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.

130 results for “depreciation”+ Section 350clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai400Delhi383Bangalore162Chennai130Ahmedabad63Kolkata56Jaipur40Hyderabad30Rajkot20Visakhapatnam14Indore12Pune12Chandigarh10Amritsar10SC9Raipur9Guwahati8Surat6Karnataka6Lucknow4Cochin3Dehradun2Calcutta2Telangana2Cuttack1Jodhpur1Panaji1Ranchi1

Key Topics

Section 143(1)55Depreciation52Section 143(3)50Disallowance46Section 14A44Addition to Income44Section 14839Reopening of Assessment25Section 115J18

INDUS FINANCE CORPORATION LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 1348/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1348/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-2013. M/S. Indus Finance Corporation Ltd, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner 4Th Floor, Kothari Building, Of Income Tax, 114, M.G. Road, Nungambakkam, Corporate Circle 2(2) Chennai 600 034. Chennai.

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri ARV. Sreenivasan, IRS, JCIT
Section 115JSection 28Section 43B

350. ................. .................. 5 a) "specified period" in respect of any depreciable asset shall mean the number of years at the end of which at least ninety-five per cent. of the original cost of that asset to the company will have been provided for by way of depreciation if depreciation were to be calculated in accordance with the provisions of section

Showing 1–20 of 130 · Page 1 of 7

Section 80I17
Deduction16
Section 13(1)(c)15

ITO,CW-1(1), CHENNAI vs. INSPIRISYS SOLUTIONS LTD, KILPAUK

The appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 9/CHNY/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.9,10 & 11/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2014-15 & 2015-2016) & C.O.Nos.5, 6 &7/Chny/2023 (In Ita Nos.9,10 & 11/Chny/2022) The Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. Inspirisys Solutions Limited, Corporate Ward 1(1) First Floor, New Door Nos. 57,59,63 & 64, Chennai 600 034. Dowlath Towers, Taylors Road, Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010. [Pan: Aaaca 5622M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (Respondent/ Cross Objector) Department By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Irs, Cit. Shri. Arv Srinivasan, Irs, Addl. Cit Assessee By : Shri. N.V. Balaji, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2024

For Appellant: Shri. N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, IRS, CIT
Section 14ASection 253

depreciation. Looking to the nature of the advantage which the assessee obtained in a commercial sense, the expenditure appears to be revenue expenditure.' 13. Thereafter, the Apex Court referring to several cases decided held as under: 25 ITA Nos.9-11/Chny/2022 & CO Nos. 5-7/Chny/2023 "11.All these cases have looked upon expenditure which did bring about some kind of an enduring

ITO,CW-1(1), CHENNAI vs. INSPIRISYS SOLUTIONS LTD, CHENNAI

The appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 11/CHNY/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.9,10 & 11/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2014-15 & 2015-2016) & C.O.Nos.5, 6 &7/Chny/2023 (In Ita Nos.9,10 & 11/Chny/2022) The Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. Inspirisys Solutions Limited, Corporate Ward 1(1) First Floor, New Door Nos. 57,59,63 & 64, Chennai 600 034. Dowlath Towers, Taylors Road, Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010. [Pan: Aaaca 5622M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (Respondent/ Cross Objector) Department By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Irs, Cit. Shri. Arv Srinivasan, Irs, Addl. Cit Assessee By : Shri. N.V. Balaji, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2024

For Appellant: Shri. N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, IRS, CIT
Section 14ASection 253

depreciation. Looking to the nature of the advantage which the assessee obtained in a commercial sense, the expenditure appears to be revenue expenditure.' 13. Thereafter, the Apex Court referring to several cases decided held as under: 25 ITA Nos.9-11/Chny/2022 & CO Nos. 5-7/Chny/2023 "11.All these cases have looked upon expenditure which did bring about some kind of an enduring

ITO, CW-1(1), CHENNAI vs. INSPIRISYS SOLUTIONS LIMITED, CHENNAI

The appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 10/CHNY/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.9,10 & 11/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2014-15 & 2015-2016) & C.O.Nos.5, 6 &7/Chny/2023 (In Ita Nos.9,10 & 11/Chny/2022) The Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. Inspirisys Solutions Limited, Corporate Ward 1(1) First Floor, New Door Nos. 57,59,63 & 64, Chennai 600 034. Dowlath Towers, Taylors Road, Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010. [Pan: Aaaca 5622M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (Respondent/ Cross Objector) Department By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Irs, Cit. Shri. Arv Srinivasan, Irs, Addl. Cit Assessee By : Shri. N.V. Balaji, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2024

