M/S. THE INDIA CEMENTS LTD.,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE - 2 (1),, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G.Manjunatha

carried forward unabsorbed loss was subject matter of earlier revision order dated 30.03.2012 and hence the same is not barred by Limitation. 3.3 The Commissioner of Income-tax failed to appreciate that in the earlier revision order dated 30.03.2012 there was a specific direction to disallow

J.K.FENNER (INDIA) LIMITED,MADURAI vs. ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1, MADURAI

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

disallowance u/s 14A. 3. The issue of unabsorbed depreciation as raised in revenue’s appealwas remitted back by Hon’ble Court to Tribunal with following observations: - 6. The second substantial question of law raised by the Revenue is regarding unabsorbed depreciation for the previous years. 7. The Revenue contends before us that the eight years limitation in respect of carry

J.K.FENNER (INDIA) LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. JCIT, MADURAI

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

disallowance u/s 14A. 3. The issue of unabsorbed depreciation as raised in revenue’s appealwas remitted back by Hon’ble Court to Tribunal with following observations: - 6. The second substantial question of law raised by the Revenue is regarding unabsorbed depreciation for the previous years. 7. The Revenue contends before us that the eight years limitation in respect of carry

J.K.FENNER (INDIA) LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. JCIT, MADURAI

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

disallowance u/s 14A. 3. The issue of unabsorbed depreciation as raised in revenue’s appealwas remitted back by Hon’ble Court to Tribunal with following observations: - 6. The second substantial question of law raised by the Revenue is regarding unabsorbed depreciation for the previous years. 7. The Revenue contends before us that the eight years limitation in respect of carry

J.K.FENNER (INDIA) LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. JCIT, MADURAI

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

disallowance u/s 14A. 3. The issue of unabsorbed depreciation as raised in revenue’s appealwas remitted back by Hon’ble Court to Tribunal with following observations: - 6. The second substantial question of law raised by the Revenue is regarding unabsorbed depreciation for the previous years. 7. The Revenue contends before us that the eight years limitation in respect of carry

J.K.FENNER (INDIA) LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. JCIT, MADURAI

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

disallowance u/s 14A. 3. The issue of unabsorbed depreciation as raised in revenue’s appealwas remitted back by Hon’ble Court to Tribunal with following observations: - 6. The second substantial question of law raised by the Revenue is regarding unabsorbed depreciation for the previous years. 7. The Revenue contends before us that the eight years limitation in respect of carry

ACIT, MADURAI vs. J.K.FENNER (INDIA) LTD., MADURAI

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

disallowance u/s 14A. 3. The issue of unabsorbed depreciation as raised in revenue’s appealwas remitted back by Hon’ble Court to Tribunal with following observations: - 6. The second substantial question of law raised by the Revenue is regarding unabsorbed depreciation for the previous years. 7. The Revenue contends before us that the eight years limitation in respect of carry

ACIT, MADURAI vs. J.K.FENNER (INDIA) LTD., MADURAI

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

disallowance u/s 14A. 3. The issue of unabsorbed depreciation as raised in revenue’s appealwas remitted back by Hon’ble Court to Tribunal with following observations: - 6. The second substantial question of law raised by the Revenue is regarding unabsorbed depreciation for the previous years. 7. The Revenue contends before us that the eight years limitation in respect of carry

ACIT, MADURAI vs. J.K.FENNER (INDIA) LTD., MADURAI

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

disallowance u/s 14A. 3. The issue of unabsorbed depreciation as raised in revenue’s appealwas remitted back by Hon’ble Court to Tribunal with following observations: - 6. The second substantial question of law raised by the Revenue is regarding unabsorbed depreciation for the previous years. 7. The Revenue contends before us that the eight years limitation in respect of carry

ACIT, MADURAI vs. J.K.FENNER (INDIA) LTD., MADURAI

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

disallowance u/s 14A. 3. The issue of unabsorbed depreciation as raised in revenue’s appealwas remitted back by Hon’ble Court to Tribunal with following observations: - 6. The second substantial question of law raised by the Revenue is regarding unabsorbed depreciation for the previous years. 7. The Revenue contends before us that the eight years limitation in respect of carry

ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1, MADURAI vs. J.K.FENNER (INDIA) LTD., MADURAI

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

disallowance u/s 14A. 3. The issue of unabsorbed depreciation as raised in revenue’s appealwas remitted back by Hon’ble Court to Tribunal with following observations: - 6. The second substantial question of law raised by the Revenue is regarding unabsorbed depreciation for the previous years. 7. The Revenue contends before us that the eight years limitation in respect of carry

J.K.FENNER (INDIA) LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, MADURAI

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

disallowance u/s 14A. 3. The issue of unabsorbed depreciation as raised in revenue’s appealwas remitted back by Hon’ble Court to Tribunal with following observations: - 6. The second substantial question of law raised by the Revenue is regarding unabsorbed depreciation for the previous years. 7. The Revenue contends before us that the eight years limitation in respect of carry

ACIT, MADURAI vs. J.K.FENNER (INDIA) LIMITED, MADURAI

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

disallowance u/s 14A. 3. The issue of unabsorbed depreciation as raised in revenue’s appealwas remitted back by Hon’ble Court to Tribunal with following observations: - 6. The second substantial question of law raised by the Revenue is regarding unabsorbed depreciation for the previous years. 7. The Revenue contends before us that the eight years limitation in respect of carry

J.K.FENNER (INDIA) LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. JCIT, MADURAI

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

disallowance u/s 14A. 3. The issue of unabsorbed depreciation as raised in revenue’s appealwas remitted back by Hon’ble Court to Tribunal with following observations: - 6. The second substantial question of law raised by the Revenue is regarding unabsorbed depreciation for the previous years. 7. The Revenue contends before us that the eight years limitation in respect of carry

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI vs. N RAMASAMY, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.Gआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A Nos.127 & 128/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2015-2016 & 2016-2017 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Shri. N. Ramasamy, Income Tax, No.14/19, Saraswathi Street, Central Circle 2(2), Mahaingapuram, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 034. [Pan Adupr 8003P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Irs, Cit. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2023. घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.12.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh:

disallowed the claim of loss but the CIT(A) after deleting the addition recomputed the loss and revised the loss to be carried forward

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI vs. N RAMASAMY, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.Gआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A Nos.127 & 128/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2015-2016 & 2016-2017 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Shri. N. Ramasamy, Income Tax, No.14/19, Saraswathi Street, Central Circle 2(2), Mahaingapuram, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 034. [Pan Adupr 8003P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Irs, Cit. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2023. घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.12.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh:

disallowed the claim of loss but the CIT(A) after deleting the addition recomputed the loss and revised the loss to be carried forward

M/S. TRIVITRON HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. PCIT, , CHENNAI-3

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly\nallowed

disallowance made in the earlier assessment\nyears being set aside / deleted in further appeal. The Id.PCIT in his\norder is observed as under:\n\"28. The next issue of set off of brought forward and Carry forward of\nLosses. Regarding the claim of carry forward losses

DCIT, CC - 3 (2),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. YAPP INDIA AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS (P) LTD.,, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Girish Agrawal

carry forward of loss to the tune of Rs. 13,06,88,158/-. Aggrieved by the disallowances and the denial