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 40Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai572Delhi441Bangalore156Chennai129Kolkata107Raipur93Ahmedabad63Jaipur48Amritsar48Hyderabad35Surat34Chandigarh25Indore23Pune22Cochin16Visakhapatnam15Guwahati10Lucknow9Rajkot9Cuttack7Patna5Karnataka5Varanasi5Jodhpur4Ranchi3Dehradun3Agra3SC3Nagpur2Calcutta2Kerala1Telangana1Allahabad1Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Disallowance74Addition to Income65Section 43B54Deduction54Section 143(3)46Section 4045Section 14741Depreciation40Section 36(1)(va)37Section 148

CHEMPLAST SANMAR LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT LTU, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

ITA 2808/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2807, 2808, 2809 & 2810/Chny/2017 धनिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Chemplast Sanmar Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.9, Cathedral Road, Income Tax, Chennai – 600 086. Vs. Large Tax Payer Unit, [Pan: Aaacc 3000F] 1775, 21 Mahatma Gandhi High Road, Chennai – 600 034 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. M. Srinivasa Rao, JCIT

40A had effect notwithstanding anything contained in ss. 30 to 39 of the Act. In view of the above observation, the Assessing Officer is directed to follow the decision in the case of Shree Sajjan Mills Ltd. v. CIT 156 ITR 585 (SC) and also the decision in the case of South Madras Electric Supply Corporation

ACIT LTU-2 , CHENNAI vs. CHEMPLAST SANMAR LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

Showing 1–20 of 129 · Page 1 of 7

35
Section 40A(3)34
Section 143(1)25
ITA 2961/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: Disposed
ITAT Chennai
04 Dec 2019
AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2807, 2808, 2809 & 2810/Chny/2017 धनिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Chemplast Sanmar Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.9, Cathedral Road, Income Tax, Chennai – 600 086. Vs. Large Tax Payer Unit, [Pan: Aaacc 3000F] 1775, 21 Mahatma Gandhi High Road, Chennai – 600 034 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. M. Srinivasa Rao, JCIT

40A had effect notwithstanding anything contained in ss. 30 to 39 of the Act. In view of the above observation, the Assessing Officer is directed to follow the decision in the case of Shree Sajjan Mills Ltd. v. CIT 156 ITR 585 (SC) and also the decision in the case of South Madras Electric Supply Corporation

ACIT LTU-2 , CHENNAI vs. CHEMPLAST SANMAR LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

ITA 2960/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2807, 2808, 2809 & 2810/Chny/2017 धनिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Chemplast Sanmar Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.9, Cathedral Road, Income Tax, Chennai – 600 086. Vs. Large Tax Payer Unit, [Pan: Aaacc 3000F] 1775, 21 Mahatma Gandhi High Road, Chennai – 600 034 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. M. Srinivasa Rao, JCIT

40A had effect notwithstanding anything contained in ss. 30 to 39 of the Act. In view of the above observation, the Assessing Officer is directed to follow the decision in the case of Shree Sajjan Mills Ltd. v. CIT 156 ITR 585 (SC) and also the decision in the case of South Madras Electric Supply Corporation

CHEMPLAST SANMAR LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT LTU, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

ITA 2807/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2807, 2808, 2809 & 2810/Chny/2017 धनिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Chemplast Sanmar Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.9, Cathedral Road, Income Tax, Chennai – 600 086. Vs. Large Tax Payer Unit, [Pan: Aaacc 3000F] 1775, 21 Mahatma Gandhi High Road, Chennai – 600 034 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. M. Srinivasa Rao, JCIT

40A had effect notwithstanding anything contained in ss. 30 to 39 of the Act. In view of the above observation, the Assessing Officer is directed to follow the decision in the case of Shree Sajjan Mills Ltd. v. CIT 156 ITR 585 (SC) and also the decision in the case of South Madras Electric Supply Corporation

ACIT LTU-2 , CHENNAI vs. CHEMPLAST SANMAR LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

ITA 2957/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2807, 2808, 2809 & 2810/Chny/2017 धनिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Chemplast Sanmar Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.9, Cathedral Road, Income Tax, Chennai – 600 086. Vs. Large Tax Payer Unit, [Pan: Aaacc 3000F] 1775, 21 Mahatma Gandhi High Road, Chennai – 600 034 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. M. Srinivasa Rao, JCIT

40A had effect notwithstanding anything contained in ss. 30 to 39 of the Act. In view of the above observation, the Assessing Officer is directed to follow the decision in the case of Shree Sajjan Mills Ltd. v. CIT 156 ITR 585 (SC) and also the decision in the case of South Madras Electric Supply Corporation

ACIT LTU-2 , CHENNAI vs. CHEMPLAST SANMAR LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

ITA 2963/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2807, 2808, 2809 & 2810/Chny/2017 धनिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Chemplast Sanmar Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.9, Cathedral Road, Income Tax, Chennai – 600 086. Vs. Large Tax Payer Unit, [Pan: Aaacc 3000F] 1775, 21 Mahatma Gandhi High Road, Chennai – 600 034 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. M. Srinivasa Rao, JCIT

40A had effect notwithstanding anything contained in ss. 30 to 39 of the Act. In view of the above observation, the Assessing Officer is directed to follow the decision in the case of Shree Sajjan Mills Ltd. v. CIT 156 ITR 585 (SC) and also the decision in the case of South Madras Electric Supply Corporation

CHEMPLAST SANMAR LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT LTU, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

ITA 2809/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2807, 2808, 2809 & 2810/Chny/2017 धनिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Chemplast Sanmar Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.9, Cathedral Road, Income Tax, Chennai – 600 086. Vs. Large Tax Payer Unit, [Pan: Aaacc 3000F] 1775, 21 Mahatma Gandhi High Road, Chennai – 600 034 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. M. Srinivasa Rao, JCIT

40A had effect notwithstanding anything contained in ss. 30 to 39 of the Act. In view of the above observation, the Assessing Officer is directed to follow the decision in the case of Shree Sajjan Mills Ltd. v. CIT 156 ITR 585 (SC) and also the decision in the case of South Madras Electric Supply Corporation

CHEMPLAST SANMAR LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT LTU, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

ITA 2810/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2807, 2808, 2809 & 2810/Chny/2017 धनिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Chemplast Sanmar Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.9, Cathedral Road, Income Tax, Chennai – 600 086. Vs. Large Tax Payer Unit, [Pan: Aaacc 3000F] 1775, 21 Mahatma Gandhi High Road, Chennai – 600 034 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. M. Srinivasa Rao, JCIT

40A had effect notwithstanding anything contained in ss. 30 to 39 of the Act. In view of the above observation, the Assessing Officer is directed to follow the decision in the case of Shree Sajjan Mills Ltd. v. CIT 156 ITR 585 (SC) and also the decision in the case of South Madras Electric Supply Corporation

ACIT LTU-2 , CHENNAI vs. CHEMPLAST SANMAR LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

ITA 2962/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2807, 2808, 2809 & 2810/Chny/2017 धनिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Chemplast Sanmar Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.9, Cathedral Road, Income Tax, Chennai – 600 086. Vs. Large Tax Payer Unit, [Pan: Aaacc 3000F] 1775, 21 Mahatma Gandhi High Road, Chennai – 600 034 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. M. Srinivasa Rao, JCIT

40A had effect notwithstanding anything contained in ss. 30 to 39 of the Act. In view of the above observation, the Assessing Officer is directed to follow the decision in the case of Shree Sajjan Mills Ltd. v. CIT 156 ITR 585 (SC) and also the decision in the case of South Madras Electric Supply Corporation

ACIT LTU-2 , CHENNAI vs. CHEMPLAST SANMAR LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

ITA 2958/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2807, 2808, 2809 & 2810/Chny/2017 धनिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Chemplast Sanmar Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.9, Cathedral Road, Income Tax, Chennai – 600 086. Vs. Large Tax Payer Unit, [Pan: Aaacc 3000F] 1775, 21 Mahatma Gandhi High Road, Chennai – 600 034 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. M. Srinivasa Rao, JCIT

40A had effect notwithstanding anything contained in ss. 30 to 39 of the Act. In view of the above observation, the Assessing Officer is directed to follow the decision in the case of Shree Sajjan Mills Ltd. v. CIT 156 ITR 585 (SC) and also the decision in the case of South Madras Electric Supply Corporation

SRI JANARTHANA SPINNING MILLS,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 366/CHNY/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2019AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

For Appellant: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, C.A. for S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Vidya Ramachandan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 40A(3)

depreciation on windmill and confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer u/s.40A(3) of ITA No.366 /2016 :- 3 -: the Act of "28,17,587/- and disallowance of commission of "2,00,000/- 4. Being aggrieved by that part of the order of the ld. CIT(A), the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. Ground No.2

SANMAR SPECIALITY CHEMICALS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal in I

ITA 986/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.986/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Pathlavath Peerya, CIT &
Section 10BSection 40A(7)Section 40A(7)(b)Section 43B

