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.

1,634 results for “depreciation”+ Section 11clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai4,330Delhi4,155Bangalore1,634Chennai1,521Kolkata829Ahmedabad603Hyderabad362Jaipur331Pune297Karnataka245Chandigarh182Raipur165Indore125Cochin109Amritsar100Visakhapatnam88SC80Lucknow78Surat70Telangana58Rajkot53Ranchi52Jodhpur52Cuttack39Nagpur35Guwahati23Kerala20Calcutta17Panaji16Patna16Allahabad10Dehradun10Agra9Orissa7Punjab & Haryana7Rajasthan6Varanasi6Jabalpur4Gauhati2A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Tripura1D.K. JAIN H.L. DATTU JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)69Addition to Income55Section 1150Depreciation49Section 14848Disallowance47Deduction40Section 14730Section 115J27Section 133A

SHRI HINGULAMBIKA EDUCATION SOCIETY,GULBARGA vs. ITO (EXEMPTIONS), WARD-1, KALBURGI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1126/BANG/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jun 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Phalguna Kumar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shahnawaz Ul Rahman, D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

section as a whole and accordingly the said insertion of first proviso to s. 12A(2) of the Act w.e.f. 1st Oct., 2014 should be read as retrospective in operation w.e.f. the date when the condition of eligibility for exemption under ss. 11 85 12 as mentioned in s. 12A provided for registration under s. 12AA ae a pre-condition

Showing 1–20 of 1,634 · Page 1 of 82

...
27
Section 36(1)(vii)26
Exemption25

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee in both the appeals\nare allowed except the limitation ground

ITA 354/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Mar 2026AY 2016-17
For Appellant: \nShri Sudheendra B.R, AdvocateFor Respondent: \nShri Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 13(8)Section 153(1)Section 2(15)Section 250Section 43B

11 of the Act. We have considered the contention of\nthe assessee that they are the creature of a Statute established for the\npurpose of developing the industrial areas in the State of Karnataka. The\nmain activities of the assessee is to develop the industries, in the areas\ndeclared by the State Government and thereafter allotted the industrial sites

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE-1, , BANGALORE

In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee in both the appeals\nare allowed except the limitation ground

ITA 355/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Mar 2026AY 2017-18
For Appellant: \nShri Sudheendra B.R, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 13(8)Section 153(1)Section 2(15)Section 250Section 43B

11 of the Act. We have considered the contention of\nthe assessee that they are the creature of a Statute established for the\npurpose of developing the industrial areas in the State of Karnataka. The\nmain activities of the assessee is to develop the industries, in the areas\ndeclared by the State Government and thereafter allotted the industrial sites

KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE-1, , BANGALORE

ITA 512/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu\Nand\Nshri Keshav Dubey\N\Nita Nos.512 & 513/Bang/2025\N Assessment Year : 2021-22 & 2015-16\N\Nkarnataka Housing Board\N4Th Floor Cauvery Bhavan\Nk.G. Road\Nbangalore 560 009\Nvs.\Ndcit (Exemptions)\Ncircle-1\Nbangalore\N\Npan No:Aaajk0398K\N\Nappellant Respondent\N\Nappellant By : Sri Padamchand Khincha, A.R.\Nrespondent By : Sri K.M. Mahesh, D.R.\N\Ndate Of Hearing : 17.09.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement : 15.12.2025\N\Norder\N\Nper Keshav Dubey:\N\Nthese Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders Of The 1D. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 18.02.2025 Vide Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1073418441(1) For The Assessment Year 2021-22 & Vide Order Dated 31.1.2025 With Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1072790068(1) For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Since The Issues In Both The Appeals Are Similar, These Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience.\N\N2. First, We Take Up Assessee'S Appeal In Ita No.512/Bang/2025 For The Assessment Year 2021-22 For Adjudication. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:\N\N1. General Ground\N\N1.

