9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (11) TMI 52X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nandham For the Respondent : Mr.A.S.Sriraman for Mr.S.Sridhar JUDGMENT T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J. This appeal, at the instance of the revenue filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the 'Act' for brevity), is directed against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'C' Bench, Chennai in ITA No.1021/Chny/2018 dated 19.03.2019 for the Assessment Year 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r.Karthik Ranganathan, learned counsel and Mr.Rajesh Sivanandham, learned counsel for the appellant / revenue and Mr.A.S.Sriraman, learned counsel for Mr.S.Sridhar, learned counsel for the respondent / assessee. 4. It is not disputed before us that the substantial questions of law raised for consideration have been answered against the revenue in C.I.T. Vs. Aztec Auto (P.) Ltd., [2020] 119 Taxman ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Division Bench of this Court distinguished the decision in the case of M.M. Forgings by observing that the said case was not concerned with the issue with regard to right to carry forward the balance additional depreciation and followed the decision in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai v. M/s Shri T.P. Textiles Private Limited in [TCA No.157 of 2017 dated 6-3- 2017], which was decid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was dismissed by an order dated 24-9-2018. Thus, the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Brakes India having been approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we are bound by the said decision and accordingly, following the same."
Thus, following the above decision, the present Tax Case Appeal is dismissed and the substantial questions of law are answered against the revenue. No costs. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
