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.

129 results for “depreciation”+ Section 255(4)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi381Mumbai380Bangalore136Chennai129Kolkata73Chandigarh51Ahmedabad40Jaipur37Hyderabad23Pune20Amritsar12Raipur9Cochin9Surat9Karnataka9Lucknow9Cuttack8Guwahati8SC6Rajkot6Telangana3Dehradun3Nagpur3Panaji3Visakhapatnam2Jodhpur2Punjab & Haryana1Indore1Gauhati1Calcutta1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)66Disallowance57Addition to Income54Section 4048Deduction40Depreciation37Section 14A32Section 115J30Section 19528Section 5

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. STERLITE INDUSTRIES LTD., TUTICORIN

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1008/CHNY/2011[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Sept 2016AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Dr. Anita Sumanth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. M. Swaminathan, Sr. Standing Counsel
Section 80

4) of the Act, from the book profit for the purpose of computing taxable income under Section 115JA of the Act. 13. Now coming to the Revenue’s appeal, the first ground is with regard to addition of `61 Crores for the purpose of computing book profit under Section 115JA of the Act. 14. Shri M. Swaminathan

M/S. STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD.,TUTICORIN vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Showing 1–20 of 129 · Page 1 of 7

28
Section 10A21
Section 153A20
ITA 718/CHNY/2011[2000-2001]Status: Disposed
ITAT Chennai
23 Sept 2016
AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Dr. Anita Sumanth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. M. Swaminathan, Sr. Standing Counsel
Section 80

4) of the Act, from the book profit for the purpose of computing taxable income under Section 115JA of the Act. 13. Now coming to the Revenue’s appeal, the first ground is with regard to addition of `61 Crores for the purpose of computing book profit under Section 115JA of the Act. 14. Shri M. Swaminathan

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

255(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Under rule 11 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, the appellant shall not, expect by leave of the Tribunal, urge or be heard in support of any ground not set forth in the memorandum of appeal but the Tribunal, in deciding the appeal, shall not be confined to the Tribunal under this rule

ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. CIT, LTU-A,, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2144/CHNY/2008[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Mar 2023AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2144/Chny/2008 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 1998-99 M/S.Ashok Leyland Ltd., V. The Asst. Commissioner – No.1, Sardar Patel Road, Of Income Tax Guindy, Company Circle-I (1), Chennai-600 032. Chennai. [Pan: Aaaca 4651 L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Mr.D.Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263

255 ITR (2000)] the Apex Court held that when the Accounts have been prepared and approved in the Annual General Meeting of the Company and the books of account are certified by the authorities under the Companies Act as having been properly maintained in accordance with the Companies Act and Accounting Standards the Assessing Officer does not have the jurisdiction

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

ITA 2278/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri P. G. Sekar, C.A ""For Respondent: Dr. S. Palani Kumar,CIT
Section 143(3)

4 Mantra Groundnut Oil Cake 24,586,460 5 Sambandhi Ellu 28,593,510 6 SIM SIM Oil 14,260,329 7 Tahini 341,124 8 Wealth 1,091,324 9 DOTS 360,778 10 Hardil and Sarsol (Nominal Value) 60,992 Total Brand Value (for the entity as a 669,345,155 Whole) Less : Variance for Errors in Estimation

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

ITA 2276/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri P. G. Sekar, C.A ""For Respondent: Dr. S. Palani Kumar,CIT
Section 143(3)

4 Mantra Groundnut Oil Cake 24,586,460 5 Sambandhi Ellu 28,593,510 6 SIM SIM Oil 14,260,329 7 Tahini 341,124 8 Wealth 1,091,324 9 DOTS 360,778 10 Hardil and Sarsol (Nominal Value) 60,992 Total Brand Value (for the entity as a 669,345,155 Whole) Less : Variance for Errors in Estimation

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

ITA 2275/CHNY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri P. G. Sekar, C.A ""For Respondent: Dr. S. Palani Kumar,CIT
Section 143(3)

