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.

8 results for “reassessment”+ Section 35Dclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi42Mumbai40Raipur19Chennai8Hyderabad7Kolkata7Bangalore6Ahmedabad5Chandigarh4Jaipur2

Key Topics

Section 10A21Section 143(3)14Section 14811Section 1477Deduction7Section 32(1)(ii)6Section 476Exemption6Depreciation6Section 35D

M/S. SPR & RG CONSTRUCTIONS P. LTD.,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE - 6 (2),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2334/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganeshआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2334/Chny/2019 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Mrs. Vijayaprabha, JCITFor Respondent: 25.02.2020
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 32Section 35D

35D, 35DD and section 35DDA of the Act. Perusal of the three sections reveals that the conditions mentioned for claim of Amortisation have not been fulfilled by the assessee. The claim of Amortisation is not available on ‘Model Flats and Site Office Construction Expenses’ under the Act. 5. The assessee has made an incorrect claim and has reduced his Income

2

M/S. ACCURATE DATA CONVERTORS P. LTD.,COIMBATORE vs. ITO, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2514/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2514/Mds/2016 "नधा+रण वष+ /Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Respondent: Mr.Supriyo Pal, JCIT
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

reassessment notice in March, 2014, claiming that the income had escaped assessment and the deduction under section 10A was wrongly allowed. According to the Assessing Officer, the assessee claimed deduction under section 10A without setting off the losses of the other units from the profits derived from eligible units and, thus, there existed valid reasons to believe that assessee failed

SRINIVASA FASHIONS PVT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos 1965, 1966 & 1967 are

ITA 1965/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968 /Mds/2016 & 2096/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2008-09, 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12& 2009-10 M/S. Srinivasa Fashions Pvt. Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, 1A, Regency Apartments, Vs. Corporate Circle -6(2), No. 5, 1St Lane, Aayakar Bhavan, New Block, 7Th Floor, 121 M.G. Road, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai - 600 034. Chennai - 600 034. [Pan: Aaics 9511R]

For Appellant: ShriT. Banusekar, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. Bharath, CIT
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 32(1)(ii)Section 47

reassessment is bad in law. 4. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer erred in disallowing depreciation to the tune of Rs.89,27,762/-. 5. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer erred in invoking proviso to section 32(1 )(ii) and holding that

SRINIVASA FASHIONS PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-6(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos 1965, 1966 & 1967 are

ITA 2096/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968 /Mds/2016 & 2096/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2008-09, 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12& 2009-10 M/S. Srinivasa Fashions Pvt. Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, 1A, Regency Apartments, Vs. Corporate Circle -6(2), No. 5, 1St Lane, Aayakar Bhavan, New Block, 7Th Floor, 121 M.G. Road, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai - 600 034. Chennai - 600 034. [Pan: Aaics 9511R]

For Appellant: ShriT. Banusekar, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. Bharath, CIT
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 32(1)(ii)Section 47

reassessment is bad in law. 4. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer erred in disallowing depreciation to the tune of Rs.89,27,762/-. 5. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer erred in invoking proviso to section 32(1 )(ii) and holding that

SRINIVASA FASHIONS PVT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos 1965, 1966 & 1967 are

ITA 1967/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968 /Mds/2016 & 2096/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2008-09, 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12& 2009-10 M/S. Srinivasa Fashions Pvt. Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, 1A, Regency Apartments, Vs. Corporate Circle -6(2), No. 5, 1St Lane, Aayakar Bhavan, New Block, 7Th Floor, 121 M.G. Road, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai - 600 034. Chennai - 600 034. [Pan: Aaics 9511R]

For Appellant: ShriT. Banusekar, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. Bharath, CIT
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 32(1)(ii)Section 47

reassessment is bad in law. 4. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer erred in disallowing depreciation to the tune of Rs.89,27,762/-. 5. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer erred in invoking proviso to section 32(1 )(ii) and holding that

SRINIVASA FASHIONS PVT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos 1965, 1966 & 1967 are

ITA 1968/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968 /Mds/2016 & 2096/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2008-09, 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12& 2009-10 M/S. Srinivasa Fashions Pvt. Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, 1A, Regency Apartments, Vs. Corporate Circle -6(2), No. 5, 1St Lane, Aayakar Bhavan, New Block, 7Th Floor, 121 M.G. Road, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai - 600 034. Chennai - 600 034. [Pan: Aaics 9511R]

For Appellant: ShriT. Banusekar, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. Bharath, CIT
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 32(1)(ii)Section 47

reassessment is bad in law. 4. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer erred in disallowing depreciation to the tune of Rs.89,27,762/-. 5. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer erred in invoking proviso to section 32(1 )(ii) and holding that

SRINIVASA FASHIONS PVT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos 1965, 1966 & 1967 are

ITA 1966/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968 /Mds/2016 & 2096/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2008-09, 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12& 2009-10 M/S. Srinivasa Fashions Pvt. Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, 1A, Regency Apartments, Vs. Corporate Circle -6(2), No. 5, 1St Lane, Aayakar Bhavan, New Block, 7Th Floor, 121 M.G. Road, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai - 600 034. Chennai - 600 034. [Pan: Aaics 9511R]

For Appellant: ShriT. Banusekar, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. Bharath, CIT
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 32(1)(ii)Section 47

reassessment is bad in law. 4. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer erred in disallowing depreciation to the tune of Rs.89,27,762/-. 5. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer erred in invoking proviso to section 32(1 )(ii) and holding that

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SRINIVASA FASHIONS LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos 1965, 1966 & 1967 are

ITA 1130/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968 /Mds/2016 & 2096/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2008-09, 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12& 2009-10 M/S. Srinivasa Fashions Pvt. Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, 1A, Regency Apartments, Vs. Corporate Circle -6(2), No. 5, 1St Lane, Aayakar Bhavan, New Block, 7Th Floor, 121 M.G. Road, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai - 600 034. Chennai - 600 034. [Pan: Aaics 9511R]

For Appellant: ShriT. Banusekar, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. Bharath, CIT
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 32(1)(ii)Section 47

reassessment is bad in law. 4. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer erred in disallowing depreciation to the tune of Rs.89,27,762/-. 5. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer erred in invoking proviso to section 32(1 )(ii) and holding that