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.

71 results for “depreciation”+ Section 208clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai386Delhi313Bangalore83Kolkata80Chennai71Ahmedabad64Chandigarh53Raipur39Jaipur18Hyderabad15Lucknow14Surat14Indore13Pune13Karnataka8Ranchi6Kerala5Visakhapatnam4Rajkot4SC4Telangana4Panaji3Agra3Amritsar2Rajasthan1Allahabad1Calcutta1Cochin1D.K. JAIN H.L. DATTU JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1Nagpur1Orissa1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)56Deduction33Section 80I31Disallowance29Addition to Income29Section 143(1)25Section 14824Section 153A21Section 10A20Section 2(15)

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)

208 Taxman 252 had the opportunity to analyse the principle of ejusdem generis with reference to section 32(1)(ii) of the Act wherein it adjudicated that the words 'business or commercial rights of similar nature' have been additionally used to incorporate other categories of intangible assets which were neither feasible nor possible to exhaustively enumerate apart from that specifically

M/S. TRIVITRON HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. PCIT, , CHENNAI-3

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly\nallowed

ITA 1745/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: Disposed

Showing 1–20 of 71 · Page 1 of 4

18
Section 8014
Condonation of Delay14
ITAT Chennai
05 Dec 2024
AY 2018-19
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 35

208\nAct\n6 21.12.2020 Notice under Section 142(1) of the Act 210\n7 05.01.2021 1st Reply to Notice under Section 142(1) of 214\nthe Act\n8 Form No. 3CK filed for AY: 2018-19 223\n9 Details of warranty & Swabhiman grant 235\nscheme\n10 27.07.2017 Tax Audit Report in Form No. 3CA for AY: 236\n2017

PENTASOFT TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO (OSD), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 121/CHNY/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Nov 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.121/Chny/2011 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2004-05 M/S.Pentasoft Technologies Ltd., V. The Income Tax – No.1, First Main Road, Officer (Osd), United India Colony, Company Circle-V(2), Kodambakkam, Chennai. Chennai – 600 024. [Pan: Aaacp 1895 R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mrs.Sree Lakshmi Valli, AdvFor Respondent: Dr.S.Palanikumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 143(3)

208 (Mad). Therefore, the Ld.CIT(A) is erred in not deciding the issue in light of above decision. 4.2 The Ld.DR, on the other hand, supporting the order of the Ld.CIT(A), submitted that there is no clarity on income derived by the assessee, whether it is from leasing of land & building or any other equipment. Therefore

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. PENTASOFT TECHNOLOGIES LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 449/CHNY/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Nov 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.121/Chny/2011 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2004-05 M/S.Pentasoft Technologies Ltd., V. The Income Tax – No.1, First Main Road, Officer (Osd), United India Colony, Company Circle-V(2), Kodambakkam, Chennai. Chennai – 600 024. [Pan: Aaacp 1895 R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mrs.Sree Lakshmi Valli, AdvFor Respondent: Dr.S.Palanikumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 143(3)

208 (Mad). Therefore, the Ld.CIT(A) is erred in not deciding the issue in light of above decision. 4.2 The Ld.DR, on the other hand, supporting the order of the Ld.CIT(A), submitted that there is no clarity on income derived by the assessee, whether it is from leasing of land & building or any other equipment. Therefore

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)

depreciation from AY 1997-98 up to the AY 2001-02 got carried forward to the AY 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 years, without

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)

depreciation from AY 1997-98 up to the AY 2001-02 got carried forward to the AY 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 years, without

JCIT (OSD), CHENNAI vs. SIFY TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1793/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No. 1650/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S. Sify Technologies Ltd., Tidel Park, 2Nd Floor, Tax, Vs. Large Taxpayer Unit – 1, No.4, Canal Bank Road, Chennai – 600 101. Taramani, Chennai – 600 113. [Pan: Aaacs 9032R] (%&यथ'/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) आयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 1793, 1794 & 1795/Chny/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S. Sify Technologies Ltd., Tidel Park, 2Nd Floor, (Osd), Large Taxpayer Unit – 1, No.4, Canal Bank Road, Chennai – 600 034 Taramani, Chennai – 600 113. [Pan: Aaacs 9032R] (%&यथ'/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant)

