Assessee's appeal against ITAT order upholding a Section 263 revision setting aside the AO's order that allowed depreciation under both the Income Tax Act and the Companies Act. The High Court held the revisional order correct, answered all questions of law against the assessee, and dismissed the appeal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
T.C.A.No.123 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 11.11.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
Tax Case Appeal No.123 of 2015
M/s.Penta Media Graphics Ltd (Formerly Pentafour Software and Exports Ltd.,) 'Taurus', No.25 First Main Road, Kodambakkam Chennai 600 024.
... Appellant
Vs.
The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Company Circle V(2) 121, Nungambakkam High Road Chennai 600 034.
... Respondent
Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'A'.Bench, Chennai, dated 17.01.2012 in I.T.A.No.957/Mds/2011.
For Appellant
: Mr.G.Baskar
T.C.A.No.123 of 2015
J U D G M E N T
(Delivered by R.SURESH KUMAR,J.)
By order dated 24.03.2015, this appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law :
T.C.A.No.123 of 2015
T.C.A.No.123 of 2015
T.C.A.No.123 of 2015
depreciation both under the Income Tax Act as well as the Companies Act, that order dated 03.07.2008 passed by the Assessing Officer was set aside and the Assessing Officer was directed to add back the book depreciation of Rs.54,18,33,000/- and verify and allow the claim of depreciation in accordance with the direction of the CIT(A), after giving adequate opportunity to the assessee.
T.C.A.No.123 of 2015
Officer, the Assessing Officer though has given depreciation under the Income Tax Act, has failed to note that the depreciation given under the Companies Act has already been there and it ought to have been removed. But, it has not been removed or deducted.
T.C.A.No.123 of 2015
questions of law are answered against the appellant / assessee and in favour of the respondent / Revenue. No costs.
(R.S.K.,J.) (C.S.N.,J.) 11.11.2024
NCS : Yes/No Index : Yes/No KST
To
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'A' Bench, Chennai.
T.C.A.No.123 of 2015
R.SURESH KUMAR, J. AND C.SARAVANAN, J.
KST
T.C.A.No.123 of 2015
11.11.2024
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Commissioner had jurisdiction under Section 263 to revise the Assessing Officer's order dated 03.07.2008?
Whether the Section 263 order dated 24.03.2011 was barred by limitation for assessment year 2002-03?
Whether the Section 263 order was correct on the aspect of grant of depreciation?
4 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s.Penta Media Graphics Ltd (Formerly Pentafour Software and Exports Ltd.,)
The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Company Circle V(2)
R.Suresh Kumar
C.Saravanan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