4 Mantra Groundnut Oil Cake 24,586,460 5 Sambandhi Ellu 28,593,510 6 SIM SIM Oil 14,260,329 7 Tahini 341,124 8 Wealth 1,091,324 9 DOTS 360,778 10 Hardil and Sarsol (Nominal Value) 60,992 Total Brand Value (for the entity as a 669,345,155 Whole) Less : Variance for Errors in Estimation

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

ITA 2279/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri P. G. Sekar, C.A ""For Respondent: Dr. S. Palani Kumar,CIT
Section 143(3)

4 Mantra Groundnut Oil Cake 24,586,460 5 Sambandhi Ellu 28,593,510 6 SIM SIM Oil 14,260,329 7 Tahini 341,124 8 Wealth 1,091,324 9 DOTS 360,778 10 Hardil and Sarsol (Nominal Value) 60,992 Total Brand Value (for the entity as a 669,345,155 Whole) Less : Variance for Errors in Estimation

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

ITA 2280/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri P. G. Sekar, C.A ""For Respondent: Dr. S. Palani Kumar,CIT
Section 143(3)

4 Mantra Groundnut Oil Cake 24,586,460 5 Sambandhi Ellu 28,593,510 6 SIM SIM Oil 14,260,329 7 Tahini 341,124 8 Wealth 1,091,324 9 DOTS 360,778 10 Hardil and Sarsol (Nominal Value) 60,992 Total Brand Value (for the entity as a 669,345,155 Whole) Less : Variance for Errors in Estimation

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

ITA 2277/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri P. G. Sekar, C.A ""For Respondent: Dr. S. Palani Kumar,CIT
Section 143(3)

4 Mantra Groundnut Oil Cake 24,586,460 5 Sambandhi Ellu 28,593,510 6 SIM SIM Oil 14,260,329 7 Tahini 341,124 8 Wealth 1,091,324 9 DOTS 360,778 10 Hardil and Sarsol (Nominal Value) 60,992 Total Brand Value (for the entity as a 669,345,155 Whole) Less : Variance for Errors in Estimation

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

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

ITA 1765/CHNY/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri P. G. Sekar, C.A ""For Respondent: Dr. S. Palani Kumar,CIT
Section 143(3)

4 Mantra Groundnut Oil Cake 24,586,460 5 Sambandhi Ellu 28,593,510 6 SIM SIM Oil 14,260,329 7 Tahini 341,124 8 Wealth 1,091,324 9 DOTS 360,778 10 Hardil and Sarsol (Nominal Value) 60,992 Total Brand Value (for the entity as a 669,345,155 Whole) Less : Variance for Errors in Estimation

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

ITA 2281/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri P. G. Sekar, C.A ""For Respondent: Dr. S. Palani Kumar,CIT
Section 143(3)

4 Mantra Groundnut Oil Cake 24,586,460 5 Sambandhi Ellu 28,593,510 6 SIM SIM Oil 14,260,329 7 Tahini 341,124 8 Wealth 1,091,324 9 DOTS 360,778 10 Hardil and Sarsol (Nominal Value) 60,992 Total Brand Value (for the entity as a 669,345,155 Whole) Less : Variance for Errors in Estimation

M/S. ALAGUMALAI IMPEX PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment years are allowed

ITA 214/CHNY/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jul 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri R. Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT
Section 10ASection 10BSection 143(3)Section 14A

4. With regard to the claim of deduction under section 10A/10B of the Act, the assessee has claimed an amount of ₹.76,90,154/- as deduction under section 10A of the Act on the SEZ unit and ₹.55,75,781 as deduction under section 10B of the Act on EOU division. Such deduction has been computed on the assessee

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. ALAGUMALAI IMPEX P. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment years are allowed

ITA 721/CHNY/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jul 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri R. Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT
Section 10ASection 10BSection 143(3)Section 14A

4. With regard to the claim of deduction under section 10A/10B of the Act, the assessee has claimed an amount of ₹.76,90,154/- as deduction under section 10A of the Act on the SEZ unit and ₹.55,75,781 as deduction under section 10B of the Act on EOU division. Such deduction has been computed on the assessee