For Respondent: Shri.Homi Rajvangh, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 194JSection 40

section 145(2) of the Act. The assessee was regularly following the 'project completion method, which is a recognized method. The completion of each project is determined by 'sign off’. There is nothing on record to show that there was any inconsistency in this regard. The CIT(A) found that the deferred income amounting to Rs.39,68,208 was carried

JCIT (OSD), CHENNAI vs. SIFY TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1794/CHNY/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No. 1650/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S. Sify Technologies Ltd., Tidel Park, 2Nd Floor, Tax, Vs. Large Taxpayer Unit – 1, No.4, Canal Bank Road, Chennai – 600 101. Taramani, Chennai – 600 113. [Pan: Aaacs 9032R] (%&यथ'/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) आयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 1793, 1794 & 1795/Chny/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S. Sify Technologies Ltd., Tidel Park, 2Nd Floor, (Osd), Large Taxpayer Unit – 1, No.4, Canal Bank Road, Chennai – 600 034 Taramani, Chennai – 600 113. [Pan: Aaacs 9032R] (%&यथ'/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant)

For Respondent: Shri.Homi Rajvangh, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 194JSection 40

section 145(2) of the Act. The assessee was regularly following the 'project completion method, which is a recognized method. The completion of each project is determined by 'sign off’. There is nothing on record to show that there was any inconsistency in this regard. The CIT(A) found that the deferred income amounting to Rs.39,68,208 was carried

JCIT (OSD), CHENNAI vs. SIFY TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1795/CHNY/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No. 1650/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S. Sify Technologies Ltd., Tidel Park, 2Nd Floor, Tax, Vs. Large Taxpayer Unit – 1, No.4, Canal Bank Road, Chennai – 600 101. Taramani, Chennai – 600 113. [Pan: Aaacs 9032R] (%&यथ'/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) आयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 1793, 1794 & 1795/Chny/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S. Sify Technologies Ltd., Tidel Park, 2Nd Floor, (Osd), Large Taxpayer Unit – 1, No.4, Canal Bank Road, Chennai – 600 034 Taramani, Chennai – 600 113. [Pan: Aaacs 9032R] (%&यथ'/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant)

For Respondent: Shri.Homi Rajvangh, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 194JSection 40

section 145(2) of the Act. The assessee was regularly following the 'project completion method, which is a recognized method. The completion of each project is determined by 'sign off’. There is nothing on record to show that there was any inconsistency in this regard. The CIT(A) found that the deferred income amounting to Rs.39,68,208 was carried

LETIWIND SHRIRAM MANUFACTURING LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment

ITA 109/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.109 & 110/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15) M/S. Leitwind Shriram Manufacturing Ltd. V Deputy Commissioner Of Income Sreedhar, Suresh & Rajagopalan, C.As., S Tax, 3-B, Green Heaven, New No.26 Corporate Circle-4(1) Third Main Road, Gandhi Nagar, Chennai-34. Adyar,Chennai-600 020. Pan: Aabcl 2825N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. Muralikumar, CITFor Respondent: 13.12.2021
Section 36(1)(iii)

depreciation and development rebate it was necessary to find out ‘the actual cost’ of the plant and machinery purchased by the company. This Court held that ‘cost’ is a word of wider connotation than price’. There was a difference between the price of a machinery and its cost. This Court thereafter pointed out that the expression ‘actual cost

LETIWIND SHRIRAM MANUFACTURING LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment

ITA 110/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.109 & 110/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15) M/S. Leitwind Shriram Manufacturing Ltd. V Deputy Commissioner Of Income Sreedhar, Suresh & Rajagopalan, C.As., S Tax, 3-B, Green Heaven, New No.26 Corporate Circle-4(1) Third Main Road, Gandhi Nagar, Chennai-34. Adyar,Chennai-600 020. Pan: Aabcl 2825N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. Muralikumar, CITFor Respondent: 13.12.2021
Section 36(1)(iii)

depreciation and development rebate it was necessary to find out ‘the actual cost’ of the plant and machinery purchased by the company. This Court held that ‘cost’ is a word of wider connotation than price’. There was a difference between the price of a machinery and its cost. This Court thereafter pointed out that the expression ‘actual cost

