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.

64 results for “depreciation”+ Section 391clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai260Delhi201Ahmedabad100Bangalore69Chennai64Jaipur41Hyderabad33Kolkata30Pune21Cochin14Indore9Visakhapatnam7Karnataka6Raipur5Lucknow5SC5Cuttack4Guwahati3Amritsar3Allahabad3Agra2Chandigarh2Patna1Panaji1Rajkot1Nagpur1Telangana1Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 10B140Section 14A77Section 143(3)53Depreciation44Section 10A37Deduction35Disallowance34Section 115J25Section 4024Section 148

ADP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 2670/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 May 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Bagmar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin, CIT &
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

Showing 1–20 of 64 · Page 1 of 4

24
Section 14724
Addition to Income19
Section 250
Section 32
Section 43(1)

depreciation on goodwill, which was confirmed by the CIT(A). Thus, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and the addition made by the Assessing Officer stands deleted for all the assessment years under consideration. ITA Nos.2670 to 2672 & 2698/Chny/2024 18. The next ground raised by the assessee in ground Nos. 3.1 to 3.6 for the assessment year

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

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 2672/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 May 2025AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Bagmar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin, CIT &
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 32Section 43(1)

depreciation on goodwill, which was confirmed by the CIT(A). Thus, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and the addition made by the Assessing Officer stands deleted for all the assessment years under consideration. ITA Nos.2670 to 2672 & 2698/Chny/2024 18. The next ground raised by the assessee in ground Nos. 3.1 to 3.6 for the assessment year

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

ITA 570/CHNY/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 32(1)

Section 391 to 394 and all other applicable provisions, if any, of the Act and without any further act or deed shall stand transferred to and vested in and/or be deemed to be transferred to and vested in the Resulting Company as a going concern so as to vest in the Resulting Company all rights, title and interest pertaining

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

ITA 427/CHNY/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 32(1)

Section 391 to 394 and all other applicable provisions, if any, of the Act and without any further act or deed shall stand transferred to and vested in and/or be deemed to be transferred to and vested in the Resulting Company as a going concern so as to vest in the Resulting Company all rights, title and interest pertaining

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

ITA 2164/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 32(1)

Section 391 to 394 and all other applicable provisions, if any, of the Act and without any further act or deed shall stand transferred to and vested in and/or be deemed to be transferred to and vested in the Resulting Company as a going concern so as to vest in the Resulting Company all rights, title and interest pertaining

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

ITA 1520/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 32(1)

Section 391 to 394 and all other applicable provisions, if any, of the Act and without any further act or deed shall stand transferred to and vested in and/or be deemed to be transferred to and vested in the Resulting Company as a going concern so as to vest in the Resulting Company all rights, title and interest pertaining

HARITA FEHRER LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT SALARY CIRCLE II , CHENNAI

Appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 2254/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2254/Chny/2018 (िनधाBरण वषB / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3480/Chny/2018 (िनधाBरण वषB / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3481/Chny/2018 (िनधाBरण वषB / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2746/Chny/2019 (िनधाBरण वषB / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S. Harita Fehrer Limited Dcit-Corporate Circle-2(2) / बनाम/ No.29, Jayalakshmi Estates, Acit, Salary Circle-Ii Vs. Haddows Road, Chennai-600 006. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacch-1037-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : ( !थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Pradeep Dinodia, (Fca), Shri Ravikumar, (Ca) & Shri Anil Kumar, (Ca) - Ld. Ars !थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan (Add.Cit)-Ld. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Dinodia, (FCA)For Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan (Add.CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)

Section 43(1) extends the meaning of 'actual cost' in certain circumstances and grants power to the Assessing Officer to determine the actual cost in the hands of the assessee. The professional service for formulation, development, process support and engineering support was capitalized towards acquisition of in-house blending unit which was a colorable device to claim additional depreciation

HARITA FAHRER LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORP CIR-2(2), CHENNAI

Appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 3480/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2254/Chny/2018 (िनधाBरण वषB / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3480/Chny/2018 (िनधाBरण वषB / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3481/Chny/2018 (िनधाBरण वषB / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2746/Chny/2019 (िनधाBरण वषB / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S. Harita Fehrer Limited Dcit-Corporate Circle-2(2) / बनाम/ No.29, Jayalakshmi Estates, Acit, Salary Circle-Ii Vs. Haddows Road, Chennai-600 006. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacch-1037-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : ( !थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Pradeep Dinodia, (Fca), Shri Ravikumar, (Ca) & Shri Anil Kumar, (Ca) - Ld. Ars !थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan (Add.Cit)-Ld. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Dinodia, (FCA)For Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan (Add.CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)

Section 43(1) extends the meaning of 'actual cost' in certain circumstances and grants power to the Assessing Officer to determine the actual cost in the hands of the assessee. The professional service for formulation, development, process support and engineering support was capitalized towards acquisition of in-house blending unit which was a colorable device to claim additional depreciation

HARITA FEHRER LTD.,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CC - 2 (2),, CHENNAI

Appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 2746/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2254/Chny/2018 (िनधाBरण वषB / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3480/Chny/2018 (िनधाBरण वषB / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3481/Chny/2018 (िनधाBरण वषB / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2746/Chny/2019 (िनधाBरण वषB / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S. Harita Fehrer Limited Dcit-Corporate Circle-2(2) / बनाम/ No.29, Jayalakshmi Estates, Acit, Salary Circle-Ii Vs. Haddows Road, Chennai-600 006. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacch-1037-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : ( !थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Pradeep Dinodia, (Fca), Shri Ravikumar, (Ca) & Shri Anil Kumar, (Ca) - Ld. Ars !थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan (Add.Cit)-Ld. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Dinodia, (FCA)For Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan (Add.CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)

Section 43(1) extends the meaning of 'actual cost' in certain circumstances and grants power to the Assessing Officer to determine the actual cost in the hands of the assessee. The professional service for formulation, development, process support and engineering support was capitalized towards acquisition of in-house blending unit which was a colorable device to claim additional depreciation

HARITA FAHRER LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORP CIR-2(2), CHENNAI

Appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 3481/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2254/Chny/2018 (िनधाBरण वषB / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3480/Chny/2018 (िनधाBरण वषB / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3481/Chny/2018 (िनधाBरण वषB / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2746/Chny/2019 (िनधाBरण वषB / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S. Harita Fehrer Limited Dcit-Corporate Circle-2(2) / बनाम/ No.29, Jayalakshmi Estates, Acit, Salary Circle-Ii Vs. Haddows Road, Chennai-600 006. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacch-1037-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : ( !थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Pradeep Dinodia, (Fca), Shri Ravikumar, (Ca) & Shri Anil Kumar, (Ca) - Ld. Ars !थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan (Add.Cit)-Ld. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Dinodia, (FCA)For Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan (Add.CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)

Section 43(1) extends the meaning of 'actual cost' in certain circumstances and grants power to the Assessing Officer to determine the actual cost in the hands of the assessee. The professional service for formulation, development, process support and engineering support was capitalized towards acquisition of in-house blending unit which was a colorable device to claim additional depreciation

ACIT, ERODE vs. SKM EGG PRODUCTS EXPORT (INDIA) LIMITED, ERODE

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 386/CHNY/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Nov 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Mr.G.Baskar, Adv
Section 10ASection 10BSection 150Section 28Section 32(1)Section 32(2)Section 72

depreciation. The relevant para of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Yokogowa India Ltd., reported in 391 ITR 274 is extracted below for reference: 17. If the specific provisions of the Act provide [first proviso to Sections

ACIT, ERODE vs. SKM EGG PRODUCTS EXPORT (INDIA) LIMITED, ERODE

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 383/CHNY/2018[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Nov 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Mr.G.Baskar, Adv
Section 10ASection 10BSection 150Section 28Section 32(1)Section 32(2)Section 72

depreciation. The relevant para of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Yokogowa India Ltd., reported in 391 ITR 274 is extracted below for reference: 17. If the specific provisions of the Act provide [first proviso to Sections

ACIT, ERODE vs. SKM EGG PRODUCTS EXPORT (INDIA) LIMITED, ERODE

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 385/CHNY/2018[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Nov 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Mr.G.Baskar, Adv
Section 10ASection 10BSection 150Section 28Section 32(1)Section 32(2)Section 72

depreciation. The relevant para of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Yokogowa India Ltd., reported in 391 ITR 274 is extracted below for reference: 17. If the specific provisions of the Act provide [first proviso to Sections

ACIT, ERODE vs. SKM EGG PRODUCTS EXPORT (INDIA) LIMITED, ERODE

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 384/CHNY/2018[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Nov 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Mr.G.Baskar, Adv
Section 10ASection 10BSection 150Section 28Section 32(1)Section 32(2)Section 72

depreciation. The relevant para of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Yokogowa India Ltd., reported in 391 ITR 274 is extracted below for reference: 17. If the specific provisions of the Act provide [first proviso to Sections

