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.

12 results for “depreciation”+ Section 801Cclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi40Mumbai22Chandigarh19Chennai12Kolkata9Rajkot8Hyderabad4Jaipur2Jodhpur1Ahmedabad1Lucknow1Calcutta1Bangalore1

Key Topics

Section 80I20Deduction12Disallowance8Section 14A5Section 1475Section 10B4Section 143(3)4Section 80l3Section 801C2Section 80

TITAN COMPANY LIMITED 9EARSTWHILE KNOWN AS TITAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED),KRISHNAGIRI vs. ACIT LTU 1, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 518/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri T. Surya Narayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 143(3)

section 801C of the Act. c. The Hon'ble CIT(A) ought to have observed that the design and development costs and assembly share for common facilities incurred at the factory largely represents salaries of the employees and not directly relatable to the value of watches produced. d. The Hon'bleCIT(A) failed to appreciate that the components transferred

TITAN COMPANY LIMITED 9EARSTWHILE KNOWN AS TITAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED),KRISHNAGIRI vs. ACIT LTU 1, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

2
ITA 505/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri T. Surya Narayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 143(3)

section 801C of the Act. c. The Hon'ble CIT(A) ought to have observed that the design and development costs and assembly share for common facilities incurred at the factory largely represents salaries of the employees and not directly relatable to the value of watches produced. d. The Hon'bleCIT(A) failed to appreciate that the components transferred

TITAN COMPANY LIMITED 9EARSTWHILE KNOWN AS TITAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED),KRISHNAGIRI vs. ACIT LTU 1, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 506/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri T. Surya Narayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 143(3)

section 801C of the Act. c. The Hon'ble CIT(A) ought to have observed that the design and development costs and assembly share for common facilities incurred at the factory largely represents salaries of the employees and not directly relatable to the value of watches produced. d. The Hon'bleCIT(A) failed to appreciate that the components transferred

TITAN COMPANY LIMITED 9EARSTWHILE KNOWN AS TITAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED),KRISHNAGIRI vs. ACIT LTU 1, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 507/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri T. Surya Narayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 143(3)

section 801C of the Act. c. The Hon'ble CIT(A) ought to have observed that the design and development costs and assembly share for common facilities incurred at the factory largely represents salaries of the employees and not directly relatable to the value of watches produced. d. The Hon'bleCIT(A) failed to appreciate that the components transferred

TITAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED,HOSUR vs. JCIT, CHENNAI

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1913/CHNY/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Sept 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana (Sr. Advocate) for Shri Manasa Ananthan (Advocate) - Ld. AFor Respondent: Dr. S. Palani Kumar (CIT) –Ld. CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 801C

801C: Rs.21,703,297 a. The learned AO/DRP erred in confirming the allocation of the common expenses between the various units on the basis of the turnover as against the method adopted by the appellant. b. The learned AO/DRP ought to have appreciated the fact that the assessee has allocated the common expenses on the basis of the number

COOPER BUSSMANN INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,PONDICHERRY vs. ACIT, PONDICHERRY

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for the assessment years 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-

ITA 1559/CHNY/2014[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Nov 2019AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.1559 To 1563, 2592 - 2594/Chny/2014) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2001-02 To 2008-09) Vs The Acit, M/S. Cooper Bussmann India Pvt. Ltd., Circle – 1, 34, Evr Street, Sedarapet, Pondicherry. Pondicherry - 605 111. Pan: Aabcs 0431R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos. 1662 & 1663/Chny/2016 & 178/Chny/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 To 2011-12) Vs The Jcit, M/S. Cooper Bussmann India Pvt. Ltd., Range – 1, 34, Evr Street, Sedarapet, Pondicherry. Pondicherry - 605 111. Pan: Aabcs 0431R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Vishal Kalra, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Srinivasa Rao, Cit

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 80ISection 80l

section 801C(8)(ix) of the Act which defines "Substantial expansion" to mean increase in the investment in the plant and machinery by at least fifty per cent of the book value of plant and machinery (before taking depreciation

COOPER BUSSMANN INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,PONDICHERRY vs. ACIT, PONDICHERRY

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for the assessment years 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-

ITA 1563/CHNY/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Nov 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.1559 To 1563, 2592 - 2594/Chny/2014) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2001-02 To 2008-09) Vs The Acit, M/S. Cooper Bussmann India Pvt. Ltd., Circle – 1, 34, Evr Street, Sedarapet, Pondicherry. Pondicherry - 605 111. Pan: Aabcs 0431R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos. 1662 & 1663/Chny/2016 & 178/Chny/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 To 2011-12) Vs The Jcit, M/S. Cooper Bussmann India Pvt. Ltd., Range – 1, 34, Evr Street, Sedarapet, Pondicherry. Pondicherry - 605 111. Pan: Aabcs 0431R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Vishal Kalra, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Srinivasa Rao, Cit

