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.

147 results for “disallowance”+ Section 32(1)(iia)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai266Delhi202Chennai147Ahmedabad119Kolkata118Bangalore61Pune44Cochin44Raipur37Hyderabad35Jaipur31Nagpur23Indore16Cuttack9Lucknow9Surat8Guwahati8Rajkot8Jodhpur7Chandigarh7Visakhapatnam5Karnataka4Agra4Calcutta3SC2Amritsar2Panaji1Orissa1

Key Topics

Section 32(1)(iia)83Addition to Income57Depreciation56Disallowance56Section 143(1)55Section 3543Deduction35Section 14832Section 4021Section 143(3)

MEENAKSHI (INDIA) LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 206/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Apr 2016AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.206/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S Meenakshi (India) Limited, The Assistant Commissioner Of C/O Shri T.N. Seetharaman, V. Income Tax, Advocate, Corporate Circle – 4(1), #384 (Old No.196), Lloyds Road, Chennai - 600 034. Chennai - 600 086. Pan : Aaacm 5386 Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. A.B. Koli, JCIT
Section 32(1)(iia)

disallowance of 50% of additional depreciation claimed by the assessee under Section 32(1)(iia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short

FRESH & HONEST CAFE LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed

Showing 1–20 of 147 · Page 1 of 8

...
21
Section 14A18
Reopening of Assessment16
ITA 1499/CHNY/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1499 & 1500/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years :2009-10 & 2010-11 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1485/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S Fresh & Honest Café Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of C/O Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate, V. Income Tax, New No.14, Old No.82, Flat No.5, Company Circle Ii(1), 1St Avenue, Indira Nagar, Adyar, Chennai - 600 020. Chennai - 600 020. Pan : Aaacf 1516 H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Milind Madhukar Bhusari, CIT
Section 32(1)(iia)

Section 32(1)(iia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') in respect of the new plant and machinery installed and used for manufacturing activity. Since the machinery was used for less than 180 days, the Assessing Officer allowed 10% of the additional depreciation. The assessee claims the balance 10% of additional depreciation during the year under

FRESH & HONEST CAFE LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 1485/CHNY/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 May 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1499 & 1500/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years :2009-10 & 2010-11 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1485/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S Fresh & Honest Café Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of C/O Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate, V. Income Tax, New No.14, Old No.82, Flat No.5, Company Circle Ii(1), 1St Avenue, Indira Nagar, Adyar, Chennai - 600 020. Chennai - 600 020. Pan : Aaacf 1516 H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Milind Madhukar Bhusari, CIT
Section 32(1)(iia)

Section 32(1)(iia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') in respect of the new plant and machinery installed and used for manufacturing activity. Since the machinery was used for less than 180 days, the Assessing Officer allowed 10% of the additional depreciation. The assessee claims the balance 10% of additional depreciation during the year under

FRESH & HONEST CAFE LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 1500/CHNY/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 May 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1499 & 1500/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years :2009-10 & 2010-11 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1485/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S Fresh & Honest Café Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of C/O Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate, V. Income Tax, New No.14, Old No.82, Flat No.5, Company Circle Ii(1), 1St Avenue, Indira Nagar, Adyar, Chennai - 600 020. Chennai - 600 020. Pan : Aaacf 1516 H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Milind Madhukar Bhusari, CIT
Section 32(1)(iia)

Section 32(1)(iia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') in respect of the new plant and machinery installed and used for manufacturing activity. Since the machinery was used for less than 180 days, the Assessing Officer allowed 10% of the additional depreciation. The assessee claims the balance 10% of additional depreciation during the year under

AUTOMOTIVE COACHES & COMPONENTS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1789/CHNY/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Feb 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1789/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 M/S Automotive Coaches & The Deputy Commissioner Of Components Ltd., V. Income Tax, C1 & D6 Sipcot Industrial Company Circle – I, Complex, Chennai - 600 034. Gummidipoondi – 601 201. Pan : Aaaca 3150 E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.V. Sreekanth, JCIT
Section 32(1)Section 32(1)(iia)

disallowance of 2 I.T.A. No.1789/Mds/14 additional depreciation claimed by the assessee to the extent of `5,88,856/-. 2. Sh. R. Vijayaraghavan, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that the assessee claimed additional depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia

