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.

257 results for “depreciation”+ Section 115clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai808Delhi637Bangalore257Chennai125Kolkata119Ahmedabad106Hyderabad59Jaipur45Chandigarh39Raipur31Ranchi28Pune26Guwahati19Lucknow18Surat15Nagpur15Karnataka15Indore13Visakhapatnam12Cuttack12Rajkot10SC9Telangana8Amritsar7Dehradun4Cochin4Agra2Calcutta2Panaji2Patna2Orissa1Kerala1Jodhpur1Gauhati1Allahabad1

Key Topics

Addition to Income83Section 143(3)68Section 153A63Disallowance39Section 14829Section 1128Depreciation27Transfer Pricing26Section 133A25

BANGALORE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

ITA 510/BANG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Sept 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raobangalore International Airport Ltd. Administration Block, Bial, Devanahalli Bangalore-560 300. … Appellant Pan:Aabc8973D Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(2), Bangalore. … Respondent & Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(2), Bangalore. … Appellant Vs. Bangalore International Airport Ltd. Bangalore-560 300. … Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sampath Raghunathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 43B

depreciation is nil; or] (iv) to (vi) .. (vii) the amount of profits of sick industrial company for the assessment year commencing on and from the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the said company has become a sick industrial company under sub-section (1) of section 1794 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions

Showing 1–20 of 257 · Page 1 of 13

...
Deduction23
Section 92C22
Section 13221

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S BANGALORE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD.,, BANGALORE

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

ITA 662/BANG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Sept 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raobangalore International Airport Ltd. Administration Block, Bial, Devanahalli Bangalore-560 300. … Appellant Pan:Aabc8973D Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(2), Bangalore. … Respondent & Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(2), Bangalore. … Appellant Vs. Bangalore International Airport Ltd. Bangalore-560 300. … Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sampath Raghunathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 43B

depreciation is nil; or] (iv) to (vi) .. (vii) the amount of profits of sick industrial company for the assessment year commencing on and from the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the said company has become a sick industrial company under sub-section (1) of section 1794 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions

M/S. SAFINA HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2512/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Nov 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojarim/S. Safina Hotels Pvt. Ltd., 84/85, Safina Plaza, Infantry Road, Bangalore-560 001 ….Appellant Pan Aaccs 5146G Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 6(1)(1), Bangalore. ……Respondent. Assessee By: Shri Tata Krishna, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri Kannan Narayanan, Jcit(D.R)

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kannan Narayanan, JCIT(D.R)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 32Section 37

depreciation Under Section 32 of the Act. He relied on the following judgments. • CIT v. Rajendra Prasad Moody [ 1978] 115

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 2, LTU, BENGALURU vs. M/S. ROBERT BOSCH ENGINEERING AND BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 446/BANG/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Sridhar E, CIT (DR)For Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 115Section 115JSection 237Section 80J

115-0 of the Act. 2. The Appellant pleads the Hon'ble ITAT to direct the AO to refund the excess Dividend Distribution Tax paid by the Appellant as per section 237 of the Act. 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Education Cess and Higher and Secondary Education Cess, being

ROBERT BOSCH ENGINEERING AND BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LARGE TAX PAYERS UNIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 593/BANG/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Sridhar E, CIT (DR)For Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 115Section 115JSection 237Section 80J

115-0 of the Act. 2. The Appellant pleads the Hon'ble ITAT to direct the AO to refund the excess Dividend Distribution Tax paid by the Appellant as per section 237 of the Act. 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Education Cess and Higher and Secondary Education Cess, being

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1)(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S. BRINDAVAN BEVERAGES PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2508/BANG/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Mar 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri V Srinivasan, Advocate
Section 115Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2Section 234B

115 JB of the Act at Rs.1,20,97,36,141/- that was confirmed in the appeal by the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.AO however, varied the interest computed under section 234B and C in the order giving effect to, based upon the original assessment order under section 153A read with 143(3) of the Act, dated 30/03/2015, and worked

JCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S VIJAYA BANK, BANGALORE

In the result the appeal by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 578/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Feb 2015AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Shri S.Ananthan and Smt.Lalitha Rameswaran, CAsFor Respondent: Shri O.P.Yadav, CIT-III (DR)
Section 36(1)(viia)

115 50,88,11,046 ITA Nos. 578 & 653/Bang/2012 Page 18 of 49 19. According to the AO, section 36(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) allows deduction in computing the income referred to in Section 28 subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), the amount of any bad debt or part thereof, which

VIJAYA BANK,BANGALORE vs. ADDL.C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result the appeal by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 653/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Feb 2015AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Shri S.Ananthan and Smt.Lalitha Rameswaran, CAsFor Respondent: Shri O.P.Yadav, CIT-III (DR)
Section 36(1)(viia)

115 50,88,11,046 ITA Nos. 578 & 653/Bang/2012 Page 18 of 49 19. According to the AO, section 36(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) allows deduction in computing the income referred to in Section 28 subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), the amount of any bad debt or part thereof, which

ING VYSYA BANK LTD. vs. ACIT,

In the result, revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2007-08 is dismissed

ITA 898/BANG/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Feb 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Farhat Hussain Qureshi, CIT (D.R)
Section 115JSection 143(3)