For Appellant: Sri Padamchand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Sri K.M. Mahesh, D.R
Section 10Section 11Section 13(8)Section 143(2)Section 2(15)Section 234ASection 250

depreciation or otherwise in respect of any asset, acquisition of which has been claimed as an application of income under this section in the same or any other previous year. In view of section 11

CHITRADURGA ZILLA REDDY JANA SANGH(R),CHITRADURGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 EXEMPTION, HUBLI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1625/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri Sandeep Chalapathy, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Shivanand Kalakeri, D.R
Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 250

section 11(1)(a) takes place in the year in which the income is adjusted to meet the expenses incurred for charitable or religious purposes. Hence, even if the expenses for such purposes have been incurred in the earlier years and the said expenses are adjusted against the income of a subsequent year, the income of such subsequent year

CENTRE FOR E-GOVERNANCE ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION, CIRCLE-1 , BANGALORE

ITA 936/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri S Parthasarthi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 2(15)

11(4A) of maintaining separate books of account is also in line with the necessity of demonstrating that the quantitative limit prescribed in the proviso to section 2(15), has not been breached. Similarly, the insertion of section 13(8), seventeenth proviso to section 10(23C) and third proviso to section 143(3) (all with retrospective effect from

KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

ITA 513/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu\Nand\Nshri Keshav Dubey\N\Nita Nos.512 & 513/Bang/2025\N Assessment Year : 2021-22 & 2015-16\N\Nkarnataka Housing Board\N4Th Floor Cauvery Bhavan\Nk.G. Road\Nbangalore 560 009\Nvs.\Ndcit (Exemptions)\Ncircle-1\Nbangalore\N\Npan No :Aaajk0398K\Nappellant\Nrespondent\N\Nappellant By\Nrespondent By\N: Sri Padamchand Khincha, A.R.\N: Sri K.M. Mahesh, D.R.\N\Ndate Of Hearing\N: 17.09.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement\N: 15.12.2025\N\Norder\N\Nper Keshav Dubey:\N\Nthese Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed\Nagainst The Orders Of The 1D. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 18.02.2025 Vide\Ndin & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1073418441(1) For\Nthe Assessment Year 2021-22 & Vide Order Dated 31.1.2025 With\Ndin & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1072790068(1) For\Nthe Assessment Year 2015-16 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax\Nact, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Since The Issues In Both The Appeals\Nare Similar, These Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together And\Ndisposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience.\N\N2. First, We Take Up Assessee'S Appeal In Ita No.512/Bang/2025\Nfor The Assessment Year 2021-22 For Adjudication. The Assessee\Nhas Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:\N\N1. General Ground\N1.

Section 11Section 13(8)Section 143(2)Section 2(15)Section 234ASection 250

depreciation or otherwise in\nrespect of any asset, acquisition of which has been claimed as an\napplication of income under this section in the same or any other\nprevious year. In view of section 11

KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, EXEMPTIONS CIRLCE-1, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee is allowed with the above directions

ITA 171/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Nandini Das, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11Section 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

section 11 and 12 of the Act. Thereafter he referred to the various individual additions and dismissed the ground related to disallowance. With respect to depreciation

KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, EXEMPTIONS CIRLCE-1, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee is allowed with the above directions

ITA 170/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Nandini Das, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11Section 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

section 11 and 12 of the Act. Thereafter he referred to the various individual additions and dismissed the ground related to disallowance. With respect to depreciation

KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, EXEMPTIONS CIRLCE-1 , BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee is allowed with\nthe above directions

ITA 169/BANG/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Aug 2025AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Nandini Das, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11Section 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

section 11 and\n12 of the Act. Thereafter he referred to the various individual\nadditions and dismissed the ground related to disallowance.\nWith respect to depreciation

DY.DIT, BANGALORE vs. MAHARANI LAKSHMI AMMANI COLLEGE TRUST, BANGALORE

In the result, the revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 391/BANG/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR) (ITAT)-2, BengaluruFor Respondent: Shri P.R. Suresh, C.A
Section 11(1)(a)

