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.

196 results for “depreciation”+ Revision u/s 263clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai549Delhi421Kolkata201Bangalore196Chennai176Ahmedabad95Hyderabad51Jaipur40Chandigarh37Pune36Raipur33Cuttack30Cochin28Rajkot25Indore24Lucknow23Surat23Karnataka16Jodhpur15Visakhapatnam14Agra4Amritsar4Nagpur4Patna4Kerala2Telangana2Varanasi2SC2Calcutta1Ranchi1Guwahati1Panaji1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)123Section 26396Addition to Income79Section 14A75Disallowance56Section 153A46Section 14843Section 133A42Deduction35Section 131

CANARA BANK vs. CIT,

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 743/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S.Canara Bank, Bsca Section, Head Office, J C Road, Bengaluru-560 002. Pan: Aaacc 6106 G … Appellant Vs. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Ltu, Bengaluru. … Respondent

For Appellant: Shri G.Sarangan, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pramod Singh, CIT(DR)
Section 115PSection 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 36(1)(viii)Section 43B

depreciation on investments held by London Branch is an allowable deduction, there no requirement to add the same while computing the total income. Since there was no error in the order passed by the Learned Assessing Officer, the power of revision u/s 263

Showing 1–20 of 196 · Page 1 of 10

...
34
Depreciation34
Section 10A20

NEPAL SINGH RATHOD (HUF),HUBLI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HUBLI, HUBLI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 400/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep &For Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

depreciation on intangible assets and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) while passing the order under section 263 of the Act has held that the enquiry and verification made by the Assessing Officer is inadequate and the land cannot be treated as intangible asset. On the aforesaid basis, the powers under section 263 of the Act has been exercised

JANATA TRADERS,GADAG vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HUBLI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 401/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Girija, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69A

depreciation on intangible assets and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) while passing the order under section 263 of the Act has held that the enquiry and verification made by the Assessing Officer is inadequate and the land cannot be treated as intangible asset. On the aforesaid basis, the powers under section 263 of the Act has been exercised

M/S HARMAN CONNECTED SERVICES CORPORATION INDIA PVT. LTD.,),BANGALORE vs. PR. CIT - 3, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2010-11 is allowed

ITA 1101/BANG/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Harman Connected Services Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Corporation India Private Limited, Income-Tax, [Formerly Known As Symphony Bangalore - 3. Teleca Corporation India Private Limited) No.3 & 3A, Eoiz Industrial Area, Survey No. 85 & 86, Sadarmangla Village, Krishnarajapuram Hobli, Bangalore – 560 066. Pan : Aabcg 5658 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, Advocate : Revenue By Shri. C. H. Sundar Rao, Cit-I Date Of Hearing : 04.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : .12.2018 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, Advocate
Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 195Section 263Section 40

u/s 263 of the Act dated 30.03.2016 for Assessment Year 2010-11, the assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds: I. Initiation of proceeding under 263 of the Act 1. The learned Principal Commissioner of Income-tax Bengaluru — 3 ["Pr. CIT"] has erred in initiating proceedings under section 263 of the Act without appreciating that

M/S CORPORATE BANK ,MANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , MANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1679/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.S.Ananthan, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

Depreciation on investment portfolio of Rs.3028.32 crore disallowed in the regular computation. (ii) Disallowance u/s 14A of Rs.58.58 crore made in the regular computation. (iii) Provision for Non Performing Assets of Rs.1438.11 crore. 3. The assessee-bank filed written submission, objecting to the proposed revision u/s 263

BOSCH LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 571/BANG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 35

depreciation u/s 32 of the income-tax Act, on the said technical service fee amounting to Rs. 45,534,758 has been reckoned in the current AY 2008-09 and has been reduced from the profit. The Assessee pointed out that the EOU’s at Naganathapura and Nashik manufacture products for which no R&D support was required

M/S TAYANA CONSULT PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1193/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri S. Parthasarathi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Priscilla Singsit, CIT (DR)
Section 263

revised u/s 263 of the Income-tax Act. In the case before us, the assessing authority has considered the issue at length and at page 2 and 3 of his order, has held as under : “The assessee company has computed the profits from the business at Rs.70,00,353/- and from this profits the exemption u/s 10A was claimed atRs.31

M/S UNITED BREWERIES LTD. vs. .C.I.T.,

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 782/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri. B. R Baskaran

For Appellant: Smt. Anitha R, CAFor Respondent: Smt Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 194C(2)Section 244ASection 263Section 40

depreciation, the same issue requires no adjudication and verification. The Grounds raised on this issue are dismissed. 20. As regards the issue of interest u/s 244A wrongly allowed to the assessee, it is the contention of the assessee that it is a computational issue and remedy lies in rectification u/s 154 and not revision u/s 263

AMAZON DEVELOPMENT CENTRE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TP), BENGALURU-1, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 795/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)
Section 263

u/s 263 in favour of the assessee. In view of this, respectfully following the above judgment we hold that this issue is in favour of the assessee. . IT(TP)A No.762 & 795/Bang/2024 Page 13 of 16 14.3 The question arises whether the issue on hand is covered issue by the order of the ITAT in the own case

