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.

371 results for “depreciation”+ Section 139(9)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai986Delhi828Bangalore371Chennai302Kolkata225Jaipur152Raipur124Hyderabad113Ahmedabad109Chandigarh94Pune78Indore74Karnataka57Surat49Amritsar35Cochin33Visakhapatnam32Lucknow28Guwahati25Cuttack21SC19Nagpur19Jodhpur14Allahabad12Telangana9Rajkot7Patna6Dehradun5Panaji4Punjab & Haryana3Varanasi2Agra2D.K. JAIN H.L. DATTU JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1Calcutta1Tripura1

Key Topics

Addition to Income74Section 153A63Section 14853Disallowance53Section 143(3)46Section 14A41Section 4032Section 14731Section 13231Deduction

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

Showing 1–20 of 371 · Page 1 of 19

...
31
Section 143(2)29
Depreciation20

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

9 ITA Nos.1911-1914/Bang/2018 M/s.Mistral Solutions Pvt.Ltd. 9.5 Similarly, it is a settled principle that unabsorbed depreciation forms part of current year depreciation under section 32(2) and consequently unabsorbed depreciation should also be set off against any income of a subsequent year under any head. Further, the restriction of eight years for carry forward and set off of business loss

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

9 ITA Nos.1911-1914/Bang/2018 M/s.Mistral Solutions Pvt.Ltd. 9.5 Similarly, it is a settled principle that unabsorbed depreciation forms part of current year depreciation under section 32(2) and consequently unabsorbed depreciation should also be set off against any income of a subsequent year under any head. Further, the restriction of eight years for carry forward and set off of business loss

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

9 ITA Nos.1911-1914/Bang/2018 M/s.Mistral Solutions Pvt.Ltd. 9.5 Similarly, it is a settled principle that unabsorbed depreciation forms part of current year depreciation under section 32(2) and consequently unabsorbed depreciation should also be set off against any income of a subsequent year under any head. Further, the restriction of eight years for carry forward and set off of business loss

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

9 ITA Nos.1911-1914/Bang/2018 M/s.Mistral Solutions Pvt.Ltd. 9.5 Similarly, it is a settled principle that unabsorbed depreciation forms part of current year depreciation under section 32(2) and consequently unabsorbed depreciation should also be set off against any income of a subsequent year under any head. Further, the restriction of eight years for carry forward and set off of business loss

FIBRES & FABRICS INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 918/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, Jt. CIT(DR)
Section 32(1)(ii)

sections 139 and 139D the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961) read with sub-rule (3) of rule 12 of the Income tax Rules, 1962. In view of this, the said notification is binding on all Income Authorities mentioned in Sec. 116 of the IT Act. In absence of any waiver of the said stipulated condition, delay in filing

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

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. 6. The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the adoption of income under head "POOJA" Rs.20,00,000/- as against Rs.3,85,376/- admitted by appellant, rejecting

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

9. Contra, the learned AR supported the order of the CIT(A) on this disputed issue and stated that the assessee is only an accommodator and collects advances from property purchasers and accumulates the fund/property and transacts with Shri Dayananda Pai and CHD and there is no element of income. Whereas the persons/applicants before the Settlement Commission have accepted

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

9. Contra, the learned AR supported the order of the CIT(A) on this disputed issue and stated that the assessee is only an accommodator and collects advances from property purchasers and accumulates the fund/property and transacts with Shri Dayananda Pai and CHD and there is no element of income. Whereas the persons/applicants before the Settlement Commission have accepted

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

9. Contra, the learned AR supported the order of the CIT(A) on this disputed issue and stated that the assessee is only an accommodator and collects advances from property purchasers and accumulates the fund/property and transacts with Shri Dayananda Pai and CHD and there is no element of income. Whereas the persons/applicants before the Settlement Commission have accepted

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

9. Contra, the learned AR supported the order of the CIT(A) on this disputed issue and stated that the assessee is only an accommodator and collects advances from property purchasers and accumulates the fund/property and transacts with Shri Dayananda Pai and CHD and there is no element of income. Whereas the persons/applicants before the Settlement Commission have accepted

