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.

375 results for “depreciation”+ Section 139(5)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,040Delhi855Bangalore375Chennai319Kolkata239Jaipur166Raipur117Hyderabad111Ahmedabad95Pune75Indore74Chandigarh72Karnataka58Surat41Amritsar36Cochin35Visakhapatnam32Lucknow32Guwahati26Nagpur23Cuttack20SC20Jodhpur16Telangana10Patna9Rajkot7Allahabad7Dehradun4Panaji3Punjab & Haryana3Calcutta2Varanasi2Agra2D.K. JAIN H.L. DATTU JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1Tripura1

Key Topics

Addition to Income66Section 14857Section 1150Section 143(3)49Disallowance47Section 14739Section 153A38Deduction35Section 4032Section 143(2)

M/S. CANARA BANK (ERSTWHILE SYNDICATE BANK),BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

ITA 388/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115JSection 147Section 250Section 36(1)(viia)Section 5

5,34,77,332 Commercial 1,40,62,786 - - - 1,33,34,195 12,00,07,752 Total 7,03,54, - - - 1,61,48,791 17,34,85,084 4. During the reassessment proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee has claimed a sum of Rs.936,90,65,332 as deduction u/s. 36(1)(viia

M/S. CANARA BANK (ERSTWHILE SYNDICATE BANK),BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

Showing 1–20 of 375 · Page 1 of 19

...
28
Depreciation26
Section 143(1)25
ITA 389/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115JSection 147Section 250Section 36(1)(viia)Section 5

5,34,77,332 Commercial 1,40,62,786 - - - 1,33,34,195 12,00,07,752 Total 7,03,54, - - - 1,61,48,791 17,34,85,084 4. During the reassessment proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee has claimed a sum of Rs.936,90,65,332 as deduction u/s. 36(1)(viia

M/S. MISTRAL SOFTWARE PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 1911/BANG/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Nov 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Kannan Narayanan, JCIT-DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 154

section 139(5) of the Act. In fact, probably the assessing authority was conscious that it is not a valid ground to reject the claim, he proceeded to consider the claim of the assessee on the merits and has rejected the claim on the merits also.” 9.10 In the light of the aforesaid reasoning and the judgment

M/S. MISTRAL SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2), , BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 1913/BANG/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Nov 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Kannan Narayanan, JCIT-DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 154

section 139(5) of the Act. In fact, probably the assessing authority was conscious that it is not a valid ground to reject the claim, he proceeded to consider the claim of the assessee on the merits and has rejected the claim on the merits also.” 9.10 In the light of the aforesaid reasoning and the judgment

M/S. MISTRAL SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 1912/BANG/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Nov 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Kannan Narayanan, JCIT-DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 154

section 139(5) of the Act. In fact, probably the assessing authority was conscious that it is not a valid ground to reject the claim, he proceeded to consider the claim of the assessee on the merits and has rejected the claim on the merits also.” 9.10 In the light of the aforesaid reasoning and the judgment

M/S. MISTRAL SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4(1)(2),, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 1914/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Nov 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Kannan Narayanan, JCIT-DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 154

section 139(5) of the Act. In fact, probably the assessing authority was conscious that it is not a valid ground to reject the claim, he proceeded to consider the claim of the assessee on the merits and has rejected the claim on the merits also.” 9.10 In the light of the aforesaid reasoning and the judgment

GOBINDRAM CHANDRAMANI VIVEK,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD 1(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in the manner indicated in this order

ITA 656/BANG/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Mrs. Beena Pillai & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Sh. Ashok A Kulkarni, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 54Section 54(2)Section 54F

139(4), provided there is not diversion for some other purposes of long term capital gains received on the transfer of original asset. Thus, as adjudicated and held by Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Shri Ramaiah Dorairaj(supra) which has been relied upon by the assesee himself, the issue is remitted to the file

M/S VOLVO INDIA PVT. LTD. vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1537/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153(1)Section 18

139, whichever is later : Provided that in case the assessment year in which the income was first assessable is the assessment year commencing on or after the 1st day of April, 2004 but before the 1st day of April, 2010, the provisions of clause (a) shall have effect as if for the words "two years", the words "twenty-one months

SUNITA MADHOK ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 555/BANG/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H.N. Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Smt. H. Kabila, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 234BSection 69