AMAZON SELLER SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TP), BENGALURU-1, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 762/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)
Section 263

u/s 263 in favour of the assessee. In view of this, respectfully following the above judgment we hold that this issue is in favour of the assessee. . IT(TP)A No.762 & 795/Bang/2024 Page 13 of 16 14.3 The question arises whether the issue on hand is covered issue by the order of the ITAT in the own case

SHRI. POLLAMREDDY SREEDHAR REDDY,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-1, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 429/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri R.E. Balasubramaniyan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 263(1)

revision of the order. This view is supported by the Hon'ble Pollam Reddy Shreedhar Reddy, Bangalore Page 5 of 16 Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v CIT (243 ITR 83). 4. The ld. D.R. submitted that AO has not made proper enquiry on the issue dealt by the ld. Principal CIT and therefore, Deputy

OM SAI CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOUHARDA SAHAKARI NIYAMIT,GADAG vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HUBLI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 454/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Susan Dolores George CIT(OSD)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80P

depreciation on intangible assets and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) while passing the order under section 263 of the Act has held that the enquiry and verification made by the Assessing Officer is inadequate and the land cannot be treated as intangible asset. On the aforesaid basis, the powers under section 263 of the Act has been exercised

MALLIKARJUN VIRUPAXAPPA YARASI,GADAG vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HUBLI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 437/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

revision of an assessment cannot be made for the sole reason that the point of contention has not been discussed at length or that it does not find a specific mention in the order of the AO. The AO is not required to make a mention of each and every detail in the order of assessment. l) These above-mentioned

M/S. KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 11(5) PRESENTLY CIRCLE 4(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 282/BANG/2017[2002 - 2003]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jan 2021

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Kannan Narayanan, JCIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263

revision is clear and unambiguous, as in terms thereof the doctrine of merger applies only in respect of such items which were subject matter of appeal and not in respect of those which were not. Accordingly, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the order u/s 263 of the I.T.Act is barred by limitation. The Explanation (c) appended to section

MASTHI GOWDA P,MANDYA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE-3, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 367/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar S.V, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Srinivasa T Bidari, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 44A

u/s 263 has been explained succinctly by Hon'ble Supreme Court as under:- ITA No.367 /Bang/2021 Page 8 of 18 "5. To consider the first contention, it will be apt to quote Section 263(1) which is relevant for our purpose:— 263. Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue.—(1) The Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner

M/S SHREE DEVI EDUCATION TRUST,MANGALORE vs. CIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee-society is partly allowed

ITA 1443/BANG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 May 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raoshree Devi Education Trust, Maina Towers, Ballalbagh, Mangalore-575003. … Appellant Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward 2(1),Bangalore. … Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Muthukrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 11(2)(d)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 263

u/s 263 by the CIT(Exemption). Some of the issues sought to be revised by the CIT(Exemption) such as allowability of depreciation

THE HIMALAYA DRUG COMPANY ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1227/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)
Section 144CSection 263Section 32Section 32(1)(iia)Section 80G

u/s 263 of the Act on 11/11/2016 and proposed to revise the asst. order. After calling for the objection from the assessee, the CIT gave directions to the AO that claim of depreciation

INGERSOLL RAND (INDIA) LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal is partly allowed

ITA 272/BANG/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. S. Praveena, Addl. CIT (D.R)
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80H

u/s. 41(1). 42. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the decisions of the lower authorities on this point are set aside and the issue is remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration in the light of the above directions and also after providing an opportunity to the assessee of being heard and producing necessary materials

M/S. SHIVA FERRIC PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), BENGALURU

The appeal is allowed

ITA 380/BANG/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Shiva Ferric Pvt. Ltd., No. 193, 4Th Floor, Shiv The Principal Sadan Outer Ring Road, Commissioner Of B. Narayanapura, Income-Tax [Central], Bangalore – 560 016. Bengaluru. Vs. Pan: Aaics4564L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 17-01-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 24-01-2023 Order Per Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 5Section 68

u/s. 263 of the Act. The Ld.AR in this regard relied on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Gopalakrishnan Rajkumar vs. PCIT (2022) 445 ITR 557 (Mad). The Ld.AR drew our attention to the decision of the Coordinate Bench in the case of Shri Pavan Kandkur vs. PCIT in ITA No. 522/Bang/2022 dated

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

ITA 1119/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

For Appellant: Shri Jairam Raipura, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Annamalli & Shri Narendra Sharma, A.Rs
Section 154

depreciation was allowed in draft assessment order, however, the same has been removed in final order. In our opinion, the claim of deduction u/s 35(2AB) of the Act has been allowed to the assessee. Now this ground has become infructuous and dismissed accordingly. 27. Ground Nos.11.1 & 12.1 are regarding non granting of foreign tax credit and short credit