11(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act. The court rejected the argument on behalf of the revenue that section 32 of the Income Tax Act was the only section granting benefit of deduction on account of depreciation

KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee is allowed with\nthe above directions

ITA 1283/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Aug 2025AY 2011-12
Section 11Section 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

section 11 and\n12 of the Act. Thereafter he referred to the various individual\nadditions and dismissed the ground related to disallowance.\nWith respect to depreciation

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1, MANGALURU vs. M/S. DR. T. M. A. PAI FOUNDATION, MANIPAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 783/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Oct 2018AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Sri Nandini Das, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 15Section 70

11(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act. The court rejected the argument on behalf of the revenue that section 32 of the Page 5 of 10 Income Tax Act was the only section granting benefit of deduction on account of depreciation

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S B S & G FOUNDATION,, BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for asst

ITA 884/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boazthe Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Exemptions), Bengaluru. . Appellant Vs. M/S B S & G Foundation, 502, 2Nd Floor, 5Th ‘C’ Main, 5Th Cross, 2Nd Block, Hrbr Layout, Kalyannagar, Bangalore. . Respondent Pan – Aaatb6131D. Appellant By : Smt. Padmameenakshhi, Jcit Respondent By : Shri R.T Balasubramanyam, C.A Date Of Hearing : 28-9-2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 4-10-2017 O R D E R

For Appellant: Smt. Padmameenakshhi, JCITFor Respondent: Shri R.T Balasubramanyam, C.A
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 11(3)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13Section 143(3)

depreciation to charitable/ religious trust or institution on the value of assets which has already been allowed ITA No.884/B/16 7 as application of income u/s 11(1) by inserting sub- section

ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. SRI. K.R. KAVIRAJ, HOSPET

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

ITA 362/BANG/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Dec 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri M. Karunakaran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pramod Kumar Singh, CIT-II (D.R)
Section 10Section 12ASection 132Section 143(3)

depreciation along with application of money of capital expenditure amounts double deduction which is not envisaged under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The CIT (Appeals) has also referred to the amended provisions of Section 11

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE vs. M/S. THE NEW CAMBRIDGE EDUCATIONAL TRUST, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 1388/BANG/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Pramod Singh, CIT (D.R)For Respondent: Shri P.R. Suresh, CA
Section 28

11(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act. The court rejected the argument on behalf of the revenue that section 32 of the Income Tax Act was the only section granting benefit of deduction on account of depreciation

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 290/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 250Section 254Section 37Section 90

section 32 of the Act from F.Y. 2014-15 relevant to A.Y. 2015-16 till the year under consideration in the following manner: A.Y. Opening WDV Addition Total assets Depreciation Closing WDV (Rs.) during the (Rs.) at 25% (Rs.) (Rs.) year

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 293/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 250Section 254Section 37Section 90

section 32 of the Act from F.Y. 2014-15 relevant to A.Y. 2015-16 till the year under consideration in the following manner: A.Y. Opening WDV Addition Total assets Depreciation Closing WDV (Rs.) during the (Rs.) at 25% (Rs.) (Rs.) year

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 292/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 250Section 254Section 37Section 90

section 32 of the Act from F.Y. 2014-15 relevant to A.Y. 2015-16 till the year under consideration in the following manner: A.Y. Opening WDV Addition Total assets Depreciation Closing WDV (Rs.) during the (Rs.) at 25% (Rs.) (Rs.) year

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1, MANGALURU vs. M/S MANIPAL ACADEMY OF HIGHER EDUCATION, MANIPAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 780/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice- & Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)
Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 15Section 70

depreciation is nothing but decrease in the value of property through wear and tear, deterioration or obsolescence and the allowance made for that purpose in the books of accounts were deemed to be the application of funds for the purpose of Section 11