CLASSIC LINEN INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee in iTA

ITA 2406/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar"नधा$रण वष$ /Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Respondent: 16.09.2019
Section 100Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40

depreciation allowance under section 32, the written down value of any asset used for the purposes of the business of the undertaking shall be computed as if the assessee had claimed and been actually allowed the deduction in respect of depreciation for each of the relevant assessment year. (7) The provisions of sub-section (8) and sub-section

ARUNA ALLOY STEELS PRIVATES LIMITED,MADURAI vs. ACIT,CORP. CIRCLE-1, MADURAI, MADURAIQ

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2803/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Respondent: Mr.Ashwin D. Gowda
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 156Section 80I

208 ITR 481 and in CIT v. JAYANT PATEL (2001) 248 ITR 199 (Mad) held that the filing of audit report along with the return was not mandatory but directory and that if the audit report was filed at any time before the framing of the assessment, the requirement of the provisions of the Act should be held to have

NATESAN PRECISION COMPONENTS PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORP CIRCLE 4(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1397/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1397/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Natesan Precision Components Dcit, Private Limited, V. Corporate Circle -4(1), No.54/4, Paul Wells Road, Chennai. St. Thomas Mount, Chennai – 600 016. [Pan: Aaacn-9992-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. G. Tarun, Advocate : Shri. T.M. Suganthamala, Addl. Cit ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01.08.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2024

For Appellant: Shri. G. Tarun, Advocate
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 80I

Section 80IB of the Act, there is no obligation on the part of the assessee to file return accompanied by the audit report, thereby, holding that the same is not mandatory. Therefore, it is clear that before the assessment is completed if :-5-: ITA. No: 1397/Chny/2024 such report is filed, no fault could be found against the assessee. That

ROOTS INDUSTRIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE (1), COIMBATORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 46/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.46/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. M/S.Roots Industries India Pvt. Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner – R.K.G. Industrial Estate, Of Income Tax, Ganapathy, Corporate Circle-(1), Coimbatore-641 006. Coimbatore. [Pan: Aabcr 0314 E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Suraj Nahar, CAFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 80I

208 ITR 481 and in CIT v. JAYANT PATEL (2001) 248 ITR 199 (Mad) held that the filing of audit report along with the return was not mandatory but directory and that if the audit report was filed at any time before the framing of the assessment, the requirement of the provisions of the Act should be held to have

M/S ROOPA STEAM CALENDERING WORKS,TIRUPUR vs. DCIT,CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 284/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.284/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Roopa Steam Calendering The Dy. Commissioner Of Works, Income Tax, 647/1, Btra Ginning Compound, Vs. Centralized Processing Center, Palladam Road, Bengaluru. Tirupur – 641 605 [Pan: Aadfr-6895-H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Ms. Joshita Jothi, C.A ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.08.2022 : 18.08.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Ms. Joshita Jothi, C.A ""For Respondent: Shri Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 80Section 80I

208 ITR 4.8.1. / 75 Taxman 529 and in CIT v. Jayant Patel [2001] 248 ITR 199/ 117 Taxman 707 (Mad.) held that the filing of /audit report along with the return was not mandatory but directory and that if the audit report was filed at any time before the framing of the assessment, the requirement of the provisions

YCH LOGISTICS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,KANCHEEPURAM vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 322/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, CAFor Respondent: Dr. S.Palani Kumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92C

208 ITR 958 6) Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Inaroo Ltd., vs. CIT (1993) 204 ITR 312 7) Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Govindram Bros. Pvt. Ltd., (1983) 141 ITR 626 4. On the other hand, the ld.CIT-DR, Dr. S. Palani Kumar opposed admissibility of additional ground

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

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 is as follows

M/S. HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LTD.,KANCHIPURAM vs. PCIT-4, , CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 434/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. Sriram Seshadri, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T
Section 143(3)Section 254Section 263Section 43(1)

208 of paperbook) :-6-: ITA. No:434/Chny/2025 14. It was further buttressed that, the detailed submissions were made on the non-applicability of Explanation 10 to Section 43(1) of the Act (page 149 of paperbook) on the basis that the IPS is not given to offset the cost of fixed assets. It was highlighted that the cost of eligible

ACIT, CC - I (2),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. BALAJI HOTELS & ENTERPRISES LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 208/CHNY/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri V. Nandakumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri D. Anand, Advocate
Section 139Section 139(5)Section 143(3)

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this Section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) : Provided that where an assessment under Sub-section (3) of Section 143 or this Section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall