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.

806 results for “depreciation”+ Section 40clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,613Delhi2,310Bangalore984Chennai806Ahmedabad648Kolkata571Jaipur306Hyderabad291Pune260Chandigarh180Raipur156Indore124Surat119Visakhapatnam115Cochin109Amritsar103Karnataka94Cuttack92Ranchi55Rajkot55Lucknow47Nagpur46Guwahati43SC34Telangana27Patna21Jodhpur21Dehradun20Kerala19Agra17Allahabad14Jabalpur10Panaji9Calcutta8Varanasi6Punjab & Haryana3Rajasthan2D.K. JAIN H.L. DATTU JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1Orissa1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Tripura1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)102Section 4088Disallowance67Addition to Income54Deduction51Section 14741Section 19536Section 14A34Section 80H28Section 5

M.ARUNACHALAM AND COMPANY,CHENNAI vs. JCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1353/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Apr 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1352 & 1353/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11 M/S M. Arunachalam & Company, The Joint / Assistant No.117/79, Lloyds Road, V. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Royapettah, Chennai - 600 014. Business Range Viii, Chennai - 600 006. Pan : Aaafm 6851 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J. Chandrasekaran, CAFor Respondent: Sh. P. Radhakrishnan, JCIT

depreciation on the very same asset is not justified. 10. Now coming to assessment year 2010-11 in I.T.A. No.1353/Mds/2015, the first issue arises for consideration is with regard to disallowance under Section 40

M.ARUNACHALAM AND COMPANY,CHENNAI vs. JCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1352/CHNY/2015[2009-10]Status: Disposed

Showing 1–20 of 806 · Page 1 of 41

...
26
Depreciation26
TDS26
ITAT Chennai
07 Apr 2016
AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1352 & 1353/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11 M/S M. Arunachalam & Company, The Joint / Assistant No.117/79, Lloyds Road, V. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Royapettah, Chennai - 600 014. Business Range Viii, Chennai - 600 006. Pan : Aaafm 6851 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J. Chandrasekaran, CAFor Respondent: Sh. P. Radhakrishnan, JCIT

depreciation on the very same asset is not justified. 10. Now coming to assessment year 2010-11 in I.T.A. No.1353/Mds/2015, the first issue arises for consideration is with regard to disallowance under Section 40

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

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)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

CRR LEATHERS,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

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

ITA 616/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Aug 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.616/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2008-09 M/S. Crr Leathers, The Income Tax Officer, 9/5, Patnool Sardarjung Street, Vs. Non Corporate Ward 4(3), Periamet, Chennai 600 003. Chennai 600 006. [Pan: Aaafc4173G] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri K. Ravi, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.06.2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.08.2017 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) 5, Chennai Dated 27.10.2016 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2008-09, Wherein, In The Grounds Appeal, Besides Challenging The Confirmation Of Various Additions For Want Of Tds Under Section 195 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short], The Assessee Has Mainly Challenged Confirmation Of Reopening Of Assessment, Which Is Barred By Limitation.

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. Ravi, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 195Section 40

40(A)(2) of the Act during the course of reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act beyond the expiry of four years from the end of the assessment year under consideration. While doing so, the Assessing Officer has not brought on record any new tangible materials for reopening of assessment already concluded under section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU CIRCLE 1 , NUNGAMBAKKAM CHENNAI vs. SIFY TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED , TARAMANI CHENNAI

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

ITA 2889/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1458, 1950 & 2889/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2020-21, 2017-18 & 2012-13 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Sify Technologies Limited, Income Tax/Acit, Ii Floor, Tidel Park No. 4, Ttt1 Large Taxpayer Unit Circle 1, Taramani S.O., Taramani, Chennai. Chennai 600 113. [Pan:Aaacs9032R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Shivanand K Kalakeri, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Three Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Separate Orders Dated 19.02.2024, 07.08.2023 & 08.08.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Years 2020-21, 2017-18 & 2012-13. 2. Since Issues Raised In These Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed

For Appellant: Shri Shivanand K Kalakeri, CITFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate

section 40(a)(i) of the Act on 8 I.T.A. Nos.1458, 1950 & 2889/Chny/24 account of legal & professional charges, other networking cost and advertising, selling & marketing expenses. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. We note that the ld. CIT(A), by following Tribunal’s order for earlier assessment years

ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE LTU 1 CHENNAI, NUNGAMBAKKAM vs. SIFY TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, CHENNAI

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

ITA 1950/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1458, 1950 & 2889/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2020-21, 2017-18 & 2012-13 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Sify Technologies Limited, Income Tax/Acit, Ii Floor, Tidel Park No. 4, Ttt1 Large Taxpayer Unit Circle 1, Taramani S.O., Taramani, Chennai. Chennai 600 113. [Pan:Aaacs9032R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Shivanand K Kalakeri, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Three Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Separate Orders Dated 19.02.2024, 07.08.2023 & 08.08.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Years 2020-21, 2017-18 & 2012-13. 2. Since Issues Raised In These Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed

For Appellant: Shri Shivanand K Kalakeri, CITFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate

section 40(a)(i) of the Act on 8 I.T.A. Nos.1458, 1950 & 2889/Chny/24 account of legal & professional charges, other networking cost and advertising, selling & marketing expenses. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. We note that the ld. CIT(A), by following Tribunal’s order for earlier assessment years

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. SIFY TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, CHENNAI

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

ITA 1458/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1458, 1950 & 2889/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2020-21, 2017-18 & 2012-13 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Sify Technologies Limited, Income Tax/Acit, Ii Floor, Tidel Park No. 4, Ttt1 Large Taxpayer Unit Circle 1, Taramani S.O., Taramani, Chennai. Chennai 600 113. [Pan:Aaacs9032R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Shivanand K Kalakeri, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Three Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Separate Orders Dated 19.02.2024, 07.08.2023 & 08.08.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Years 2020-21, 2017-18 & 2012-13. 2. Since Issues Raised In These Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed

For Appellant: Shri Shivanand K Kalakeri, CITFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate

section 40(a)(i) of the Act on 8 I.T.A. Nos.1458, 1950 & 2889/Chny/24 account of legal & professional charges, other networking cost and advertising, selling & marketing expenses. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. We note that the ld. CIT(A), by following Tribunal’s order for earlier assessment years

R STAHL PRIVATE LIMITED,KANCHEEPURAM vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-5(2), CHENNAI

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 55/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Rahul Chaudharyआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A No.:55/Chny/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2013 - 2014

For Appellant: Ashik Shah, C.AFor Respondent: S. Palani Kumar, CIT
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 92C

Section 92CA(4) and 144C(1) of the Act prosing transfer pricing addition of INR 2,63,22,674/-. In addition, the Assessing Officer, rejected the claim of carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation of INR 2,09,40

ABAN OFFSHORE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly

ITA 450/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jun 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohana Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pathlavath Peerya, CIT
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 24Section 36(1)(iii)Section 48Section 92C

depreciation made by the assessee does not fall within any of the categories mentioned in the aforesaid provision. Therefore, it is not possible to make the impugned disallowance by resorting to the provisions of section 40

EURO SHOES COMPONENTS LTD,VELLORE vs. ACIT , VELLORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1596/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Nov 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1595 & 1596/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S Euro Shoe Components Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of No.478/30A, Coromandal Road, V. Income Tax, Sipcot, Ranipet – 632 403. Circle – 1, Vellore. Pan : Aabce 4723 G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri A. Mahesh, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. Anita, JCIT
Section 40

depreciation and disallowance made under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). 4. Shri

EURO SHOES COMPONENTS LTD,VELLORE vs. ACIT , VELLORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1595/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Nov 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1595 & 1596/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S Euro Shoe Components Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of No.478/30A, Coromandal Road, V. Income Tax, Sipcot, Ranipet – 632 403. Circle – 1, Vellore. Pan : Aabce 4723 G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri A. Mahesh, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. Anita, JCIT
Section 40

depreciation and disallowance made under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). 4. Shri

KHIVRAJ & CO.,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 5, CHENNAI

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

ITA 3234/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Jan 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri Duvvuru R.L.Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3234/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Khivraj & Co., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 12, General Muthiah Mudali Street, Income Tax, Sowcarpet, Chennai 600 079. Non Corporate Circle 5, Chennai 600 006. [Pan: Aaafk2848L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Ajit Kumar Choradia, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.11.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02.01.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Duvvuru R.L.Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 5, Chennai, Dated 26.10.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2011-12. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: “1. The Order Of The Ld. Ao & Ld. Cit(A) Is Wrong On Facts & In Law. 2. The Ld. Ao & Ld. Cit(A) Erred In His Observation That The Appellant Had Agreed For The Disallowances. 3. The Ld. Ao & Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Disallowing The Appellant'S Claim For Deduction U/S 80-La Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. :- 2 -:

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar Choradia, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar
Section 30Section 4Section 4(1)(a)Section 40Section 80Section 80I

depreciation schedule. The provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act is applicable only when the assessee has claimed

VA TECH WABAG LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 807/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Respondent: Dr. S. Palanikumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92B

depreciation claim on ERP implementation costs under section 40(a)(i) of the Act and whereas the Hon'ble DRP has erred

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. V.A. TECH WABAG LIMITED, CHENNAI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 953/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Respondent: Dr. S. Palanikumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92B

depreciation claim on ERP implementation costs under section 40(a)(i) of the Act and whereas the Hon'ble DRP has erred

SELVA GANESH CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD-6(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee in I

ITA 1657/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A Nos.:1654 To 1658/Chny/2019 Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17

For Appellant: Mr. J. Prabhakar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Mr. ARV Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act or not? The Assessing Officer will accordingly allow the claim after verifying the same. Thus, this common issue in all these years is allowed partly as indicated above. 7. The next common issue in all these five appeals of the Assessee is as regards to the order of the Commissioner of Income

SELVA GANESH CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD-6(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee in I

ITA 1655/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A Nos.:1654 To 1658/Chny/2019 Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17

For Appellant: Mr. J. Prabhakar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Mr. ARV Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act or not? The Assessing Officer will accordingly allow the claim after verifying the same. Thus, this common issue in all these years is allowed partly as indicated above. 7. The next common issue in all these five appeals of the Assessee is as regards to the order of the Commissioner of Income

SELVA GANESH CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD-6(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee in I

ITA 1656/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A Nos.:1654 To 1658/Chny/2019 Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17

For Appellant: Mr. J. Prabhakar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Mr. ARV Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act or not? The Assessing Officer will accordingly allow the claim after verifying the same. Thus, this common issue in all these years is allowed partly as indicated above. 7. The next common issue in all these five appeals of the Assessee is as regards to the order of the Commissioner of Income

SELVA GANESH CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD-6(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee in I

ITA 1658/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A Nos.:1654 To 1658/Chny/2019 Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17

For Appellant: Mr. J. Prabhakar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Mr. ARV Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act or not? The Assessing Officer will accordingly allow the claim after verifying the same. Thus, this common issue in all these years is allowed partly as indicated above. 7. The next common issue in all these five appeals of the Assessee is as regards to the order of the Commissioner of Income

SELVA GANESH CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD-6(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee in I

ITA 1654/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A Nos.:1654 To 1658/Chny/2019 Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17

For Appellant: Mr. J. Prabhakar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Mr. ARV Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act or not? The Assessing Officer will accordingly allow the claim after verifying the same. Thus, this common issue in all these years is allowed partly as indicated above. 7. The next common issue in all these five appeals of the Assessee is as regards to the order of the Commissioner of Income