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 80ISection 80l

section 801C(8)(ix) of the Act which defines "Substantial expansion" to mean increase in the investment in the plant and machinery by at least fifty per cent of the book value of plant and machinery (before taking depreciation

COOPER BUSSMANN INDIA PVT. LTD.,PONDICHERRY vs. JCIT, PONDICHERRY

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for the assessment years 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-

ITA 178/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Nov 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.1559 To 1563, 2592 - 2594/Chny/2014) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2001-02 To 2008-09) Vs The Acit, M/S. Cooper Bussmann India Pvt. Ltd., Circle – 1, 34, Evr Street, Sedarapet, Pondicherry. Pondicherry - 605 111. Pan: Aabcs 0431R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos. 1662 & 1663/Chny/2016 & 178/Chny/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 To 2011-12) Vs The Jcit, M/S. Cooper Bussmann India Pvt. Ltd., Range – 1, 34, Evr Street, Sedarapet, Pondicherry. Pondicherry - 605 111. Pan: Aabcs 0431R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Vishal Kalra, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Srinivasa Rao, Cit

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 80ISection 80l

section 801C(8)(ix) of the Act which defines "Substantial expansion" to mean increase in the investment in the plant and machinery by at least fifty per cent of the book value of plant and machinery (before taking depreciation

TITAN COMPANY LIMITED,HOSUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - LTU 2 (IC), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal raised by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1742/CHNY/2024[2011- 12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2024

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1742/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2011-12 Titan Company Limited, Assistant Commissioner Of No.3, Sipcot Industrial Complex, Income Tax, Hosur, Krishnagiri, Ltu-2, Tamil Nadu-635126 Chennai [Pan: Aaact5131A] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri Abhay Kumar, C.A अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Ms.Komali Krishna, Cit प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10.09.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.12.2024

For Appellant: Ms.Komali Krishna, CIT
Section 147Section 250Section 80Section 80C(2)(a)Section 80I

801C eligible unit can be allowed to set off against the profits accrued to the assessee from other non-eligible unit. Thus, the said case law decides the set off of loss of eligible unit with profits of other units in the year of loss itself in accordance with provisions of section 70 & 71 [Refer para 23 of the said

DCIT COMPANY CIRCLE I(1),, CHENNAI vs. POOL THEVAR MARIMUTHU, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue for the assessment

ITA 3400/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Apr 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.3399 & 3400/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs Mr. Pool Thevar Marimuthu Tax, Prop: M/S.Arun Enterprises 2 / 28, Reddy 1St Street, Company Circle-I(1), Chennai. Ekkattuthangal, Chennai-600 032. Pan: Aanpm 5361M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. Y.Sridhar, CAFor Respondent: 03.03.2021
Section 10BSection 80I

801C eligible unit i.e the First year of 80IC claim. 5. The ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that if any undertaking has not qualified any one or both of the two conditions specified u/s 80IC(4) regarding formation of undertaking by splitting up or reconstruction and use of transferred in machinery from a business already existed, its claim

DCIT COMPANY CIRCLE I(1),, CHENNAI vs. POOL THEVAR MARIMUTHU, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue for the assessment

ITA 3399/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Apr 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.3399 & 3400/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs Mr. Pool Thevar Marimuthu Tax, Prop: M/S.Arun Enterprises 2 / 28, Reddy 1St Street, Company Circle-I(1), Chennai. Ekkattuthangal, Chennai-600 032. Pan: Aanpm 5361M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. Y.Sridhar, CAFor Respondent: 03.03.2021
Section 10BSection 80I

801C eligible unit i.e the First year of 80IC claim. 5. The ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that if any undertaking has not qualified any one or both of the two conditions specified u/s 80IC(4) regarding formation of undertaking by splitting up or reconstruction and use of transferred in machinery from a business already existed, its claim

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI vs. POOL THEVAR MARIMUTHU, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2014-15 is dismissed

ITA 1421/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1421/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Pool Thevar Marimuthu, Deputy Commissioner Of V. Old No. 54, New No. 23, Income-Tax, Defence Colony, Corporate Circle -1(1), Ekkattuthangal, Chennai. Chennai – 600 032. [Pan: Aanpm-5361-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. V. Nandakumar, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Y. Sridhar, Fca सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.05.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29.05.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. V. Nandakumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri. Y. Sridhar, FCA
Section 801CSection 80I

801C, in the assessee's case, was denied in the earlier assessments by making a finding that the BOIC unit is formed by splitting up of business, the gist of which part of order is reproduced as under: "The claim of the assessee was verified by calling various information. On perusal of the information and explanation offered by the assessee