LEO FASTENERS,PONDICHERRY vs. DCIT, PONDICHERRY

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

depreciation and allowances are dealt with in section 32. Therefore, Parliament has used the expression " any expenditure" in section 37

LEO FASTENERS,PONDICHERRY vs. DCIT, PONDICHERRY CIRCLE , PONDICHERRY

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2164 & 2165/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2009-10 M/S Leo Fasteners, The Deputy Commissioner Of A-27/A, Industrial Estate, V. Income Tax, Thattanchavady, Pondicherry Circle, Pondicherry – 605 009. Pondicherry. Pan : Aabfl 0652 J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

depreciation and allowances are dealt with in section 32. Therefore, Parliament has used the expression " any expenditure" in section 37

LEO FASTENERS,PONDICHERRY vs. DCIT, PONDICHERRY CIRCLE , PONDICHERRY

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2164 & 2165/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2009-10 M/S Leo Fasteners, The Deputy Commissioner Of A-27/A, Industrial Estate, V. Income Tax, Thattanchavady, Pondicherry Circle, Pondicherry – 605 009. Pondicherry. Pan : Aabfl 0652 J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

depreciation and allowances are dealt with in section 32. Therefore, Parliament has used the expression " any expenditure" in section 37

DCIT CIRCLE 1, TIRUPUR vs. EASTMAN EXPORTS GLOBAL CLOTHING (P) LIMITED, TIRUPUR

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.2227 & 2228/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13) The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs M/S. Eastman Exports Global Tax, Clothing Pvt.Ltd. No.10, 12, 2Nd Street, Kumar Circle-I Tirupur. Nagar South, Tirupur-641 603. Pan: Aaccc 0952E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

depreciation @10% as allowed towards building under the Act. Thus, the AO has made additions to balance amount to the total income of the assessee. 5. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before learned CIT(A). Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee has reiterated its arguments made before the Assessing Officer and submitted that

DCIT CIRCLE 1, TIRUPUR vs. EASTMAN EXPORTS GLOBAL CLOTHING (P) LIMITED, TIRUPUR

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.2227 & 2228/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13) The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs M/S. Eastman Exports Global Tax, Clothing Pvt.Ltd. No.10, 12, 2Nd Street, Kumar Circle-I Tirupur. Nagar South, Tirupur-641 603. Pan: Aaccc 0952E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

depreciation @10% as allowed towards building under the Act. Thus, the AO has made additions to balance amount to the total income of the assessee. 5. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before learned CIT(A). Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee has reiterated its arguments made before the Assessing Officer and submitted that

M/S. STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD.,MADURAI vs. ADDITIONAL CIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

37 of the Act. The Madras High Court in CIT v. Velumanickam Lodge (2009) 317 ITR 338 has considered a similar issue. The assessee before the Madras High Court, a civil contractor, constructed a hockey stadium in the Collectorate complex at Ramanathapuram. The assessee claimed the expenditure for constructing the hockey stadium as revenue expenditure. The Madras High Court after

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

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

37 of the Act. The Madras High Court in CIT v. Velumanickam Lodge (2009) 317 ITR 338 has considered a similar issue. The assessee before the Madras High Court, a civil contractor, constructed a hockey stadium in the Collectorate complex at Ramanathapuram. The assessee claimed the expenditure for constructing the hockey stadium as revenue expenditure. The Madras High Court after

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

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

37 of the Act. The Madras High Court in CIT v. Velumanickam Lodge (2009) 317 ITR 338 has considered a similar issue. The assessee before the Madras High Court, a civil contractor, constructed a hockey stadium in the Collectorate complex at Ramanathapuram. The assessee claimed the expenditure for constructing the hockey stadium as revenue expenditure. The Madras High Court after

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

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

37 of the Act. The Madras High Court in CIT v. Velumanickam Lodge (2009) 317 ITR 338 has considered a similar issue. The assessee before the Madras High Court, a civil contractor, constructed a hockey stadium in the Collectorate complex at Ramanathapuram. The assessee claimed the expenditure for constructing the hockey stadium as revenue expenditure. The Madras High Court after

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

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

37 of the Act. The Madras High Court in CIT v. Velumanickam Lodge (2009) 317 ITR 338 has considered a similar issue. The assessee before the Madras High Court, a civil contractor, constructed a hockey stadium in the Collectorate complex at Ramanathapuram. The assessee claimed the expenditure for constructing the hockey stadium as revenue expenditure. The Madras High Court after

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

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

37 of the Act. The Madras High Court in CIT v. Velumanickam Lodge (2009) 317 ITR 338 has considered a similar issue. The assessee before the Madras High Court, a civil contractor, constructed a hockey stadium in the Collectorate complex at Ramanathapuram. The assessee claimed the expenditure for constructing the hockey stadium as revenue expenditure. The Madras High Court after

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. SOUTHERN PETROCHEMICAL INDUSTRIES CORPN. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar"नधा(रण वष( /Assessment Year: 2003-04

Section 37(1) of the 1961 Act and that no outsiders have used these guest house , thus under these circumstances and keeping in view that it is an old litigation with a view to end litigation and being fair to both the rival parties, we allow 50% of guest house expenses as business expenses while we affirm disallowance of balance

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU CIRCLE 1 CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. E I D PARRY INDIA LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathait(Tp)A. Nos.:105, 106, 107/Chny/2024 & Ita No.3113/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. E.I.D. Parry India Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 234, Dare House, Nsc Vs. Income Tax, Bose Road, Parrys Corner, Large Taxpayer Unit -1, Chennai 600 001. Chennai. [Pan: Aaace-0702-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

depreciation on bogus purchases and addition under section 69A of the Act for AY 2011-12. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 29. The next common ground raised in the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 is with regard to the confirmation

M/S. EID PARRY INDIA LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, LTU-1,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathait(Tp)A. Nos.:105, 106, 107/Chny/2024 & Ita No.3113/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. E.I.D. Parry India Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 234, Dare House, Nsc Vs. Income Tax, Bose Road, Parrys Corner, Large Taxpayer Unit -1, Chennai 600 001. Chennai. [Pan: Aaace-0702-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

depreciation on bogus purchases and addition under section 69A of the Act for AY 2011-12. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 29. The next common ground raised in the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 is with regard to the confirmation

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

section 32 shall be mandatory. 30.3 Under the existing provisions, no deduction for depreciation is allowed on any motor car manufactured outside India unless it is used (i) in the business of running it on hire for tourists, or (ii) outside in the assessee's business or profession in another country. 30.4 The Act has allowed depreciation allowance

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

section 32 shall be mandatory. 30.3 Under the existing provisions, no deduction for depreciation is allowed on any motor car manufactured outside India unless it is used (i) in the business of running it on hire for tourists, or (ii) outside in the assessee's business or profession in another country. 30.4 The Act has allowed depreciation allowance

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

section 32 shall be mandatory. 30.3 Under the existing provisions, no deduction for depreciation is allowed on any motor car manufactured outside India unless it is used (i) in the business of running it on hire for tourists, or (ii) outside in the assessee's business or profession in another country. 30.4 The Act has allowed depreciation allowance

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

section 32 shall be mandatory. 30.3 Under the existing provisions, no deduction for depreciation is allowed on any motor car manufactured outside India unless it is used (i) in the business of running it on hire for tourists, or (ii) outside in the assessee's business or profession in another country. 30.4 The Act has allowed depreciation allowance