TAGROS CHEMICALS INDIA LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 703/CHNY/2015[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 May 2016AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.703/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 M/S Tagros Chemicals India Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of Jhaver Centre, Raja Annamalai V. Income Tax, Building, Corporate Circle – 3(1), 72 (Old No.19), Marshals Road, Chennai - 600 034. Egmore, Chennai - 600 008. Pan : Aaact 2952 K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Anish Unni, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. H. Kabila, JCIT
Section 32(1)(iia)

Section 32(1)(iia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). 3. When the appeal was taken up for hearing, Shri Anish Unni, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, requested for adjournment on the ground that his senior Dr. Anita Sumanth could not appear before this Tribunal. This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the issue

JCIT (OSD), CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI vs. INDIA PISTON LTD., CHENNAI

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

ITA 1615/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1615/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Joint Commissioner Of Income M/S. India Piston Ltd., Tax (Osd), Corporate Circle 2(2), Vs. Huzur Gardens, Room No. 512, 5Th Floor, Wanaparthy Madhavaram High Road, Block, No. 121, M.G. Road, Sembiam, Chennai 600 011. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aaaci1439E] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Department By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit Assessee By : Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.03.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.04.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson, Addl. CIT
Section 32(1)Section 32(1)(iia)

section 32(1)(iia) of the Act by following the decision in the case of MM Forgings Ltd. v. Addl. CIT 349 ITR 673 (Mad). On appeal, by following the decision in the case of Brakes India Ltd. v. DCIT in T.C. A. No. 551 of 2013 dated 14.03.2017 as well as the decisions of the Tribunal in assessee

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. ADDISON & COMPANY LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 862/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Aug 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 862/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri. Sahadevan, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. R.Vijayaraghavan, Advocate
Section 32Section 32(1)(iia)

Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act is a onetime benefit to encourage industrialization, and provisions related to it have to be construed reasonably, liberally and purposively, to make the provision meaningful while granting additional allowance. We are in full agreement with such observations made by the Tribunal.” 6. In view of the above, this Tribunal is of the considered

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. I.P. RINGS. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in I

ITA 2584/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jul 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Respondent: Shri N. Madhavan, JCIT

iia) of section 32(1) of the Act on new plant and machinery acquired, it has vested as an incentive for investments in new plant and machinery. The second proviso to clause (ii) of section 32(1) of the Act restricts the depreciation for that year in case of assets put to use for a period of less than

M/S. I.P. RINGS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in I

ITA 2668/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jul 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Respondent: Shri N. Madhavan, JCIT

iia) of section 32(1) of the Act on new plant and machinery acquired, it has vested as an incentive for investments in new plant and machinery. The second proviso to clause (ii) of section 32(1) of the Act restricts the depreciation for that year in case of assets put to use for a period of less than

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. I.P. RINGS. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in I

ITA 2583/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jul 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Respondent: Shri N. Madhavan, JCIT

iia) of section 32(1) of the Act on new plant and machinery acquired, it has vested as an incentive for investments in new plant and machinery. The second proviso to clause (ii) of section 32(1) of the Act restricts the depreciation for that year in case of assets put to use for a period of less than

M/S. ASHOK LEYLAND LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, NCC-8(1), LTU-II, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2379/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.R. VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Mr.Nathala Ravi Babu, CIT
Section 14A

1)(iia) of the Act, when on merits, he had held that the assessee was indeed entitled for the same. We the indeed entitled for the same. We therefore reverse the order of Ld. CIT(A) refore reverse the order of Ld. CIT(A) on this issue and direct the AO to allow the balance 10% on this issue

HINDUJA FOUNDRIES LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, I.T.A. Nos

ITA 1591/CHNY/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Feb 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1590, 1591, 1592 & 1593/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2007-08, 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Pathlavath Peerya, CIT
Section 32(1)(ii)

section 32(1)(iia), the expression used I "shall be allowed". Thus, the assessee had earned the benefit as soon as he had purchased the new machinery and plant in full but it is restricted to 50% in that particular year on account of period usages. Such restrictions cannot divest the statutory right. Law does not prohibit that balance

