SHRIRAM OWNERSHIP TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 406 & 407/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-2014 & 2014-2015. Shriram Ownership Trust, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No.4, Shriram House, I Floor, Income Tax, Burkit Road, T. Nagar, Non Corporate Circle 2, Chennai 600 017. Chennai 600 034. [Pan Aagts 2243H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

House, I floor, Income Tax, Burkit Road, T. Nagar, Non Corporate Circle 2, Chennai 600 017. Chennai 600 034. [PAN AAGTS 2243H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri. R. Sivaraman, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent by : Shri. Shaji P. Jacob, IRS, Addl. CIT. : 22-06-2017 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing घोषणा

SHRIRAM OWNERSHIP TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 406 & 407/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-2014 & 2014-2015. Shriram Ownership Trust, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No.4, Shriram House, I Floor, Income Tax, Burkit Road, T. Nagar, Non Corporate Circle 2, Chennai 600 017. Chennai 600 034. [Pan Aagts 2243H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

House, I floor, Income Tax, Burkit Road, T. Nagar, Non Corporate Circle 2, Chennai 600 017. Chennai 600 034. [PAN AAGTS 2243H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri. R. Sivaraman, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent by : Shri. Shaji P. Jacob, IRS, Addl. CIT. : 22-06-2017 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing घोषणा

ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 2(1), CHENNAI vs. A.M.K.SHAHUL HAMEED, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1253/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13 The Income Tax Officer, Shri A.M.K. Shahul Hameed, Non Corporate Ward 2(1), Vs. Old No. 5, New No. 9, Rangan Street, Chennai 600 034. T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan:Aabph6895F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ar V. Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 03.01.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.01.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: The Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Chennai Dated 11.01.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2012-13 On 01.06.2013 Admitting Total Income Of ₹.10,82,700/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & After Following Due Process, The Assessment Was Completed Under Section 2

233 Taxman 347 (Karnataka). Thus, we find no infirmity in the order passed by the ld. CIT(A). 7. With regard to the denial of deduction claimed on multiple properties under section 54F of the Act, the ld.CIT(A) has observed and held as under: “4.2.1 With regard to the issue of the appellant claiming deduction on multiple properties

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NUNGAMBAKKAM vs. R K M POWERGEN PRIVATE LIMITED, T NAGAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue for the both the

233,55,66,922 137,83,70,108\n2013-14 615,34,48,800 641,28,07,603 352,92,52,393\n2014-15 525,59,82,720 832,05,84,608 577,16,23,267\n“8. The contentions and submissions of the assessee company have been considered carefully and found that the same are not tenable

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

233). In the Board circular also, it was held that the unabsorbed depreciation available to the assessee as on 01.04.2002 could be carry forward to any number of assessment years. Similar was the ratio of other decisions cited by the assessee. Accordingly, Ld. AO was directed to allow set-off of depreciation of all these years. Aggrieved, the revenue

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

233). In the Board circular also, it was held that the unabsorbed depreciation available to the assessee as on 01.04.2002 could be carry forward to any number of assessment years. Similar was the ratio of other decisions cited by the assessee. Accordingly, Ld. AO was directed to allow set-off of depreciation of all these years. Aggrieved, the revenue

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

233). In the Board circular also, it was held that the unabsorbed depreciation available to the assessee as on 01.04.2002 could be carry forward to any number of assessment years. Similar was the ratio of other decisions cited by the assessee. Accordingly, Ld. AO was directed to allow set-off of depreciation of all these years. Aggrieved, the revenue

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

233). In the Board circular also, it was held that the unabsorbed depreciation available to the assessee as on 01.04.2002 could be carry forward to any number of assessment years. Similar was the ratio of other decisions cited by the assessee. Accordingly, Ld. AO was directed to allow set-off of depreciation of all these years. Aggrieved, the revenue

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

233). In the Board circular also, it was held that the unabsorbed depreciation available to the assessee as on 01.04.2002 could be carry forward to any number of assessment years. Similar was the ratio of other decisions cited by the assessee. Accordingly, Ld. AO was directed to allow set-off of depreciation of all these years. Aggrieved, the revenue

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

233). In the Board circular also, it was held that the unabsorbed depreciation available to the assessee as on 01.04.2002 could be carry forward to any number of assessment years. Similar was the ratio of other decisions cited by the assessee. Accordingly, Ld. AO was directed to allow set-off of depreciation of all these years. Aggrieved, the revenue

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

233). In the Board circular also, it was held that the unabsorbed depreciation available to the assessee as on 01.04.2002 could be carry forward to any number of assessment years. Similar was the ratio of other decisions cited by the assessee. Accordingly, Ld. AO was directed to allow set-off of depreciation of all these years. Aggrieved, the revenue

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

233). In the Board circular also, it was held that the unabsorbed depreciation available to the assessee as on 01.04.2002 could be carry forward to any number of assessment years. Similar was the ratio of other decisions cited by the assessee. Accordingly, Ld. AO was directed to allow set-off of depreciation of all these years. Aggrieved, the revenue

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

233). In the Board circular also, it was held that the unabsorbed depreciation available to the assessee as on 01.04.2002 could be carry forward to any number of assessment years. Similar was the ratio of other decisions cited by the assessee. Accordingly, Ld. AO was directed to allow set-off of depreciation of all these years. Aggrieved, the revenue

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

233). In the Board circular also, it was held that the unabsorbed depreciation available to the assessee as on 01.04.2002 could be carry forward to any number of assessment years. Similar was the ratio of other decisions cited by the assessee. Accordingly, Ld. AO was directed to allow set-off of depreciation of all these years. Aggrieved, the revenue

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

233). In the Board circular also, it was held that the unabsorbed depreciation available to the assessee as on 01.04.2002 could be carry forward to any number of assessment years. Similar was the ratio of other decisions cited by the assessee. Accordingly, Ld. AO was directed to allow set-off of depreciation of all these years. Aggrieved, the revenue

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

233). In the Board circular also, it was held that the unabsorbed depreciation available to the assessee as on 01.04.2002 could be carry forward to any number of assessment years. Similar was the ratio of other decisions cited by the assessee. Accordingly, Ld. AO was directed to allow set-off of depreciation of all these years. Aggrieved, the revenue

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

233). In the Board circular also, it was held that the unabsorbed depreciation available to the assessee as on 01.04.2002 could be carry forward to any number of assessment years. Similar was the ratio of other decisions cited by the assessee. Accordingly, Ld. AO was directed to allow set-off of depreciation of all these years. Aggrieved, the revenue

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

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

233,03,09,786/- which included loss of Rs.2,12,94,977/- from 801C unit (Pantnagar). Thus, the primary issue to be decided in this ground is whether or not the AO was correct in notionally carrying forward and setting off the loss of 801C eligible Pantnagar unit for initial AY 2010-11 against the profits of the same unit