← All Phrases

“depreciation on leased assets”

DepreciationSection 32Section 3267 judgments

DCIT 2(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. ICICI BANK LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 1560/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2010-11
Section 10(15)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 92B(1)Section 92C

nearning of exempt income.\n7\"On facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld CIT(A) erred in\nallowing the depreciation on leased assets without appreciating the fact that the\nsaid transaction being a financial lease transaction, the assessee did not satisfy\nthe legal requirement of ownership ... nleased assets\n8\" On facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld CIT(A) erred in\nallowing the depreciation on leased assets without appreciating the fact that the\nleased assets in question were not in possession of the assessee and also not\nutilized by the assessee

ICICI BANK LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(3)(2), MUMBAI

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1446/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2010-11
Section 10(15)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 92B(1)Section 92C

nearning of exempt income.\n7\"On facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld CIT(A) erred in\nallowing the depreciation on leased assets without appreciating the fact that the\nsaid transaction being a financial lease transaction, the assessee did not satisfy\nthe legal requirement of ownership ... nleased assets\n8\" On facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld CIT(A) erred in\nallowing the depreciation on leased assets without appreciating the fact that the\nleased assets in question were not in possession of the assessee and also not\nutilized by the assessee

DCIT 2(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. ICICI BANK LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, ground no. 3 of appeal of

ITA 1550/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal(Physical Hearing) Icici Bank Limited, Dcit, 2(3)(2), Mumbai, Icici Bank Towers, North East Wing, Vs Aayakarbhavan, 1St Floor, Bandrakurla Complex, Mumbai – 400020. Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051. [Pan No. Aaaci1195H] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue (Physical Hearing) Dcit, 2(3)(2), Mumbai, Icici Bank Limited Aayakar Bhavan, Vs Icici Bank Towers, North East Wing, 1St Floor, Bandrakurla Complex, Mumbai – 400020. Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051. [Pan No. Aaaci1195H] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 10(15)Section 14ASection 254(1)Section 92CSection 92C(3)(c)

earning of exempt income. 9.On facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld CIT(A) erred in allowing the depreciation on leased assets without appreciating the fact that the said transaction being a financial lease transaction, the assessee did not satisfy the legal requirement of ownership ... leased assets. 10 On facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld CIT(A) erred in allowing the depreciation on leased assets without appreciating the fact that the leased assets in question were not in possession of the assessee and also not utilized by the assessee

ICICI BANK LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, ground no. 3 of appeal of

ITA 4418/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal(Physical Hearing) Icici Bank Limited, Dcit, 2(3)(2), Mumbai, Icici Bank Towers, North East Wing, Vs Aayakarbhavan, 1St Floor, Bandrakurla Complex, Mumbai – 400020. Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051. [Pan No. Aaaci1195H] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue (Physical Hearing) Dcit, 2(3)(2), Mumbai, Icici Bank Limited Aayakar Bhavan, Vs Icici Bank Towers, North East Wing, 1St Floor, Bandrakurla Complex, Mumbai – 400020. Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051. [Pan No. Aaaci1195H] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 10(15)Section 14ASection 254(1)Section 92CSection 92C(3)(c)

earning of exempt income. 9.On facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld CIT(A) erred in allowing the depreciation on leased assets without appreciating the fact that the said transaction being a financial lease transaction, the assessee did not satisfy the legal requirement of ownership ... leased assets. 10 On facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld CIT(A) erred in allowing the depreciation on leased assets without appreciating the fact that the leased assets in question were not in possession of the assessee and also not utilized by the assessee

CANARA BANK,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as\nindicated above

ITA 499/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE – PRESIDENT\nAND\nSHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nITA No. 499/Bang/2025\nAssessment Year : 2016-17\nM/s. Canara Bank,\nFM Wing, Head Office,\n112, J C Road,\nBengaluru – 560 002.\nPAN: AAACC6106G\nAPPELLANT\nThe Deputy\nCommissioner of\nIncome Tax,\nCircle - 2(2)(1),\nVs. Bengaluru.\nRESPONDENT\nAssessee by\n: Shri S. Ananthan, CA\nRevenue by\n: Shri Shivanand Kalakeri,\nCIT-DR\nDate of Hearing\n: 24-06-2025\nDate of Pronouncement\n: 25-08-2025\nORDE

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 37Section 37(1)Section 90

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\n'A' BENCH: BANGALORE\nBEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE – PRESIDENT\nAND\nSHRI

ACIT, ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND, ANAND vs. NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD, ANAND

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 740/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 37(1)