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

9. Contra, the learned AR supported the order of the CIT(A) on this disputed issue and stated that the assessee is only an accommodator and collects advances from property purchasers and accumulates the fund/property and transacts with Shri Dayananda Pai and CHD and there is no element of income. Whereas the persons/applicants before the Settlement Commission have accepted

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU vs. RASHTROTTHANA PARISHAT, BENGALURU

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

ITA 1666/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Ms. Neera Malhotra CIT-D.RFor Respondent: Sri Prakash Shridhar Hegde, CA
Section 11Section 11(6)Section 250Section 270ASection 274

depreciation which is purely a clerical error and not deliberate. Further the assessee trust also submitted that the their case is also not covered by any of the provision listed in sub section (2) of section 270A which defines under reporting and accordingly prayed to condone the bonafide error on their part & drop the penalty proceedings initiated under section 270A

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

M/S HARMAN CONNECTED SERVICES CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1982/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1980 To 1982/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, Sr. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sreenivas T. Bidari, D.R
Section 143(3)

9. Ground No.2 raised only in ITA No.1980/Bang/2018 is with regard to holding that MTM loss being unascertained liability need to be added to book profits u/s 115JB of the Act. 10. The ld. A.R. submitted that the disallowance, if at all, cannot be added back while computing the book profits under section 115JB of the Act as the loss

M/S HARMAN CONNECTED SERVICES CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-12 , BANGALORE

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

ITA 1980/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jan 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1980 To 1982/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, Sr. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sreenivas T. Bidari, D.R
Section 143(3)

9. Ground No.2 raised only in ITA No.1980/Bang/2018 is with regard to holding that MTM loss being unascertained liability need to be added to book profits u/s 115JB of the Act. 10. The ld. A.R. submitted that the disallowance, if at all, cannot be added back while computing the book profits under section 115JB of the Act as the loss

M/S HARMAN CONNECTED SERVICES CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1981/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1980 To 1982/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, Sr. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sreenivas T. Bidari, D.R
Section 143(3)

9. Ground No.2 raised only in ITA No.1980/Bang/2018 is with regard to holding that MTM loss being unascertained liability need to be added to book profits u/s 115JB of the Act. 10. The ld. A.R. submitted that the disallowance, if at all, cannot be added back while computing the book profits under section 115JB of the Act as the loss

M/S TOTAL ENVIRONMENT BUILDING SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, revenue’s appeal stands dismissed and the assessee’s appeals for A

ITA 46/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri Vilas V Shinde, CIT DR
Section 250Section 37Section 40Section 43B

depreciation on computer software for non deduction of TDS under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 18.1 This issue is covered in favour of assessee by the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of PCIT vs.Tally Solutions (P.) Ltd reported in (2021) 123 taxmann.com 21. Hon’ble Court held as under: 9. We have considered

TOTAL ENVIRONMENT BUILDING SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, revenue’s appeal stands dismissed and the assessee’s appeals for A

ITA 45/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri Vilas V Shinde, CIT DR
Section 250Section 37Section 40Section 43B

depreciation on computer software for non deduction of TDS under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 18.1 This issue is covered in favour of assessee by the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of PCIT vs.Tally Solutions (P.) Ltd reported in (2021) 123 taxmann.com 21. Hon’ble Court held as under: 9. We have considered

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S TOTAL ENVIRONMENT BUILDING SYSTEMS PVT LTD , BANGALORE

In the result, revenue’s appeal stands dismissed and the assessee’s appeals for A

ITA 40/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri Vilas V Shinde, CIT DR
Section 250Section 37Section 40Section 43B

depreciation on computer software for non deduction of TDS under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 18.1 This issue is covered in favour of assessee by the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of PCIT vs.Tally Solutions (P.) Ltd reported in (2021) 123 taxmann.com 21. Hon’ble Court held as under: 9. We have considered