0398 M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri V. Ravichandran, CAFor Respondent: Shri N. Rengaraj, CIT
Section 12A

Section 11(2) of the Act. Referring to the order of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for assessment year 2007-08 in I.T.A. No.1851/Mds/201(1) dated 10.04.2012, the Ld. representative submitted that in the assessee's own case for assessment year 2007-08, this Tribunal granted depreciation after following its earlier order in Sri Mariamman Educational Health

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU CIRCLE 1 CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. E I D PARRY INDIA LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3251/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathait(Tp)A. Nos.:105, 106, 107/Chny/2024 & Ita No.3113/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. E.I.D. Parry India Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 234, Dare House, Nsc Vs. Income Tax, Bose Road, Parrys Corner, Large Taxpayer Unit -1, Chennai 600 001. Chennai. [Pan: Aaace-0702-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 92BSection 92C

depreciation on bogus purchases and addition under section 69A of the Act for AY 2011-12. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 29. The next common ground raised in the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 is with regard to the confirmation

M/S. EID PARRY INDIA LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, LTU-1,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3113/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathait(Tp)A. Nos.:105, 106, 107/Chny/2024 & Ita No.3113/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. E.I.D. Parry India Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 234, Dare House, Nsc Vs. Income Tax, Bose Road, Parrys Corner, Large Taxpayer Unit -1, Chennai 600 001. Chennai. [Pan: Aaace-0702-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 92BSection 92C

depreciation on bogus purchases and addition under section 69A of the Act for AY 2011-12. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 29. The next common ground raised in the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 is with regard to the confirmation

SUNDARAM CLAYTON LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 6(2), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by Revenue and the assessee

ITA 1356/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

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

For Respondent: Mr. Vikram Vijayaraghavan
Section 14ASection 251(1)(a)Section 260ASection 32(1)(iia)Section 35

200% under section 35(2AB) on the basis of certificate issued by DSIR in form 3CL and accordingly, disallowed a sum of Rs.41,52,000/- out of total deduction claimed by the assessee u/s.35(2AB) of the Act. Further, the assessee has also claimed 100% deduction of R&D expenditure incurred towards building construction amounting to Rs.1

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 6(2), CHENNAI vs. SUNDARAM CLAYTON LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by Revenue and the assessee

ITA 1376/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jun 2021AY 2013-14

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

For Respondent: Mr. Vikram Vijayaraghavan
Section 14ASection 251(1)(a)Section 260ASection 32(1)(iia)Section 35

200% under section 35(2AB) on the basis of certificate issued by DSIR in form 3CL and accordingly, disallowed a sum of Rs.41,52,000/- out of total deduction claimed by the assessee u/s.35(2AB) of the Act. Further, the assessee has also claimed 100% deduction of R&D expenditure incurred towards building construction amounting to Rs.1

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 6(2), CHENNAI vs. SUNDARAM CLAYTON LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by Revenue and the assessee

ITA 1254/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

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

For Respondent: Mr. Vikram Vijayaraghavan
Section 14ASection 251(1)(a)Section 260ASection 32(1)(iia)Section 35

200% under section 35(2AB) on the basis of certificate issued by DSIR in form 3CL and accordingly, disallowed a sum of Rs.41,52,000/- out of total deduction claimed by the assessee u/s.35(2AB) of the Act. Further, the assessee has also claimed 100% deduction of R&D expenditure incurred towards building construction amounting to Rs.1

SUNDARAM CLAYTON LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 6(2), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by Revenue and the assessee

ITA 1355/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jun 2021AY 2013-14

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

For Respondent: Mr. Vikram Vijayaraghavan
Section 14ASection 251(1)(a)Section 260ASection 32(1)(iia)Section 35

200% under section 35(2AB) on the basis of certificate issued by DSIR in form 3CL and accordingly, disallowed a sum of Rs.41,52,000/- out of total deduction claimed by the assessee u/s.35(2AB) of the Act. Further, the assessee has also claimed 100% deduction of R&D expenditure incurred towards building construction amounting to Rs.1

FORD INDIA (P) LTD,CHENNAI vs. DY CIT LTU, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2344/CHNY/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2344 & 2345/Mds/2012 "नधा*रण वष* /Assessment Year: 2005-06 & 2008-09

For Respondent: 28.02.2017
Section 143(3)

200 markets in six continents. Ford India Pvt. Limited (FIPL) is a wholly owned subsidiary of Ford Motor Company, USA (FMC). In February 1995, Ford purchased 5.8% of Mahindra & Mahindra (M&M) and in September 1995, Ford and M&M sought the approval for establishing a joint venture company to manufacture and distribute vehicles and subsequently after getting the approval

FORD INDIA (P) LTD,CHENNAI vs. DY CIT LTU, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2345/CHNY/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 May 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2344 & 2345/Mds/2012 "नधा*रण वष* /Assessment Year: 2005-06 & 2008-09

For Respondent: 28.02.2017
Section 143(3)

200 markets in six continents. Ford India Pvt. Limited (FIPL) is a wholly owned subsidiary of Ford Motor Company, USA (FMC). In February 1995, Ford purchased 5.8% of Mahindra & Mahindra (M&M) and in September 1995, Ford and M&M sought the approval for establishing a joint venture company to manufacture and distribute vehicles and subsequently after getting the approval