40A(7)(b) of the Act. Therefore, this Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority and accordingly the same is confirmed. 10. The next issue arises for consideration is whether the sale of API division is slump sale or not. 6 I.T.A. No.986/Mds/15 I.T.A. No.1170/Mds/15 I.T.A. No.738/Mds/10 11. Sh. Pathlavath Peerya

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. SANMAR SPECIALITY CHEMICALS LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal in I

ITA 738/CHNY/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.986/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Pathlavath Peerya, CIT &
Section 10BSection 40A(7)Section 40A(7)(b)Section 43B

40A(7)(b) of the Act. Therefore, this Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority and accordingly the same is confirmed. 10. The next issue arises for consideration is whether the sale of API division is slump sale or not. 6 I.T.A. No.986/Mds/15 I.T.A. No.1170/Mds/15 I.T.A. No.738/Mds/10 11. Sh. Pathlavath Peerya

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SANMAR SPECIALITY CHEMICALS LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal in I

ITA 1170/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.986/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Pathlavath Peerya, CIT &
Section 10BSection 40A(7)Section 40A(7)(b)Section 43B

40A(7)(b) of the Act. Therefore, this Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority and accordingly the same is confirmed. 10. The next issue arises for consideration is whether the sale of API division is slump sale or not. 6 I.T.A. No.986/Mds/15 I.T.A. No.1170/Mds/15 I.T.A. No.738/Mds/10 11. Sh. Pathlavath Peerya

ITO, WARD - 2 (1),, ERODE vs. M/S. V.K. TEXTILE PROCESSORS,, ERODE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee and the

ITA 2231/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Rahul Chaudharyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.2115/Chny/2019 & 791/Chny/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18) M/S. V.K.Textile Processors Vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1) 207/2,3 & 208/1, Erode. Gangapuram Village, Chittode, Erode-638 102. Pan:Aalfv 0640C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.2231/Chny/2019 & C.O.No.87/Chny/2019 [In Ita No.2231/Chny/2019 – Ay -2016-17] ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) The Income Tax Officer, M/S. V.K.Textile Processors Ward-2(1) 207/2,3 & 208/1, Erode. Gangapuram Village, Chittode, Erode-638 102. Pan:Aalfv 0640C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) : Mr. S.Sridhar, Advocate -Erode अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Assessee By : Mrs. V.Sreedevi, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Revenue By 31.05.2022 : सुनवाई क"तार ख/Date Of Hearing 02.06.2022 : घोषणा क"तार ख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per G.Manjunatha, Am:

For Appellant: Mrs. V.Sreedevi, JCIT
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 40Section 40A(3)

section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are rejected. 9. As regards, alternative arguments of the assessee that the assessee was acting only as commission agent and net commission income has been offered to tax, we find that if the assessee acted only as commission agent without showing purchases & sales as his own purchase & sales, then the Assessing

V.K.TEXTILES PROCESSORS,ERODE vs. ITO WARD-2(1), ERODE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee and the

ITA 2115/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Rahul Chaudharyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.2115/Chny/2019 & 791/Chny/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18) M/S. V.K.Textile Processors Vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1) 207/2,3 & 208/1, Erode. Gangapuram Village, Chittode, Erode-638 102. Pan:Aalfv 0640C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.2231/Chny/2019 & C.O.No.87/Chny/2019 [In Ita No.2231/Chny/2019 – Ay -2016-17] ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) The Income Tax Officer, M/S. V.K.Textile Processors Ward-2(1) 207/2,3 & 208/1, Erode. Gangapuram Village, Chittode, Erode-638 102. Pan:Aalfv 0640C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) : Mr. S.Sridhar, Advocate -Erode अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Assessee By : Mrs. V.Sreedevi, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Revenue By 31.05.2022 : सुनवाई क"तार ख/Date Of Hearing 02.06.2022 : घोषणा क"तार ख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per G.Manjunatha, Am:

For Appellant: Mrs. V.Sreedevi, JCIT
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 40Section 40A(3)

section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are rejected. 9. As regards, alternative arguments of the assessee that the assessee was acting only as commission agent and net commission income has been offered to tax, we find that if the assessee acted only as commission agent without showing purchases & sales as his own purchase & sales, then the Assessing

M/S.V.K. TEXTILES PROCESSORS,,ERODE vs. ITO, WARD - 2 (1),, ERODE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee and the