ACIT, ERODE vs. SKM EGG PRODUCTS EXPORT (INDIA) LIMITED, ERODE

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 387/CHNY/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Nov 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Mr.G.Baskar, Adv
Section 10ASection 10BSection 150Section 28Section 32(1)Section 32(2)Section 72

depreciation. The relevant para of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Yokogowa India Ltd., reported in 391 ITR 274 is extracted below for reference: 17. If the specific provisions of the Act provide [first proviso to Sections

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE, MADURAI vs. M/S RAMCO SYSTEMS LIMITED, RAJAPALAYAM

ITA 1269/CHNY/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Nov 2024AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Mr.S. Muralidhar, FCA &For Respondent: Mr. Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154

391/- and adjusted/setoff unabsorbed depreciation to such extent, resulting NIL taxable income. 4. Meanwhile, the AO issued impugned notice u/s.148 of the Act on 30.03.2016 by taking note that the assessee company had set off unabsorbed depreciation loss related to AY 2000-01 of Rs.1,22,19,604/- with current business income and unabsorbed depreciation loss related

DCIT, COIMBATORE vs. T.STANES AND COMPANY LIMITED, COIMBATORE

In the result, for the AY 2011-12, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes and for the AY 2010-11, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1386/CHNY/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Dec 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.888/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Respondent: Mr. Vijayaraghavan, Adv
Section 115J

391/- as expenditure (net amount of Rs. 432.67-373.76). The assessee did not furnish the proof and details regarding the expenditure incurred by the company. It is the duty of the assessee to produce necessary evidence to show that the entire expenditure is incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. ITA No.888 & 1386/Mds./2015 :- 6 -: In this case

DCIT, COIMBATORE vs. T. STANES & COMPANY LTD., COIMBATORE

In the result, for the AY 2011-12, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes and for the AY 2010-11, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 888/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.888/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Respondent: Mr. Vijayaraghavan, Adv
Section 115J

391/- as expenditure (net amount of Rs. 432.67-373.76). The assessee did not furnish the proof and details regarding the expenditure incurred by the company. It is the duty of the assessee to produce necessary evidence to show that the entire expenditure is incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. ITA No.888 & 1386/Mds./2015 :- 6 -: In this case

ITO CORPORATE WARD 4(1), CHENNAI vs. MEDUSA SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2416/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru R.L. Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2416/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Income Tax Officer, M/S. Medusa Services Pvt. Ltd., Corporate Ward 4(1), Vs. No. 93, First Floor, Lakshmi Tower, Chennai 600 034. Arcot Road, Kodambakkam, Chennai 600 024. [Pan:Aaecm1187F] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. R. Anita, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Vepa Krishna, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06.02.2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.02.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

For Appellant: Ms. R. Anita, JCITFor Respondent: Shri Vepa Krishna, C.A
Section 10ASection 10BSection 143(3)Section 147

section 10B of the Act prior to giving effect to the brought forward depreciation of earlier years. 3. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. We have heard both the sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. While affirming the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court

ACIT, ERODE vs. SKM EGG PRODUCTS EXPORT (INDIA) LIMITED, ERODE

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

ITA 3556/CHNY/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jul 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 3556 & 3557/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Skm Egg Products Export (I) Ltd., Income Tax Circle 1, Vs. No. 185, Chennimalai Road, No. 15, Gandhiji Road, Erode 638 001. Erode 638 001. [Pan: Aaccs7160G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Sailendra Mamidi, Pcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.07.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: Both The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 3, Coimbatore Both Dated 31.10.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2009-10. In Both The Appeals, The Revenue Has Raised Following Common Grounds: “1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Cit(A) Is Right In Allowing The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Order U/S 154 Of A.O. Dated 13.02.2018 Directing To Allow Set Off Of Available Brought Forward Unabsorbed 'Depreciation Losses After Giving Effect To The Order Of The Cit(A) In The Assessee'S Own Case For The A.Y. 2008-09?

For Appellant: Shri Sailendra Mamidi, PCITFor Respondent: Shri G. Baskar, Advocate
Section 10BSection 10B(6)Section 10B(6)(i)Section 10B(8)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 264

depreciation or loss relating to the assessment years when the assessee had opted out of section 10A of the Act, which was followed by the ld. CIT(A) while allowing the appeals of the assessee. While affirming the above decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. 9 I.T.A. Nos. 3556 & 3557/Chny/18 Yokogawa India