For Appellant: Shri. N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, IRS, CIT
Section 14ASection 253

depreciation. Looking to the nature of the advantage which the assessee obtained in a commercial sense, the expenditure appears to be revenue expenditure.' 13. Thereafter, the Apex Court referring to several cases decided held as under: 25 ITA Nos.9-11/Chny/2022 & CO Nos. 5-7/Chny/2023 "11.All these cases have looked upon expenditure which did bring about some kind of an enduring

HIGH ENERGY BATTERIES INDIA LTD,CHENNAI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD 2 (3), CHENNAI

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

ITA 1258/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1258/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 High Energy Batteries India Ltd., The Income Tax Officer, No. 13, Esvin House, Old Vs. Corporate Ward 2(3), Mahabalipuram Road, 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai 600 096. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aaach1479H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.10.2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.12.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 6, Chennai, Dated 30.01.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: 1.1 The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ao In Allowing Only Depreciation @15% On Bolero Van As Against The Claim By The Appellant That It Should Be Totally Allowed As An Expenditure. 1.2 The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Failed To Note That Since The Vehicle Is Being Used For Research & Development Its Entire Cost Is Entitled For 100% Deduction U/S.35(1)(Iv) Of The Income Tax Act.

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35(1)(iv)

depreciation under section 35(1)(iv) of the Act stands allowed. 5. The next ground raised in the appeal of the assessee relates to confirmation of disallowance of ₹.14,46,000/- being the loss on silver futures. Since the assessee has not provided the supporting documents in proof of loss on commodities trading in silver futures, the Assessing Officer

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. KASTURI AND SONS LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, all the Revenue’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2014/CHNY/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2017AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Sh. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Jeyakumar, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 148

Section 32 of the Act, the Ld.counsel submitted that this is not applicable to the facts of the case since the expenditure was incurred on lease premises. The Ld.counsel placed his reliance on the judgment of Madras High Court in Thiru Arooran Sugar Ltd. v. DCIT (350 ITR 324). The Ld.counsel has also placed his reliance on the judgments

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. KASTURI AND SONS LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, all the Revenue’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2015/CHNY/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2017AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Sh. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Jeyakumar, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 148

Section 32 of the Act, the Ld.counsel submitted that this is not applicable to the facts of the case since the expenditure was incurred on lease premises. The Ld.counsel placed his reliance on the judgment of Madras High Court in Thiru Arooran Sugar Ltd. v. DCIT (350 ITR 324). The Ld.counsel has also placed his reliance on the judgments

KASTURI AND SONS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the Revenue’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1619/CHNY/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2017AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Sh. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Jeyakumar, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 148

Section 32 of the Act, the Ld.counsel submitted that this is not applicable to the facts of the case since the expenditure was incurred on lease premises. The Ld.counsel placed his reliance on the judgment of Madras High Court in Thiru Arooran Sugar Ltd. v. DCIT (350 ITR 324). The Ld.counsel has also placed his reliance on the judgments

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. KASTURI AND SONS LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, all the Revenue’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2012/CHNY/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2017AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Sh. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Jeyakumar, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 148

Section 32 of the Act, the Ld.counsel submitted that this is not applicable to the facts of the case since the expenditure was incurred on lease premises. The Ld.counsel placed his reliance on the judgment of Madras High Court in Thiru Arooran Sugar Ltd. v. DCIT (350 ITR 324). The Ld.counsel has also placed his reliance on the judgments

KASTURI AND SONS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the Revenue’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1615/CHNY/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2017AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Sh. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Jeyakumar, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 148

Section 32 of the Act, the Ld.counsel submitted that this is not applicable to the facts of the case since the expenditure was incurred on lease premises. The Ld.counsel placed his reliance on the judgment of Madras High Court in Thiru Arooran Sugar Ltd. v. DCIT (350 ITR 324). The Ld.counsel has also placed his reliance on the judgments

KASTURI AND SONS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the Revenue’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1614/CHNY/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2017AY 2006-07

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

For Appellant: Sh. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Jeyakumar, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 148