139, after the expiry of one month from the date on which he was served with a notice under sub-section (1) of section 142 or sub-section (2) of section 143 or after the completion of the assessment, whichever is earlier; ITA Nos.554 & 555/Bang/2018 Page 18 of 64 (b) where he has made no such return, after the expiry

SUNITA MADHOK ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 554/BANG/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H.N. Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Smt. H. Kabila, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 234BSection 69

139, after the expiry of one month from the date on which he was served with a notice under sub-section (1) of section 142 or sub-section (2) of section 143 or after the completion of the assessment, whichever is earlier; ITA Nos.554 & 555/Bang/2018 Page 18 of 64 (b) where he has made no such return, after the expiry

M/S. BHARAT BEEDI WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all the four A

ITA 643/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K. (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Chythanya .K, SrFor Respondent: Shri E. Shridhar, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

139(1)\nand no notice under section\n139(2) was served upon\nhim. However, he filed\nreturns under section\n139(4). After a period of\nabout four years, he filed\nrevised\nreturns.\nThe\nAssessing Officer did not\ncomplete the assessments\nbefore the expiry of four\nyears from the end of the\n assessment years.\nThus, the facts of the case

GOPAL S. PANDITH vs. DCIT,

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

ITA 1186/BANG/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Neera Malhotra, CIT (D.R)
Section 139Section 153Section 153ASection 153DSection 234Section 548

5. The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have held the notice issued u/s 143(2) of the Act, relates to the original return filed u/s 139 of the Act and not to the proceedings initiated u/s 153A of the Act, since the learned Assessing Authority has considered the income returned in the original return

MR. JITENDRA KUMAR NAHATA,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), CIRCLE-6(1)(1) REPRESENTED BY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

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

ITA 41/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Sunaina Bhatia, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Sankarganesh K, JCIT (DR)
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 801ASection 801BSection 80ASection 80I

section 801A, shall be allowed if return is furnished before the due date offihing the return and held that the assessee is squarely entitled for deduction u/s 801A of the Act as all the conditions therein were duly fulfilled by the assessee. The Ld. DR did not refute any of the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) by producing

OPTO CIRCUITS INDIA PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1316/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Sri.Shiva Prasad Reddy, ITPFor Respondent: Sri.Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 10BSection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 35(1)(i)Section 37

139(1) of the I.T.Act to be eligible for the benefit of section 10AA of the I.T.Act. Sub-section (8) of section 10AA of the I.T.Act reads as follows:- 6 ITA No.1316/Bang/2017. M/s.Opto Circuits (India) Limited. “(8) The provisions of sub-sections (5)62 and (6) of section 10A shall apply to the articles or things or services referred

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SHRI SACHIN KAMATH, BANGALORE

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals bearing ITA Nos

ITA 1781/BANG/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri S.Srinivasan, CAFor Respondent: Dr.Pradeep Kumar,P.V., Addl.CIT(DR)
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) : Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant ITA No.1780

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SHRI SACHIN KAMATH, BANGALORE

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals bearing ITA Nos

ITA 1782/BANG/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri S.Srinivasan, CAFor Respondent: Dr.Pradeep Kumar,P.V., Addl.CIT(DR)
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) : Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant ITA No.1780

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SHRI SACHIN KAMATH, BANGALORE

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals bearing ITA Nos

ITA 1784/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri S.Srinivasan, CAFor Respondent: Dr.Pradeep Kumar,P.V., Addl.CIT(DR)
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) : Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant ITA No.1780

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SHRI SACHIN KAMATH , BANGALORE

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals bearing ITA Nos

ITA 1780/BANG/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri S.Srinivasan, CAFor Respondent: Dr.Pradeep Kumar,P.V., Addl.CIT(DR)
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) : Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant ITA No.1780

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SHRI SACHIN KAMATH , BANGALORE

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals bearing ITA Nos

ITA 1783/BANG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri S.Srinivasan, CAFor Respondent: Dr.Pradeep Kumar,P.V., Addl.CIT(DR)
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) : Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant ITA No.1780

INDAUTO FILTERS,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 719/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri K G Acharya, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 32

139(5) of the Act going by the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kumar Jagdish Chandra Sinha (supra). However, the depreciation allowance under Explanation 5 of section