ACIT (OSD) CORPORATE RANGE 1, CHENNAI vs. DORMA INDIA P. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result appeal filed by

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar

254 CTR 233 has held that non- compete fee will not qualify for depreciation u/s.32(1)(ii) of the 1961 Act. The AO also observed that decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Pentasoft Technologies Ltd., v. DCIT reported in (2014) 41 taxmann.com 120(Mad.) had held that depreciation is to be allowed on payment

ACIT (OSD) CORPORATE RANGE 1, CHENNAI vs. DORMA INDIA P. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result appeal filed by

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar

254 CTR 233 has held that non- compete fee will not qualify for depreciation u/s.32(1)(ii) of the 1961 Act. The AO also observed that decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Pentasoft Technologies Ltd., v. DCIT reported in (2014) 41 taxmann.com 120(Mad.) had held that depreciation is to be allowed on payment

ACIT (OSD) CORPORATE RANGE 1, CHENNAI vs. DORMA INDIA P. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result appeal filed by

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar

254 CTR 233 has held that non- compete fee will not qualify for depreciation u/s.32(1)(ii) of the 1961 Act. The AO also observed that decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Pentasoft Technologies Ltd., v. DCIT reported in (2014) 41 taxmann.com 120(Mad.) had held that depreciation is to be allowed on payment

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

depreciation allowance under section 10(2)(vi) of the Act." Therefore, the Supreme Court clearly said that the Tribunal could permit additional grounds to be raised for the first time before it so long as these additional grounds were the subject-matter of the proceedings; because, quite clearly, the court has interpreted the subject- matter of the appeal widely

MOSBACHER INDIA LLC,CHENNAI vs. ADDL. DIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

depreciation is admissible under section 32" had been omitted; and] (c) to the depletion of mineral oil in the mining area in respect of the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which commercial production is begun and for such succeeding year or years as may be specified in the agreement; and such allowances shall be computed and made

PENTA MEDIA GRAPHICS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result , appeal in ITA no

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Duvvuru R.L.Reddy

3) read with Section 254 of the 1961 Act held that the assessee is entitled for depreciation @ 25% on ‘Digital

PENTA MEDIA GRAPHICS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result , appeal in ITA no

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Duvvuru R.L.Reddy

3) read with Section 254 of the 1961 Act held that the assessee is entitled for depreciation @ 25% on ‘Digital

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 on enhanced cost of assets to the assessee. In view of close connection between circumstances/conditions (ii) and (iii) and in view of my finding on condition No. (iii), I hold that condition No. (ii) is also not satisfied. No case for taking action under Expln. 3 to s. 43(1) has been made out. On facts and circumstances

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 on enhanced cost of assets to the assessee. In view of close connection between circumstances/conditions (ii) and (iii) and in view of my finding on condition No. (iii), I hold that condition No. (ii) is also not satisfied. No case for taking action under Expln. 3 to s. 43(1) has been made out. On facts and circumstances

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 on enhanced cost of assets to the assessee. In view of close connection between circumstances/conditions (ii) and (iii) and in view of my finding on condition No. (iii), I hold that condition No. (ii) is also not satisfied. No case for taking action under Expln. 3 to s. 43(1) has been made out. On facts and circumstances

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 on enhanced cost of assets to the assessee. In view of close connection between circumstances/conditions (ii) and (iii) and in view of my finding on condition No. (iii), I hold that condition No. (ii) is also not satisfied. No case for taking action under Expln. 3 to s. 43(1) has been made out. On facts and circumstances

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 on enhanced cost of assets to the assessee. In view of close connection between circumstances/conditions (ii) and (iii) and in view of my finding on condition No. (iii), I hold that condition No. (ii) is also not satisfied. No case for taking action under Expln. 3 to s. 43(1) has been made out. On facts and circumstances

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 on enhanced cost of assets to the assessee. In view of close connection between circumstances/conditions (ii) and (iii) and in view of my finding on condition No. (iii), I hold that condition No. (ii) is also not satisfied. No case for taking action under Expln. 3 to s. 43(1) has been made out. On facts and circumstances

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 on enhanced cost of assets to the assessee. In view of close connection between circumstances/conditions (ii) and (iii) and in view of my finding on condition No. (iii), I hold that condition No. (ii) is also not satisfied. No case for taking action under Expln. 3 to s. 43(1) has been made out. On facts and circumstances

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 on enhanced cost of assets to the assessee. In view of close connection between circumstances/conditions (ii) and (iii) and in view of my finding on condition No. (iii), I hold that condition No. (ii) is also not satisfied. No case for taking action under Expln. 3 to s. 43(1) has been made out. On facts and circumstances

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

3 is against the disallowance of deduction claimed in respect of wealth tax of Rs.11,63,372/ of Rs.11,63,372/-. 4.1 At the outset, the Ld.AR for the assessee didn’t pre At the outset, the Ld.AR for the assessee didn’t pre At the outset, the Ld.AR for the assessee didn’t press this ground since

ELECTRONICS CORPORATION OF TAMILNADU LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2429 & 2430/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2001-02 & 2003-04 M/S. Electronics Corporation Of Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Tamilnadu Ltd., No. 692, Mhu Income Tax, Complex, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai 600 035. Chennai. [Pan:Aaace1670K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 21.02.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 9, Chennai, Dated 23.06.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2001-02 & 2003-04. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds For The Assessment Year 2001-02: 1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 9, Chennai Dated 23.06.2017 In I.T.A.No.19/Cit(A)-9/2009-10) For The Above Mentioned Assessment Year Is Contrary To Law, Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case.

254 (Mad). 6 I.T.A. Nos.2429 & 2430/Chny/17 5. On the other hand, the ld. DR has pointed that the assessee has simply shown in the return of income under Notes on account by giving the details. Therefore, the assessee has not fully disclosed all the details before the Assessing Officer and submitted that the reopening is valid. 6. We have heard

ELECTRONICS CORPORATION OF TAMILNADU LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2429 & 2430/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2001-02 & 2003-04 M/S. Electronics Corporation Of Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Tamilnadu Ltd., No. 692, Mhu Income Tax, Complex, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai 600 035. Chennai. [Pan:Aaace1670K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 21.02.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 9, Chennai, Dated 23.06.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2001-02 & 2003-04. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds For The Assessment Year 2001-02: 1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 9, Chennai Dated 23.06.2017 In I.T.A.No.19/Cit(A)-9/2009-10) For The Above Mentioned Assessment Year Is Contrary To Law, Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case.

254 (Mad). 6 I.T.A. Nos.2429 & 2430/Chny/17 5. On the other hand, the ld. DR has pointed that the assessee has simply shown in the return of income under Notes on account by giving the details. Therefore, the assessee has not fully disclosed all the details before the Assessing Officer and submitted that the reopening is valid. 6. We have heard

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

3) r.w.s 254 of the Act, accepting the assessee’s claim that IPS amounting to Rs.33 crores was a capital receipt not chargeable to tax and that Explanation 10 to section 43(1) of the Act was not applicable. 5. Subsequently, the Ld. PCIT initiated proceedings u/s.263 of the Act, alleging that the AO failed to properly examine the applicability