Attached as Annexure– 6 (refer page no. 116 to 117). • It is therefore requested to allow depreciation on leased assets. • The issue is also covered by the decision of SC in the case of ICDS Ltd. v. CIT 350 ITR 527 • Note – For AY 2006-07 the AO had framed ... order on merits on this issue for AY 2006-07 except the order of the CIT(A) for AY 2006-07 allowing depreciation on leased assets. 21. Per contra Ld. D.R. appearing for the Revenue supported the order passed by the lower authorities. 22. We have considered the submissions

ACIT, ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND, ANAND vs. NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD, ANAND

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 738/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 37(1)

Attached as Annexure– 6 (refer page no. 116 to 117). • It is therefore requested to allow depreciation on leased assets. • The issue is also covered by the decision of SC in the case of ICDS Ltd. v. CIT 350 ITR 527 • Note – For AY 2006-07 the AO had framed ... order on merits on this issue for AY 2006-07 except the order of the CIT(A) for AY 2006-07 allowing depreciation on leased assets. 21. Per contra Ld. D.R. appearing for the Revenue supported the order passed by the lower authorities. 22. We have considered the submissions

ACIT, ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND, ANAND vs. NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD, ANAND

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 736/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 37(1)

Attached as Annexure– 6 (refer page no. 116 to 117). • It is therefore requested to allow depreciation on leased assets. • The issue is also covered by the decision of SC in the case of ICDS Ltd. v. CIT 350 ITR 527 • Note – For AY 2006-07 the AO had framed ... order on merits on this issue for AY 2006-07 except the order of the CIT(A) for AY 2006-07 allowing depreciation on leased assets. 21. Per contra Ld. D.R. appearing for the Revenue supported the order passed by the lower authorities. 22. We have considered the submissions

ACIT,ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND, ANAND vs. NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD, ANAND

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 735/AHD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 37(1)

Attached as Annexure– 6 (refer page no. 116 to 117). • It is therefore requested to allow depreciation on leased assets. • The issue is also covered by the decision of SC in the case of ICDS Ltd. v. CIT 350 ITR 527 • Note – For AY 2006-07 the AO had framed ... order on merits on this issue for AY 2006-07 except the order of the CIT(A) for AY 2006-07 allowing depreciation on leased assets. 21. Per contra Ld. D.R. appearing for the Revenue supported the order passed by the lower authorities. 22. We have considered the submissions

NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,ANAND vs. THE DY.CIT, ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 728/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 37(1)

Attached as Annexure– 6 (refer page no. 116 to 117). • It is therefore requested to allow depreciation on leased assets. • The issue is also covered by the decision of SC in the case of ICDS Ltd. v. CIT 350 ITR 527 • Note – For AY 2006-07 the AO had framed ... order on merits on this issue for AY 2006-07 except the order of the CIT(A) for AY 2006-07 allowing depreciation on leased assets. 21. Per contra Ld. D.R. appearing for the Revenue supported the order passed by the lower authorities. 22. We have considered the submissions

NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,ANAND vs. THE DY.CIT, ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 726/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 37(1)

Attached as Annexure– 6 (refer page no. 116 to 117). • It is therefore requested to allow depreciation on leased assets. • The issue is also covered by the decision of SC in the case of ICDS Ltd. v. CIT 350 ITR 527 • Note – For AY 2006-07 the AO had framed ... order on merits on this issue for AY 2006-07 except the order of the CIT(A) for AY 2006-07 allowing depreciation on leased assets. 21. Per contra Ld. D.R. appearing for the Revenue supported the order passed by the lower authorities. 22. We have considered the submissions

NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,ANAND vs. THE DY.CIT, ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 724/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 37(1)

Attached as Annexure– 6 (refer page no. 116 to 117). • It is therefore requested to allow depreciation on leased assets. • The issue is also covered by the decision of SC in the case of ICDS Ltd. v. CIT 350 ITR 527 • Note – For AY 2006-07 the AO had framed ... order on merits on this issue for AY 2006-07 except the order of the CIT(A) for AY 2006-07 allowing depreciation on leased assets. 21. Per contra Ld. D.R. appearing for the Revenue supported the order passed by the lower authorities. 22. We have considered the submissions

NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,ANAND vs. THE DY.CIT, ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 723/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 37(1)

Attached as Annexure– 6 (refer page no. 116 to 117). • It is therefore requested to allow depreciation on leased assets. • The issue is also covered by the decision of SC in the case of ICDS Ltd. v. CIT 350 ITR 527 • Note – For AY 2006-07 the AO had framed ... order on merits on this issue for AY 2006-07 except the order of the CIT(A) for AY 2006-07 allowing depreciation on leased assets. 21. Per contra Ld. D.R. appearing for the Revenue supported the order passed by the lower authorities. 22. We have considered the submissions

NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,ANAND vs. THE DY.CIT, ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 722/AHD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 37(1)

Attached as Annexure– 6 (refer page no. 116 to 117). • It is therefore requested to allow depreciation on leased assets. • The issue is also covered by the decision of SC in the case of ICDS Ltd. v. CIT 350 ITR 527 • Note – For AY 2006-07 the AO had framed ... order on merits on this issue for AY 2006-07 except the order of the CIT(A) for AY 2006-07 allowing depreciation on leased assets. 21. Per contra Ld. D.R. appearing for the Revenue supported the order passed by the lower authorities. 22. We have considered the submissions

HGP COMMUNITY PVT LTD (SUCCESSOR TO LAKE VIEW DEVELOPERS),MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 906/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

A.Y.2015-16 and 2016-17. 2. In this case, assessee is aggrieved by levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) on disallowance of depreciation on leased assets. The ld. AO has levied penalty and the amount of disallowance of depreciation firstly, in the case of erstwhile M/s. Lakeview Developers and depreciation ... after making addition of Rs 35, 49,065/- on account of disallowance of Depreciation on Leased Assets. Similarly the other erstwhile concern M/s. Omega Associates M/s. Omega Associates had filed return of income for AY 2015-16 on 29.09.2015 declaring total income at Rs. 128,15,01,900/- Subsequently

HGP COMMUNITY PVT LTD (SUCCESSOR TO LAKE VIEW DEVELOPERS),MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 905/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

A.Y.2015-16 and 2016-17. 2. In this case, assessee is aggrieved by levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) on disallowance of depreciation on leased assets. The ld. AO has levied penalty and the amount of disallowance of depreciation firstly, in the case of erstwhile M/s. Lakeview Developers and depreciation ... after making addition of Rs 35, 49,065/- on account of disallowance of Depreciation on Leased Assets. Similarly the other erstwhile concern M/s. Omega Associates M/s. Omega Associates had filed return of income for AY 2015-16 on 29.09.2015 declaring total income at Rs. 128,15,01,900/- Subsequently

HGP COMMUNITY PVT LTD (SUCCESSOR TO OMEGA ASSOCIATES),MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 904/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

A.Y.2015-16 and 2016-17. 2. In this case, assessee is aggrieved by levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) on disallowance of depreciation on leased assets. The ld. AO has levied penalty and the amount of disallowance of depreciation firstly, in the case of erstwhile M/s. Lakeview Developers and depreciation ... after making addition of Rs 35, 49,065/- on account of disallowance of Depreciation on Leased Assets. Similarly the other erstwhile concern M/s. Omega Associates M/s. Omega Associates had filed return of income for AY 2015-16 on 29.09.2015 declaring total income at Rs. 128,15,01,900/- Subsequently

HGP COMMUNITY PVT LTD (SUCCESSOR TO OMEGA ASSOCIATES),MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 903/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

A.Y.2015-16 and 2016-17. 2. In this case, assessee is aggrieved by levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) on disallowance of depreciation on leased assets. The ld. AO has levied penalty and the amount of disallowance of depreciation firstly, in the case of erstwhile M/s. Lakeview Developers and depreciation ... after making addition of Rs 35, 49,065/- on account of disallowance of Depreciation on Leased Assets. Similarly the other erstwhile concern M/s. Omega Associates M/s. Omega Associates had filed return of income for AY 2015-16 on 29.09.2015 declaring total income at Rs. 128,15,01,900/- Subsequently

ICICI BANK LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 3 (1), MUMBAI

ITA 4249/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Arati VissanjiFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT/DR
Section 10(15)Section 14ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 92C

4159/Mum/2014\n“1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the\nLd. CIT(A) erred in allowing the depreciation on leased assets without\nappreciating the fact that the said transaction being a financial lease\n5\nITA No.4249 & 4159/Mum/2014\nICICI Bank Ltd.\ntransaction, the assessee ... leased assets.\n2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.\nCIT(A) erred in allowing the depreciation on leased assets without\nappreciating the fact that the leased assets in question were not in\npossession of the assessee and also not utilized

DCIT CIR 3(1), MUMBAI vs. ICICI BANK LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 4159/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 2008-09
Section 10(15)Section 14ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 92C

4159/Mum/2014\n“1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the\nLd. CIT(A) erred in allowing the depreciation on leased assets without\nappreciating the fact that the said transaction being a financial lease\n5\nITA No.4249 & 4159/Mum/2014\nICICI Bank Ltd.\ntransaction, the assessee ... leased assets.\n2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.\nCIT(A) erred in allowing the depreciation on leased assets without\nappreciating the fact that the leased assets in question were not in\npossession of the assessee and also not utilized

Showing 1–20 of 67 · Page 1 of 4