Section 32 of the Act, the Ld.counsel submitted that this is not applicable to the facts of the case since the expenditure was incurred on lease premises. The Ld.counsel placed his reliance on the judgment of Madras High Court in Thiru Arooran Sugar Ltd. v. DCIT (350 ITR 324). The Ld.counsel has also placed his reliance on the judgments

KASTURI AND SONS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the Revenue’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1617/CHNY/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2017AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Sh. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Jeyakumar, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 148

Section 32 of the Act, the Ld.counsel submitted that this is not applicable to the facts of the case since the expenditure was incurred on lease premises. The Ld.counsel placed his reliance on the judgment of Madras High Court in Thiru Arooran Sugar Ltd. v. DCIT (350 ITR 324). The Ld.counsel has also placed his reliance on the judgments

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. KASTURI AND SONS LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, all the Revenue’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2013/CHNY/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2017AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Sh. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Jeyakumar, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 148

Section 32 of the Act, the Ld.counsel submitted that this is not applicable to the facts of the case since the expenditure was incurred on lease premises. The Ld.counsel placed his reliance on the judgment of Madras High Court in Thiru Arooran Sugar Ltd. v. DCIT (350 ITR 324). The Ld.counsel has also placed his reliance on the judgments

KASTURI AND SONS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the Revenue’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1611/CHNY/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2017AY 2004-05

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

For Appellant: Sh. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Jeyakumar, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 148

Section 32 of the Act, the Ld.counsel submitted that this is not applicable to the facts of the case since the expenditure was incurred on lease premises. The Ld.counsel placed his reliance on the judgment of Madras High Court in Thiru Arooran Sugar Ltd. v. DCIT (350 ITR 324). The Ld.counsel has also placed his reliance on the judgments

KASTURI AND SONS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the Revenue’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1613/CHNY/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2017AY 2005-06

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

For Appellant: Sh. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Jeyakumar, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 148

Section 32 of the Act, the Ld.counsel submitted that this is not applicable to the facts of the case since the expenditure was incurred on lease premises. The Ld.counsel placed his reliance on the judgment of Madras High Court in Thiru Arooran Sugar Ltd. v. DCIT (350 ITR 324). The Ld.counsel has also placed his reliance on the judgments

KASTURI AND SONS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the Revenue’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2106/CHNY/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2017AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Sh. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Jeyakumar, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 148

Section 32 of the Act, the Ld.counsel submitted that this is not applicable to the facts of the case since the expenditure was incurred on lease premises. The Ld.counsel placed his reliance on the judgment of Madras High Court in Thiru Arooran Sugar Ltd. v. DCIT (350 ITR 324). The Ld.counsel has also placed his reliance on the judgments

KASTURI AND SONS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the Revenue’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1616/CHNY/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2017AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Sh. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Jeyakumar, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 148

Section 32 of the Act, the Ld.counsel submitted that this is not applicable to the facts of the case since the expenditure was incurred on lease premises. The Ld.counsel placed his reliance on the judgment of Madras High Court in Thiru Arooran Sugar Ltd. v. DCIT (350 ITR 324). The Ld.counsel has also placed his reliance on the judgments

KASTURI AND SONS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the Revenue’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1618/CHNY/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2017AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Sh. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Jeyakumar, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 148

Section 32 of the Act, the Ld.counsel submitted that this is not applicable to the facts of the case since the expenditure was incurred on lease premises. The Ld.counsel placed his reliance on the judgment of Madras High Court in Thiru Arooran Sugar Ltd. v. DCIT (350 ITR 324). The Ld.counsel has also placed his reliance on the judgments

KASTURI AND SONS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the Revenue’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1612/CHNY/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2017AY 2005-06

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

For Appellant: Sh. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Jeyakumar, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 148

Section 32 of the Act, the Ld.counsel submitted that this is not applicable to the facts of the case since the expenditure was incurred on lease premises. The Ld.counsel placed his reliance on the judgment of Madras High Court in Thiru Arooran Sugar Ltd. v. DCIT (350 ITR 324). The Ld.counsel has also placed his reliance on the judgments

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. KASTURI & SONS LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, all the Revenue’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2252/CHNY/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2017AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Sh. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Jeyakumar, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 148

Section 32 of the Act, the Ld.counsel submitted that this is not applicable to the facts of the case since the expenditure was incurred on lease premises. The Ld.counsel placed his reliance on the judgment of Madras High Court in Thiru Arooran Sugar Ltd. v. DCIT (350 ITR 324). The Ld.counsel has also placed his reliance on the judgments