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

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 2. Common issues are raised in these appeals; hence, they were heard together and are being disposed off by this consolidated order. By the consent of both the parties, the appeal

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

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

6,21,70,621/- under section 32 of the Act.\n-5-\nITA Nos.2670 to 2672 & 2698/Chny/2024\n8. The Id. Counsel for the assessee, Shri Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate\nhas submitted that the facts with regard to the scheme of amalgamation,\napproved by the NCLT, vide order dated 19.06.2017, placed at pages 52 to\n59 of paper book set II, came

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

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

6,21,70,621/- under section 32 of the Act.\n-5-\nITA Nos.2670 to 2672 & 2698/Chny/2024\n8.\nThe Id. Counsel for the assessee, Shri Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate\nhas submitted that the facts with regard to the scheme of amalgamation,\napproved by the NCLT, vide order dated 19.06.2017, placed at pages 52 to\n59 of paper book set II, came

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

6. With respect to the claim of depreciation) the decision of Supreme Court in case of Smifs Securities Ltd. (supra) would squarely apply. There is no material referred to by the Assessing Officer to hold that the claim of depreciation was fictitious. If we read his entire expression in this respect) he seems to be suggesting that being an intangible

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

6. With respect to the claim of depreciation) the decision of Supreme Court in case of Smifs Securities Ltd. (supra) would squarely apply. There is no material referred to by the Assessing Officer to hold that the claim of depreciation was fictitious. If we read his entire expression in this respect) he seems to be suggesting that being an intangible

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

6. With respect to the claim of depreciation) the decision of Supreme Court in case of Smifs Securities Ltd. (supra) would squarely apply. There is no material referred to by the Assessing Officer to hold that the claim of depreciation was fictitious. If we read his entire expression in this respect) he seems to be suggesting that being an intangible

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

6. With respect to the claim of depreciation) the decision of Supreme Court in case of Smifs Securities Ltd. (supra) would squarely apply. There is no material referred to by the Assessing Officer to hold that the claim of depreciation was fictitious. If we read his entire expression in this respect) he seems to be suggesting that being an intangible

MITHRA (MADRAS INSTITUTE TO HABILITATE RETARDED AFFLICTED),CHENNAI vs. ITO, WARD 3, CHENNAI, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1839/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Mithra (Madras The Income Tax Officer, Institute To Habilitate Vs. Exemptions Ward 3, Retarded Afflicted), Chennai. Plot No.D-171, R V Nagar, Anna Nagar East, S.O, Anna Nagar, Chennai – 600 102. Pan: Aaatm 0481H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri M. Karuppiah, F.C.A ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam,Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22.09.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.09.2025

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2016-17. :- 2 -: 2. The solitary issue raised is whether the First Appellate Authority (FAA) is justified in confirming AO’s order wherein he had disallowed depreciation of Rs.20,94,730/- and thereby raising a demand of Rs.81,797/-. 3. Brief facts

M/S. V.V.V. & SONS EDIBLE OILS LTD.,,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL-1,, MADURAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

depreciation benefit on the above. However, due to lack of sanction from the statutory authorities to run the school within the factory premises, being an industrial area, the school was shifted to other place. Even now, the said premises is under the occupation of the company and it is used as godown for 50 I.T.A. Nos.2275-2281/Chny/2019 & the business

M/S. V.V.V. & SONS EDIBLE OILS LTD.,,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL-1,, MADURAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

depreciation benefit on the above. However, due to lack of sanction from the statutory authorities to run the school within the factory premises, being an industrial area, the school was shifted to other place. Even now, the said premises is under the occupation of the company and it is used as godown for 50 I.T.A. Nos.2275-2281/Chny/2019 & the business

M/S. V.V.V. & SONS EDIBLE OILS LTD.,,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL-1,, MADURAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

depreciation benefit on the above. However, due to lack of sanction from the statutory authorities to run the school within the factory premises, being an industrial area, the school was shifted to other place. Even now, the said premises is under the occupation of the company and it is used as godown for 50 I.T.A. Nos.2275-2281/Chny/2019 & the business

M/S. V.V.V. & SONS EDIBLE OILS LTD.,,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL-1,, MADURAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

depreciation benefit on the above. However, due to lack of sanction from the statutory authorities to run the school within the factory premises, being an industrial area, the school was shifted to other place. Even now, the said premises is under the occupation of the company and it is used as godown for 50 I.T.A. Nos.2275-2281/Chny/2019 & the business

M/S. V.V.V. & SONS EDIBLE OILS LTD.,,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL-1,, MADURAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

depreciation benefit on the above. However, due to lack of sanction from the statutory authorities to run the school within the factory premises, being an industrial area, the school was shifted to other place. Even now, the said premises is under the occupation of the company and it is used as godown for 50 I.T.A. Nos.2275-2281/Chny/2019 & the business

M/S. V.V.V. & SONS EDIBLE OILS LTD.,,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL-1,, MADURAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

depreciation benefit on the above. However, due to lack of sanction from the statutory authorities to run the school within the factory premises, being an industrial area, the school was shifted to other place. Even now, the said premises is under the occupation of the company and it is used as godown for 50 I.T.A. Nos.2275-2281/Chny/2019 & the business

M/S. V.V.VANNIAPERUMAL & SONS,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. PCIT-2, CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

depreciation benefit on the above. However, due to lack of sanction from the statutory authorities to run the school within the factory premises, being an industrial area, the school was shifted to other place. Even now, the said premises is under the occupation of the company and it is used as godown for 50 I.T.A. Nos.2275-2281/Chny/2019 & the business

M/S. V.V.V. & SONS EDIBLE OILS LTD.,,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL-1,, MADURAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

depreciation benefit on the above. However, due to lack of sanction from the statutory authorities to run the school within the factory premises, being an industrial area, the school was shifted to other place. Even now, the said premises is under the occupation of the company and it is used as godown for 50 I.T.A. Nos.2275-2281/Chny/2019 & the business

J.K.FENNER (INDIA) LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. JCIT, MADURAI

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

6. After elaborately hearing the learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant - Revenue, we are of the considered opinion that the reliance placed on the decision in the case of Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd. (supra), would, in no manner, assist the case of the Revenue. We say so after referring to Circular No. 14/2001 dated

ACIT, MADURAI vs. J.K.FENNER (INDIA) LTD., MADURAI

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

6. After elaborately hearing the learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant - Revenue, we are of the considered opinion that the reliance placed on the decision in the case of Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd. (supra), would, in no manner, assist the case of the Revenue. We say so after referring to Circular No. 14/2001 dated

J.K.FENNER (INDIA) LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. JCIT, MADURAI

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

6. After elaborately hearing the learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant - Revenue, we are of the considered opinion that the reliance placed on the decision in the case of Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd. (supra), would, in no manner, assist the case of the Revenue. We say so after referring to Circular No. 14/2001 dated