ADP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Jagadishआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita Nos.: 2670, 2671, 2672 & 2698/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Adp India Private Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of Thamarai Tech Park, 6Th Floor, Vs. Income Tax, Sp Plot No. 16 To 20 & 20A, Thiru Vi Ka Corporate Circle 1(1), Industrial Estate, Inner Ring Road, Chennai. Guindy Industrial Estate So, Guindy, Chennai 600 032. [Pan: Aadcm-5547-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri V. Justin, Cit & Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.05.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R Per George George K: These Four Appeals Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Four Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (All Dated 21.08.2024) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21. Ita Nos.2670 To 2672 & 2698/Chny/2024

25%. 11. With regard to the legal objection of the CIT(A) at page 38 of the impugned order, in light of provisions of section 32(1)(ii) and 6th Proviso (now), provided therein, it has to be examined, whether 5th proviso to section 32(1) of the Act restrict depreciation

ADP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Jagadishआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita Nos.: 2670, 2671, 2672 & 2698/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Adp India Private Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of Thamarai Tech Park, 6Th Floor, Vs. Income Tax, Sp Plot No. 16 To 20 & 20A, Thiru Vi Ka Corporate Circle 1(1), Industrial Estate, Inner Ring Road, Chennai. Guindy Industrial Estate So, Guindy, Chennai 600 032. [Pan: Aadcm-5547-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri V. Justin, Cit & Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.05.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R Per George George K: These Four Appeals Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Four Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (All Dated 21.08.2024) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21. Ita Nos.2670 To 2672 & 2698/Chny/2024

25%. 11. With regard to the legal objection of the CIT(A) at page 38 of the impugned order, in light of provisions of section 32(1)(ii) and 6th Proviso (now), provided therein, it has to be examined, whether 5th proviso to section 32(1) of the Act restrict depreciation

CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, NON CORP CIRCLE 8, CHENNAI

section 148 of the Act and pursuant to it, the assessee filed a letter dated 08.05.2024 and digitally signed original return of income for AY 2009-10 u/s.148 of the Act electronically through online and again requested for reasons recorded for reopening of assessment. According to Ld.AR, then also the AO didn't give copy of the reasons recorded

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX , CHENNAI vs. CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2011-12 is allowed

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

25. Brief facts related to the legal issue are that the assessee is a general insurance company and has filed its return of income for AY 2009-10 on 29.09.2009 declaring a total income of Rs.5,82,72,087/- and Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) of Rs.11,58,141/- thus declaring total income of Rs.5,94,30,228/-. The original

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. TAMIL NADU CRICKET ASSOCIATION, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue as well as the cross-objections of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2556 & 2557/Mds/2016 & C.O. Nos.158 & 159/Mds/2016 (In Ita Nos.2556 & 2557/Mds/2016) "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13

depreciation under Section 32 of the Act. For the purpose of convenience, we are reproducing the decision taken by the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in The Anjuman-E-Himayath-E-Islam (supra):- “5.2 We find this issue is elaborately discussed in the case of Lissie Medical Institution Vs. CIT reported in [2012] 348 ITR 344(Ker.) and held

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. TAMIL NADU CRICKET ASSOCIATION, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue as well as the cross-objections of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2556 & 2557/Mds/2016 & C.O. Nos.158 & 159/Mds/2016 (In Ita Nos.2556 & 2557/Mds/2016) "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13

depreciation under Section 32 of the Act. For the purpose of convenience, we are reproducing the decision taken by the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in The Anjuman-E-Himayath-E-Islam (supra):- “5.2 We find this issue is elaborately discussed in the case of Lissie Medical Institution Vs. CIT reported in [2012] 348 ITR 344(Ker.) and held

ADP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CC-1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

depreciation @ 25%.\n11. With regard to the legal objection of the CIT(A) at page 38 of the\nimpugned order, in light of provisions of section

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

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

section 32(1) of the Income Tax Act as intangible asset. 5. The Assessing Officer, for the assessment year 2013-14, allowed depreciation on differential amount of consideration paid for acquisition of EPC business as cost of plant and machinery and allowed depreciation @ 15% as against depreciation claimed by the assessee at 25

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

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

section 32(1) of the Income Tax Act as intangible asset. 5. The Assessing Officer, for the assessment year 2013-14, allowed depreciation on differential amount of consideration paid for acquisition of EPC business as cost of plant and machinery and allowed depreciation @ 15% as against depreciation claimed by the assessee at 25

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

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

section 32(1) of the Income Tax Act as intangible asset. 5. The Assessing Officer, for the assessment year 2013-14, allowed depreciation on differential amount of consideration paid for acquisition of EPC business as cost of plant and machinery and allowed depreciation @ 15% as against depreciation claimed by the assessee at 25

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

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

section 32(1) of the Income Tax Act as intangible asset. 5. The Assessing Officer, for the assessment year 2013-14, allowed depreciation on differential amount of consideration paid for acquisition of EPC business as cost of plant and machinery and allowed depreciation @ 15% as against depreciation claimed by the assessee at 25

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX , CHENNAI vs. CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

section 148 of the Act and\npursuant to it, the assessee filed a letter dated 08.05.2024 and digitally\nsigned original return of income for AY 2009-10 u/s.148 of the Act\nelectronically through online and again requested for reasons recorded for\nreopening of assessment. According to Ld.AR, then also the AO didn't\ngive copy of the reasons recorded

ADP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

depreciation @ 25%.\n11.\nWith regard to the legal objection of the CIT(A) at page 38 of the\nimpugned order, in light of provisions of section

DDIT, CHENNAI vs. THE BOOKSELLERS & PUBLISHERS ASSOCIATION OF SOUTH INDIA, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1602/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S The Booksellers & Publishers The Deputy Director Of Income Association Of South India, No.8, Sun Plaza, 2Nd Floor, Tax (Exemptions) – I, V. Chennai - 600 034. G.N. Chetty Road, T. Nagar, Chennai - 600 006. Pan : Aabta 2098 R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

depreciation under Section 32 of the Act. For the purpose of convenience, we are reproducing the decision taken by the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in The Anjuman-E- Himayath-E-Islam (supra):- “5.2 We find this issue is elaborately discussed in the case of Lissie Medical Institution Vs. CIT reported in [2012] 348 ITR 344(Ker.) and held

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

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

depreciation @ 25% thereon under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act from assessment year 2003-04 onwards. Further, the assessee

S S I MEDIA INDIA PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, NCC-20(1), CHENNAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2346/Chny/2025 िनधा#रण वष# /Assessment Year: 2011-12

section 143(3) of the Act has submitted before the AO the details of depreciation claimed along with the justification as to why the depreciation is claimed @ 25

CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, NON CORP CIRCLE 8, CHENNAI

section 148 of the Act and\npursuant to it, the assessee filed a letter dated 08.05.2024 and digitally\nsigned original return of income for AY 2009-10 u/s.148 of the Act\nelectronically through online and again requested for reasons recorded for\nreopening of assessment. According to Ld.AR, then also the AO didn't\ngive copy of the reasons recorded

CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, NON CORP CIRCLE 8, CHENNAI

section 148 of the Act and\npursuant to it, the assessee filed a letter dated 08.05.2024 and digitally\nsigned original return of income for AY 2009-10 u/s.148 of the Act\nelectronically through online and again requested for reasons recorded for\nreopening of assessment. According to Ld.AR, then also the AO didn't\ngive copy of the reasons recorded