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.

13 results for “depreciation”+ Section 80Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai79Delhi45Bangalore37Hyderabad16Chennai13Jaipur13Rajkot8Lucknow6SC5Guwahati5Ahmedabad4Pune4Kolkata3Karnataka3Nagpur1Cochin1Surat1Telangana1

Key Topics

Section 10B42Section 115J15Deduction11Section 143(3)9Section 80I9Depreciation8Section 1486Section 143(2)6Section 133A6Section 147

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. TVS MOTOR COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1782/CHNY/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2008-09 The The Asst. Asst. Commissioner Commissioner Of Of Vs. M/S. Tvs Motor Company Ltd., M/S. Tvs Motor Company Ltd., Income Tax, Company Circle Income Tax, Company Circle- Jayalakshmi Estates, 29 (Old Jayalakshmi Estates, 29 (Old Iii(2), New Block, 4Th Floor, 121, Iii(2), New Block, 4 No.8), Haddows Road, Chennai No.8), Haddows Road, Chennai Mahatma Mahatma Gandhi Gandhi Road, Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai Nungambakkam, Chennai Pan/Gir No.Aaacs 7032 B Aaacs 7032 B (Appellant) (Appellant .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Ar Revenue By : Dr. S.Palanikumar, Cit ( Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 24 /2/ 2022 2 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/4/20 /2022 O R D E R Per C.M.Garg, Jm , Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vikram VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Dr. S.Palanikumar, CIT (
Section 80Section 80HSection 80I

depreciation, it will be limited to an available gross total income. This is the law which is accepted in a number of cases, because of the requirements made clear under Sections 80A

6
Reassessment6
Reopening of Assessment6

ARUNA ALLOY STEELS PRIVATES LIMITED,MADURAI vs. ACIT,CORP. CIRCLE-1, MADURAI, MADURAIQ

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2803/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Respondent: Mr.Ashwin D. Gowda
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 156Section 80I

80A(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961: (5) Where the assessee fails to make a claim in his return of income for any deduction under section 10-A or section 10-AA or section 10-B or section 10-BA or under any provision of this Chapter under the heading "C.-Deductions in respect of certain incomes", no deduction

SANGU CHAKRA HOTELS PVT LTD.,TRICHY vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, TRICHY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 2759/CHNY/2017[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Aug 2019AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2759/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2001-02. M/S. Sangu Chakra Hotels Pvt. Ltd, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Collector’S Office Road, Income Tax, Tiruchirapalli 620 001. Circle 1, Tiruchirapalli. [Pan Aaacs 8819A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Philip George, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. AR.V. Sreenivasan, IRS, JCIT
Section 115Section 115JSection 234BSection 80A(2)Section 80HSection 8O

depreciation of earlier years. 2.3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) grossly erred in observing that the provisions of Section 80A

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1), CHENNAI vs. FIXIT PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

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

ITA 2833/CHNY/2017[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jun 2018AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P.George

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr.N.Gopikrishna, JCIT
Section 10Section 115J

depreciation on account of revaluation of assets referred to in clause (iia); or (iic) the amount of income, being the share of the assessee in the income of an association of persons or body of individuals, on which no income-tax is payable in accordance with the provisions of section 86, if any, such amount is credited

RAJ TELEISION NETWORK LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, NON CORPORAE CIRCLE-20, CHENNAI

In the result both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 530/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R.Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 530 & 531/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2018-19 Acit, Raj Television Network V. Non Corporate Circle 20, Limited, Chennai – 34. No. 32, Poes Road 2Nd Street, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018. [Pan: Aaacr-3580-P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri.K. Balasubramanian, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri.T.M. Suganthamala, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 31.07.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri.K. Balasubramanian, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri.T.M. Suganthamala, Addl. CIT
Section 263

80A(5), in cases where no deduction was claimed. :-9-: ITA. No:530 & 531/Chny/2024 11. Hence, in the given situation, the action of the AO in rejecting the claim of adjustment of unabsorbed b/f loss/ depreciation loss with the income arrived at during assessment, being not validly claimed in the ITR, cannot be interfered with. Ground

RAJTELEVISION NETWORK LIMITED,CHNNAI vs. ACIT, NON CORPORAE CIRCLE-20, CHENNAI

In the result both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 531/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R.Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 530 & 531/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2018-19 Acit, Raj Television Network V. Non Corporate Circle 20, Limited, Chennai – 34. No. 32, Poes Road 2Nd Street, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018. [Pan: Aaacr-3580-P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri.K. Balasubramanian, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri.T.M. Suganthamala, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 31.07.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri.K. Balasubramanian, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri.T.M. Suganthamala, Addl. CIT
Section 263

80A(5), in cases where no deduction was claimed. :-9-: ITA. No:530 & 531/Chny/2024 11. Hence, in the given situation, the action of the AO in rejecting the claim of adjustment of unabsorbed b/f loss/ depreciation loss with the income arrived at during assessment, being not validly claimed in the ITR, cannot be interfered with. Ground

JCIT LARGE TAX PAYER UNIT-1, CHENNAI vs. M/S. CHENNAI PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.,, CHENNAI

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1536/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) &For Respondent: Shri R. Mohan Reddy (CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 80A(4)(i)Section 80I

section 80IA(4)(i), that is development of infrastructure projects that benefit public at large. 2.3. The learned CIT(A) failed to note that the assessee is not entitled for deduction u/s 80A(4)(i) and hence it is not entitled for claiming higher depreciation

INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL PROCESSING (P) LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, MADURAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for the AYs 2003-04

ITA 1254/CHNY/2016[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 May 2022AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1251 To 1254, 1407 & 1408/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2003-04 To 2006-07, 2008-09 & 2007-08 M/S.International Agricultural- V. The Asst. Commissioner- Processing (P) Ltd., Of Income Tax, 332/5-A, Peranai Road, Company Circle-Ii, Musuvanathu Village, Madurai. Nilakottai Taluk, Dindigul-624 219. [Pan: Aaaci 3593 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.T. Banusekar, CAFor Respondent: Mr.P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 10BSection 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

80A and s. 80AB which were in Chapter VI-A which do not appear in Chapter III. The fact that even after its recast, the relief has been retained in Chapter III indicates the intention of Parliament that it is to be regarded as an exemption and not a deduction. The Act of the Parliament in consciously retaining this section

INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL PROCESSING (P) LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, MADURAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for the AYs 2003-04

ITA 1251/CHNY/2016[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 May 2022AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1251 To 1254, 1407 & 1408/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2003-04 To 2006-07, 2008-09 & 2007-08 M/S.International Agricultural- V. The Asst. Commissioner- Processing (P) Ltd., Of Income Tax, 332/5-A, Peranai Road, Company Circle-Ii, Musuvanathu Village, Madurai. Nilakottai Taluk, Dindigul-624 219. [Pan: Aaaci 3593 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.T. Banusekar, CAFor Respondent: Mr.P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 10BSection 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

80A and s. 80AB which were in Chapter VI-A which do not appear in Chapter III. The fact that even after its recast, the relief has been retained in Chapter III indicates the intention of Parliament that it is to be regarded as an exemption and not a deduction. The Act of the Parliament in consciously retaining this section

INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL PROCESSING (P) LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, MADURAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for the AYs 2003-04

ITA 1408/CHNY/2016[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 May 2022AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1251 To 1254, 1407 & 1408/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2003-04 To 2006-07, 2008-09 & 2007-08 M/S.International Agricultural- V. The Asst. Commissioner- Processing (P) Ltd., Of Income Tax, 332/5-A, Peranai Road, Company Circle-Ii, Musuvanathu Village, Madurai. Nilakottai Taluk, Dindigul-624 219. [Pan: Aaaci 3593 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.T. Banusekar, CAFor Respondent: Mr.P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 10BSection 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

80A and s. 80AB which were in Chapter VI-A which do not appear in Chapter III. The fact that even after its recast, the relief has been retained in Chapter III indicates the intention of Parliament that it is to be regarded as an exemption and not a deduction. The Act of the Parliament in consciously retaining this section

INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL PROCESSING (P) LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, MADURAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for the AYs 2003-04

ITA 1407/CHNY/2016[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 May 2022AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1251 To 1254, 1407 & 1408/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2003-04 To 2006-07, 2008-09 & 2007-08 M/S.International Agricultural- V. The Asst. Commissioner- Processing (P) Ltd., Of Income Tax, 332/5-A, Peranai Road, Company Circle-Ii, Musuvanathu Village, Madurai. Nilakottai Taluk, Dindigul-624 219. [Pan: Aaaci 3593 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.T. Banusekar, CAFor Respondent: Mr.P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 10BSection 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

80A and s. 80AB which were in Chapter VI-A which do not appear in Chapter III. The fact that even after its recast, the relief has been retained in Chapter III indicates the intention of Parliament that it is to be regarded as an exemption and not a deduction. The Act of the Parliament in consciously retaining this section

INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL PROCESSING (P) LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, MADURAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for the AYs 2003-04

ITA 1252/CHNY/2016[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 May 2022AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1251 To 1254, 1407 & 1408/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2003-04 To 2006-07, 2008-09 & 2007-08 M/S.International Agricultural- V. The Asst. Commissioner- Processing (P) Ltd., Of Income Tax, 332/5-A, Peranai Road, Company Circle-Ii, Musuvanathu Village, Madurai. Nilakottai Taluk, Dindigul-624 219. [Pan: Aaaci 3593 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.T. Banusekar, CAFor Respondent: Mr.P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 10BSection 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

80A and s. 80AB which were in Chapter VI-A which do not appear in Chapter III. The fact that even after its recast, the relief has been retained in Chapter III indicates the intention of Parliament that it is to be regarded as an exemption and not a deduction. The Act of the Parliament in consciously retaining this section

INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL PROCESSING (P) LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, MADURAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for the AYs 2003-04

ITA 1253/CHNY/2016[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 May 2022AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1251 To 1254, 1407 & 1408/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2003-04 To 2006-07, 2008-09 & 2007-08 M/S.International Agricultural- V. The Asst. Commissioner- Processing (P) Ltd., Of Income Tax, 332/5-A, Peranai Road, Company Circle-Ii, Musuvanathu Village, Madurai. Nilakottai Taluk, Dindigul-624 219. [Pan: Aaaci 3593 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.T. Banusekar, CAFor Respondent: Mr.P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 10BSection 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

80A and s. 80AB which were in Chapter VI-A which do not appear in Chapter III. The fact that even after its recast, the relief has been retained in Chapter III indicates the intention of Parliament that it is to be regarded as an exemption and not a deduction. The Act of the Parliament in consciously retaining this section