SUNDARAM FASTENERS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 6(2), CHENNAI

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

ITA 3236/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3236/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 V. M/S.Sundram Fasteners Ltd., The Dcit, 98-A, 7Th Floor, Corporate Circle-6(2), Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Chennai. Mylapore, Chennai-600 004. [Pan: Aaacs 8779 D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vikaram VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT

200% can be only of Rs.6,76,22,000/- i.e. Rs.13,52,44,000/-. Thus, according to the AO, the excess claim of Rs.68,16,688/- needs to be disallowed and the DRP sustained it. M/s.Sundram Fasteners Ltd. :: 7 :: 4.2 Assailing the action of the AO/DRP, the Ld.AR submitted that the AO erred in disallowing of Rs.68

M/S. ASHOK LEYLAND LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, NCC-8(1), LTU-II, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2379/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.R. VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Mr.Nathala Ravi Babu, CIT
Section 14A

depreciation amounting to Rs. amounting to Rs.15,71,32,419/-. This ground is therefore . This ground is therefore allowed. 6. Ground No. 5 is against the action of the lower authorities denyin Ground No. 5 is against the action of the lower authorities denyin Ground No. 5 is against the action of the lower authorities denying the weighted deduction claimed

NIPPO BATTERIES COMPANY LTD(NOW INDO NATIONAL LTD),CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CC 4(2), CHENNAI

The appeal stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 927/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri AR. V Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 143Section 234BSection 32(1)(iia)Section 35Section 35(2)(A)Section 40Section 40ASection 40A(3)

depreciation of previous year as not correct and proper. 32 (1) (iia) b) Disallowance u/s 40 (a)(3) of Rs.47.000/-: A The appellant objects to the disallowance of Rs.47,000/- applying the provisions of Section 40AB of the Act u/s 40 (a)(3). c) The weighted deduction claimed at 200

K.BHANUMATHI ,CHENNAI vs. THE ACIT, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE -1, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2277/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Dec 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Mr.B.Sagadevan, JCIT, D.RFor Respondent: 04.12.2017
Section 144Section 44A

200 Depreciation 14,546 46,208 LESS:Income chargeable under separate head:- Interest on SB A/c with banks 2,903 (-)5,99,852 The AO estimated the gross receipts from `2,30,000/- from the legal profession and he considered the income at `18,400/- and finally, he added `6,51,557/- to the income of assessee, which

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. I.P. RINGS LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 3538/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri. R.Vijayaraghavan, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, IRS, JCIT
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 35

200/- 04 Additional Depreciation "12,98,174/- 05 Excess claim of deduction u/s.35(2AB) "11,31,458/- 06 Disallowance of pre-operative expenses "1,12,69,187/- 07 Disallowance on depreciation "20,63,101/- Being aggrieved by the above additions, the assessee-company 3. preferred an appeal before ld. CIT(A) who vide impugned order granted relief in respect

I P RINGS LTD,KANCHEEPURAM vs. DCIT, CORP CIT-2(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 3500/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri. R.Vijayaraghavan, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, IRS, JCIT
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 35

200/- 04 Additional Depreciation "12,98,174/- 05 Excess claim of deduction u/s.35(2AB) "11,31,458/- 06 Disallowance of pre-operative expenses "1,12,69,187/- 07 Disallowance on depreciation "20,63,101/- Being aggrieved by the above additions, the assessee-company 3. preferred an appeal before ld. CIT(A) who vide impugned order granted relief in respect

M/S CARBORUNDUM UNIVERSAL LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,LTU-1, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 757/CHNY/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 757/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Carborundum Universal Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 43, Vi Floor, Parry House, Moore Income Tax, Street, Chennai G.P.O. Parrys, Ltu-1, Chennai, Chennai 600 001. Nfac, New Delhi. [Pan:Aaacc2474P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 25.07.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.07.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi Dated 27.04.2023 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2011-12 On 30.11.2011 Admitting A Total Income Of ₹.117,65,52,629/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & Assessment Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 923Ca Of The Income Tax Act

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 35Section 4Section 43A

200% deduction of revenue expenditure amounting to ₹. 70.47 lakhs overlooking the approval granted by DSIR. On this issue excess deduction of Rs.24.18 lakhs was claimed by the assessee. Further in Column 14(d)(ii) of Form 3CD audit report it is reported that the assessee earned foreign exchange gain of ₹.16,29,235/- during the year. It is stated therein

DCIT-15(3)(2), CHENNAI vs. M/S.SHASUN PHARMACEUTICALS PRIVATE LIMITED (MERGED WITH STRIDES SHASUN LIMITED), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of assessee for A

ITA 4945/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2380/Chny/2018 िनधा9रण वष9 /Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Shasun Pharmaceuticals Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner Of (Merged With M/S. Strides Shasun Vs. Income Tax, Ltd., Now Known As Strides Pharma Non Corporate Circle-6(1), Science Ltd.,) Chennai. No.28, Batra Centre, Sardar Patel Road, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. [Pan: Aadcs 8104P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Maithili, Addl. CIT
Section 10B

depreciation at the rate of 10%.” Since the issue is covered against the assessee by the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, supra, these grounds of appeal are dismissed. 4. Grounds No.4 to 6 are relating to allocation of loss of Rs. 11.38 Crores suffered from foreign exchange fluctuation among all the units on the basis of turnover