115 JB cannot thus be applied to the case of a banking company.” 99. We are of the view that in the light of the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal, we have to necessarily hold that provisions of section 115JB of the Act are not applicable to the assessee which is a banking company. The decisions relied

VIJAYA BANK ,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LARGE TAX PAYER UNIT , BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13 is dismissed

ITA 915/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jan 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Pramod Kumar Singh, JCIT (D.R)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

115 JB cannot thus be applied to the case of a banking company.” 99. We are of the view that in the light of the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal, we have to necessarily hold that provisions of section 115JB of the Act are not applicable to the assessee which is a banking company. The decisions relied

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

depreciation being a statutory allowance cannot be disallowed under section 40(a)(i) of the Act. 5. Before us, the learned AR for the assessee was heard in support of the grounds raised. The learned AR assailed the jurisdiction of the CIT in invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Act and also the additions/disallowances directed to be made

ACIT, MANGALORE vs. M/S KARNATAKA BANK LTD.,, MANGALORE

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

ITA 1265/BANG/2013[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Lalit Kumar

For Appellant: Shri A. Raghavendra Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.K.Jha, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)

Depreciation on investments- Rs. 96,12,04,010/-. 25. Being aggrieved by the above order, an appeal was preferred before the ld.CIT(A) who, vide order dated 29/05/2012, confirmed(i) liability to tax under section 115

ACIT, MANGALORE vs. M/S KARNATAKA BANK LTD.,, MANGALORE

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

ITA 1396/BANG/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Lalit Kumar

For Appellant: Shri A. Raghavendra Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.K.Jha, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)

Depreciation on investments- Rs. 96,12,04,010/-. 25. Being aggrieved by the above order, an appeal was preferred before the ld.CIT(A) who, vide order dated 29/05/2012, confirmed(i) liability to tax under section 115

THE KARNATAKA BANK LTD.,,MANGALORE vs. DCIT, MANGALORE

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

ITA 1335/BANG/2013[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Lalit Kumar

For Appellant: Shri A. Raghavendra Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.K.Jha, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)

Depreciation on investments- Rs. 96,12,04,010/-. 25. Being aggrieved by the above order, an appeal was preferred before the ld.CIT(A) who, vide order dated 29/05/2012, confirmed(i) liability to tax under section 115

THE KARNATAKA BANK LTD.,,MANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

ITA 1334/BANG/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Lalit Kumar

For Appellant: Shri A. Raghavendra Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.K.Jha, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)

Depreciation on investments- Rs. 96,12,04,010/-. 25. Being aggrieved by the above order, an appeal was preferred before the ld.CIT(A) who, vide order dated 29/05/2012, confirmed(i) liability to tax under section 115

ACIT, MANGALORE vs. M/S KARNATAKA BANK LTD.,, MANGALORE

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

ITA 1397/BANG/2012[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Lalit Kumar

For Appellant: Shri A. Raghavendra Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.K.Jha, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)

Depreciation on investments- Rs. 96,12,04,010/-. 25. Being aggrieved by the above order, an appeal was preferred before the ld.CIT(A) who, vide order dated 29/05/2012, confirmed(i) liability to tax under section 115

ACIT, MANGALORE vs. M/S KARNATAKA BANK LTD.,, MANGALORE

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

ITA 753/BANG/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Lalit Kumar

For Appellant: Shri A. Raghavendra Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.K.Jha, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)

Depreciation on investments- Rs. 96,12,04,010/-. 25. Being aggrieved by the above order, an appeal was preferred before the ld.CIT(A) who, vide order dated 29/05/2012, confirmed(i) liability to tax under section 115

THE KARNATAKA BANK LTD.,,MANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

ITA 1335/BANG/2012[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Lalit Kumar

For Appellant: Shri A. Raghavendra Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.K.Jha, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)

Depreciation on investments- Rs. 96,12,04,010/-. 25. Being aggrieved by the above order, an appeal was preferred before the ld.CIT(A) who, vide order dated 29/05/2012, confirmed(i) liability to tax under section 115

M/S TE CONNECTIVITY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2 LTPU , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is treated as partly allowed for 37

ITA 3373/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.3373/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Te Connectivity India Private Limited, Vs. Acit, Te Park, 22B, Doddenakundi Corporation, 2Nd Circle - 2, Large Taxpayer Unit, Phase, Industrial Area, Whitefield Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aabct 7374 C Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Sriram Seshadri, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 22.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.02.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Sriram Seshadri, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C

depreciation under section 32 of the Act is a mandatory allowance goodwill arising on merger satisfied the conditions specified under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act, as certified in the tax audit report IT(TP)A No.3373/Bang/2018 Page 5 of 33 ISSUE GROUNDS OF APPEAL (“GoA”) issued by Chartered Accountant. 14. Disallowance 14.1. The lower authorities erred in disallowing

ADDL/JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (LTU) , BANGALORE vs. M/S TEXAS INSTRUMENTS (INDIA) PVT LTD , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 525/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: FixedITAT Bangalore11 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 115Section 115QSection 143(3)Section 246A

115-O can be challenged under the clause “an order against the assessee where the assessee denies his liability to be assessed under this Act” mentioned in sec.246A(1)(a) as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court. The above said clause is a separate clause unconnected with the clause “any order of assessment under sub-section (3) of section