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.

125 results for “depreciation”+ Section 40A(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai526Delhi416Bangalore150Chennai125Kolkata91Raipur90Ahmedabad60Amritsar45Jaipur44Hyderabad35Surat22Pune21Indore19Chandigarh17Cochin15Visakhapatnam15Guwahati10Rajkot9Lucknow9Cuttack6Karnataka5Jodhpur4Patna4Varanasi4SC3Agra3Dehradun3Ranchi3Calcutta2Jabalpur1Telangana1Nagpur1Kerala1

Key Topics

Disallowance83Addition to Income69Section 43B60Deduction55Section 4053Section 36(1)(va)49Depreciation48Section 143(3)41Section 14741Section 40A(3)

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

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

Showing 1–20 of 125 · Page 1 of 7

34
Section 143(1)24
Section 40a22

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

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

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

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

3. Departmental Representative vehemently supports the order of the Assessing Officer in disallowing the provision for gratuity submitting that since the said amount is only a provision and not paid is hit by the provisions of section 43B of the Act. 4. Counsel for the assessee relied on the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). He further submits

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

ITA 2961/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

3. Departmental Representative vehemently supports the order of the Assessing Officer in disallowing the provision for gratuity submitting that since the said amount is only a provision and not paid is hit by the provisions of section 43B of the Act. 4. Counsel for the assessee relied on the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). He further submits

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

3. Departmental Representative vehemently supports the order of the Assessing Officer in disallowing the provision for gratuity submitting that since the said amount is only a provision and not paid is hit by the provisions of section 43B of the Act. 4. Counsel for the assessee relied on the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). He further submits

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

3. Departmental Representative vehemently supports the order of the Assessing Officer in disallowing the provision for gratuity submitting that since the said amount is only a provision and not paid is hit by the provisions of section 43B of the Act. 4. Counsel for the assessee relied on the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). He further submits

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

3. Departmental Representative vehemently supports the order of the Assessing Officer in disallowing the provision for gratuity submitting that since the said amount is only a provision and not paid is hit by the provisions of section 43B of the Act. 4. Counsel for the assessee relied on the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). He further submits

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

3. Departmental Representative vehemently supports the order of the Assessing Officer in disallowing the provision for gratuity submitting that since the said amount is only a provision and not paid is hit by the provisions of section 43B of the Act. 4. Counsel for the assessee relied on the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). He further submits

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

3. Departmental Representative vehemently supports the order of the Assessing Officer in disallowing the provision for gratuity submitting that since the said amount is only a provision and not paid is hit by the provisions of section 43B of the Act. 4. Counsel for the assessee relied on the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). He further submits

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

3. Departmental Representative vehemently supports the order of the Assessing Officer in disallowing the provision for gratuity submitting that since the said amount is only a provision and not paid is hit by the provisions of section 43B of the Act. 4. Counsel for the assessee relied on the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). He further submits

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

3. Departmental Representative vehemently supports the order of the Assessing Officer in disallowing the provision for gratuity submitting that since the said amount is only a provision and not paid is hit by the provisions of section 43B of the Act. 4. Counsel for the assessee relied on the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). He further submits

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

3. Departmental Representative vehemently supports the order of the Assessing Officer in disallowing the provision for gratuity submitting that since the said amount is only a provision and not paid is hit by the provisions of section 43B of the Act. 4. Counsel for the assessee relied on the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). He further submits

SRI KRISHA TRADERS,SIVAGANGAI vs. DCIT, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE-1,, MADURAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2223/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2223/Chny/2025 िनधा%रण वष% /Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Mr. N. Vijay Kumar, C.A *+For Respondent: Ms. Babitha, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 40A(3)

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year). Explanation 3 - For the purpose of assessment or reassessment under this section, the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess the income in respect of any issue, which

VIKI INDUSTRIES PVT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

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

ITA 852/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.852/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 M/S. Viki Industries Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 1, Krishna Street, Vs. Income Tax, Nungambakkam, Corporate Circle 3(2), Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aaacv2003P] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Shri D. Anand, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Mrs. S. Vijayaprabha, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.06.2018 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) 13, Chennai Dated 20.01.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Chennai, Is Wrong, Illegal & Is Opposed To Law & Facts Of The Case.

For Respondent: Mrs. S. Vijayaprabha, JCIT
Section 32(1)(iia)Section 40A(3)

3 I.T.A. No.852/Chny/17 impugned assessment year failed to see that it was only during the impugned year the capital work in progress has been capitalized to the respective capital asset. 8. The learned CIT (A) ought to have seen that the intention of the legislature was to give additional depreciation only for the year in which the eligible asset

SHRI R PANNERSELVAM,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CC-3(3),, CHENNAI

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

ITA 3356/CHNY/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 May 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 54F

40A(3) of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Before the Ld. CIT(A), assessee took additional grounds challenging the legal issue of reopening proceedings initiated by the Ld. AO u/s 147 of the Act. 8.1 Ld. CIT(A) held against the assessee by giving finding that no interference in the decision

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

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