ALAGUMALAI IMPEX PVT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment years are allowed

ITA 2911/CHNY/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jul 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri R. Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT
Section 10ASection 10BSection 143(3)Section 14A

4. With regard to the claim of deduction under section 10A/10B of the Act, the assessee has claimed an amount of ₹.76,90,154/- as deduction under section 10A of the Act on the SEZ unit and ₹.55,75,781 as deduction under section 10B of the Act on EOU division. Such deduction has been computed on the assessee

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. AREVA T & D INDIA LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed and

ITA 561/CHNY/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Nov 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathan

For Appellant: Mr.Tushar Jarwal, Adv &For Respondent: Mr.S. Bharath, CIT
Section 28

255 ITR 510) wherein, it was observed that (quoting from the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. — (133 ITR 559) any amount transferred by the assessee to the General Reserve is treated as profits of the assessee, the Learned CIT(A) ought to have upheld the action of the Assessing Officer

AREVA T & D LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed and

ITA 668/CHNY/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Nov 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathan

For Appellant: Mr.Tushar Jarwal, Adv &For Respondent: Mr.S. Bharath, CIT
Section 28

255 ITR 510) wherein, it was observed that (quoting from the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. — (133 ITR 559) any amount transferred by the assessee to the General Reserve is treated as profits of the assessee, the Learned CIT(A) ought to have upheld the action of the Assessing Officer

CITY UNION BANK LIMITED,KUMBAKONAM vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2017-18 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1120/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1120 & 1121/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Asst. Commissioner Of Income- Administrative Office V. Tax, “Narayana” Circle -1, 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Kumbakonam. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 672/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of Administrative Office V. Income-Tax, “Narayana” Circle -2(1), 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Trichy. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1418 & 1419/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Income-Tax, V. Administrative Office “Narayana” Circle -1, 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Kumbakonam. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 636/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Income-Tax, V. Administrative Office “Narayana” Circle -2(1), 24-B, Gandhi Nagar

For Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, CIT

255/- 4. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming CSR expenses of Rs.3,53,83,891/- 4.1. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) failed to appreciate the fact the expenses have resulted in generation of goodwill for the bank. 4.2. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) failed to appreciate the fact it is only pure CSR expenses without any other benefit are covered

ACIT CIRCLE 1, KUMBAKONAM vs. CITY UNION BANK LTD., KUMBAKONAM

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2017-18 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1419/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1120 & 1121/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Asst. Commissioner Of Income- Administrative Office V. Tax, “Narayana” Circle -1, 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Kumbakonam. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 672/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of Administrative Office V. Income-Tax, “Narayana” Circle -2(1), 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Trichy. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1418 & 1419/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Income-Tax, V. Administrative Office “Narayana” Circle -1, 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Kumbakonam. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 636/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Income-Tax, V. Administrative Office “Narayana” Circle -2(1), 24-B, Gandhi Nagar

For Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, CIT

255/- 4. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming CSR expenses of Rs.3,53,83,891/- 4.1. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) failed to appreciate the fact the expenses have resulted in generation of goodwill for the bank. 4.2. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) failed to appreciate the fact it is only pure CSR expenses without any other benefit are covered

DCIT CIRCLE-2(1), TRICHY vs. CITY UNION BANK LIMITED, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2017-18 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 636/CHNY/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1120 & 1121/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Asst. Commissioner Of Income- Administrative Office V. Tax, “Narayana” Circle -1, 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Kumbakonam. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 672/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of Administrative Office V. Income-Tax, “Narayana” Circle -2(1), 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Trichy. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1418 & 1419/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Income-Tax, V. Administrative Office “Narayana” Circle -1, 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Kumbakonam. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 636/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Income-Tax, V. Administrative Office “Narayana” Circle -2(1), 24-B, Gandhi Nagar

For Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, CIT

255/- 4. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming CSR expenses of Rs.3,53,83,891/- 4.1. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) failed to appreciate the fact the expenses have resulted in generation of goodwill for the bank. 4.2. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) failed to appreciate the fact it is only pure CSR expenses without any other benefit are covered