HINDUJA FOUNDRIES LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, I.T.A. Nos

ITA 1590/CHNY/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Feb 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1590, 1591, 1592 & 1593/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2007-08, 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Pathlavath Peerya, CIT
Section 32(1)(ii)

section 32(1)(iia), the expression used I "shall be allowed". Thus, the assessee had earned the benefit as soon as he had purchased the new machinery and plant in full but it is restricted to 50% in that particular year on account of period usages. Such restrictions cannot divest the statutory right. Law does not prohibit that balance

HINDUJA FOUNDRIES LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, I.T.A. Nos

ITA 1592/CHNY/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Feb 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1590, 1591, 1592 & 1593/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2007-08, 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Pathlavath Peerya, CIT
Section 32(1)(ii)

section 32(1)(iia), the expression used I "shall be allowed". Thus, the assessee had earned the benefit as soon as he had purchased the new machinery and plant in full but it is restricted to 50% in that particular year on account of period usages. Such restrictions cannot divest the statutory right. Law does not prohibit that balance

HINDUJA FOUNDRIES LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, I.T.A. Nos

ITA 1593/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Feb 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1590, 1591, 1592 & 1593/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2007-08, 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Pathlavath Peerya, CIT
Section 32(1)(ii)

section 32(1)(iia), the expression used I "shall be allowed". Thus, the assessee had earned the benefit as soon as he had purchased the new machinery and plant in full but it is restricted to 50% in that particular year on account of period usages. Such restrictions cannot divest the statutory right. Law does not prohibit that balance

INDIA PISTONS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 2339/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2339 & 2340/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2010-11 & 2011-12. M/S. India Pistons Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Huzur Gardens, Income Tax, Sembium, Corporate Circle 2(2) Chennai 600 011. Chennai.

For Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, IRS, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32(1)

Section 32 (1) (iia). The said clause (iia), admittedly, was inserted by virtue of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2002, with effect from 01.04.2003. 8.2.In so far as the second Circular is concerned, i.e, Circular no.8 of 2002 dated 27.08.2002, in our view, in no way, helps the case of the Revenue. The Circular does not dwell on the point which

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI vs. INDIA PISTON LTD., CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 2384/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2339 & 2340/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2010-11 & 2011-12. M/S. India Pistons Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Huzur Gardens, Income Tax, Sembium, Corporate Circle 2(2) Chennai 600 011. Chennai.

For Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, IRS, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32(1)

Section 32 (1) (iia). The said clause (iia), admittedly, was inserted by virtue of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2002, with effect from 01.04.2003. 8.2.In so far as the second Circular is concerned, i.e, Circular no.8 of 2002 dated 27.08.2002, in our view, in no way, helps the case of the Revenue. The Circular does not dwell on the point which

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI vs. INDIA PISTON LTD., CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 2383/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2339 & 2340/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2010-11 & 2011-12. M/S. India Pistons Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Huzur Gardens, Income Tax, Sembium, Corporate Circle 2(2) Chennai 600 011. Chennai.

For Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, IRS, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32(1)

Section 32 (1) (iia). The said clause (iia), admittedly, was inserted by virtue of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2002, with effect from 01.04.2003. 8.2.In so far as the second Circular is concerned, i.e, Circular no.8 of 2002 dated 27.08.2002, in our view, in no way, helps the case of the Revenue. The Circular does not dwell on the point which

INDIA PISTONS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 2340/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2339 & 2340/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2010-11 & 2011-12. M/S. India Pistons Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Huzur Gardens, Income Tax, Sembium, Corporate Circle 2(2) Chennai 600 011. Chennai.

For Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, IRS, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32(1)

Section 32 (1) (iia). The said clause (iia), admittedly, was inserted by virtue of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2002, with effect from 01.04.2003. 8.2.In so far as the second Circular is concerned, i.e, Circular no.8 of 2002 dated 27.08.2002, in our view, in no way, helps the case of the Revenue. The Circular does not dwell on the point which