ITA 791/CHNY/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Rahul Chaudharyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.2115/Chny/2019 & 791/Chny/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18) M/S. V.K.Textile Processors Vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1) 207/2,3 & 208/1, Erode. Gangapuram Village, Chittode, Erode-638 102. Pan:Aalfv 0640C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.2231/Chny/2019 & C.O.No.87/Chny/2019 [In Ita No.2231/Chny/2019 – Ay -2016-17] ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) The Income Tax Officer, M/S. V.K.Textile Processors Ward-2(1) 207/2,3 & 208/1, Erode. Gangapuram Village, Chittode, Erode-638 102. Pan:Aalfv 0640C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) : Mr. S.Sridhar, Advocate -Erode अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Assessee By : Mrs. V.Sreedevi, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Revenue By 31.05.2022 : सुनवाई क"तार ख/Date Of Hearing 02.06.2022 : घोषणा क"तार ख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per G.Manjunatha, Am:

For Appellant: Mrs. V.Sreedevi, JCIT
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 40Section 40A(3)

section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are rejected. 9. As regards, alternative arguments of the assessee that the assessee was acting only as commission agent and net commission income has been offered to tax, we find that if the assessee acted only as commission agent without showing purchases & sales as his own purchase & sales, then the Assessing

MANIMEGALAI GANESAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT NON CORP RANGE 10, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in I

ITA 1330/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Aug 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1328, 1329, 1330 & 1331/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Smt. Manimegalai Ganesan, The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 1, Millers Road, Kilpauk, Vs. Income Tax, Chennai 600 010. Non Corporate Range 10, [Pan: Aaepm4356K] Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri C. Subramanian, C.A. : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Ms. R. Anita, Jcit : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 15.07.2021 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 12, Chennai, All Dated 21.03.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12. The Assessee Has Raised Following Common Grounds For Adjudication: 1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12 In Confirming The Additions Is Against The Weight Of Evidence & Probabilities Of The Case. 2. Ground 1-Disallowance Of Commission Paid To Dr.S.P.Ganesan

Section 40A(2)(b)Section 40aSection 69C

40a(ia) and has to be treated as retrospective amendment. The appellant relies on the below judgments: 3 I.T.A. Nos. 1328-1331/Chny/2018 • Supreme Court in CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. [2009]185 Taxman 416/319 ITR 306 • Allied Motors (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 91 Taxman 205/224 ITR 677 (SC) • CIT v. J.H. Gotla [1985] 23 Taxman

MANIMEGALAI GANESAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT NON CORP RANGE 10, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in I

ITA 1329/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Aug 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1328, 1329, 1330 & 1331/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Smt. Manimegalai Ganesan, The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 1, Millers Road, Kilpauk, Vs. Income Tax, Chennai 600 010. Non Corporate Range 10, [Pan: Aaepm4356K] Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri C. Subramanian, C.A. : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Ms. R. Anita, Jcit : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 15.07.2021 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 12, Chennai, All Dated 21.03.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12. The Assessee Has Raised Following Common Grounds For Adjudication: 1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12 In Confirming The Additions Is Against The Weight Of Evidence & Probabilities Of The Case. 2. Ground 1-Disallowance Of Commission Paid To Dr.S.P.Ganesan

Section 40A(2)(b)Section 40aSection 69C

40a(ia) and has to be treated as retrospective amendment. The appellant relies on the below judgments: 3 I.T.A. Nos. 1328-1331/Chny/2018 • Supreme Court in CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. [2009]185 Taxman 416/319 ITR 306 • Allied Motors (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 91 Taxman 205/224 ITR 677 (SC) • CIT v. J.H. Gotla [1985] 23 Taxman

MANIMEGALAI GANESAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT NON CORP RANGE 10, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in I

ITA 1328/CHNY/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Aug 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1328, 1329, 1330 & 1331/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Smt. Manimegalai Ganesan, The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 1, Millers Road, Kilpauk, Vs. Income Tax, Chennai 600 010. Non Corporate Range 10, [Pan: Aaepm4356K] Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri C. Subramanian, C.A. : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Ms. R. Anita, Jcit : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 15.07.2021 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 12, Chennai, All Dated 21.03.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12. The Assessee Has Raised Following Common Grounds For Adjudication: 1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12 In Confirming The Additions Is Against The Weight Of Evidence & Probabilities Of The Case. 2. Ground 1-Disallowance Of Commission Paid To Dr.S.P.Ganesan

Section 40A(2)(b)Section 40aSection 69C

40a(ia) and has to be treated as retrospective amendment. The appellant relies on the below judgments: 3 I.T.A. Nos. 1328-1331/Chny/2018 • Supreme Court in CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. [2009]185 Taxman 416/319 ITR 306 • Allied Motors (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 91 Taxman 205/224 ITR 677 (SC) • CIT v. J.H. Gotla [1985] 23 Taxman