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.

181 results for “depreciation”+ Section 145clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai642Delhi516Chennai182Bangalore181Kolkata138Ahmedabad111Jaipur105Chandigarh96Raipur50Hyderabad46Pune44Lucknow40Surat39Ranchi35Visakhapatnam32Amritsar24Rajkot22Karnataka19Cochin15SC12Agra11Cuttack10Indore10Allahabad8Patna7Telangana6Jodhpur6Nagpur5Panaji5Varanasi5Guwahati2Calcutta2Dehradun1Punjab & Haryana1D.K. JAIN H.L. DATTU JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1Orissa1

Key Topics

Addition to Income74Disallowance52Deduction44Section 153A43Section 143(3)42Section 10A41Section 4039Section 14A39Section 14828Transfer Pricing

SMT. LIZY GEORGE,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 7(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 398/BANG/2020[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri V Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT (DR)
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 145(3)

145(3) of the 1961 Act is preposterous. In that, the assessment in question came to be made under Section 143(3) of the 1961 Act. Thus, the Officer was justified in relying upon the said books for making Page 13 of 34 addition's). The respondent would also urge that while imposing the first addition, the assessment order does

Showing 1–20 of 181 · Page 1 of 10

...
28
Section 133A25
Depreciation23

M/S. THE DAVANGERE HARIHAR URBAN SAHAKARI BANK NIYAMITHA,DAVANGERE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, DAVANGERE

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

ITA 2609/BANG/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 May 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George K. Georgeassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Muthukrishnan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 145Section 145(1)Section 234

145, the Board has issued accounting standards to be followed by way of a Notification No. SO 69(E), dated 25-1-1996. [Para 5] Clause (6) of the Accounting Standard defines 'accrual' for the purpose of paragraphs (1) to (5) in the said Accounting Standards. 'Accrual' refers to the assumption that revenues and costs are accrued, that is, recognized

DCIT vs. ING VYSYA BANK, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed while the 68

ITA 318/BANG/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Feb 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2005-06 M/S. Ing Vysya Bank Ltd., Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Ing Vysya House, Income Tax, No.22, M.G. Road, Circle 11(4), Bangalore – 560 001. Bangalore. Pan: Aabct 0529M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2005-06 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Ing Vysya Bank Ltd., Income Tax, Bangalore – 560 001. Circle 11(4), Pan: Aabct 0529M Bangalore. Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri S. Ananthan, C.A. Revenue By : Shri C.H. Sundar Rao, Cit-I(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 20.01.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.02.2015 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri C.H. Sundar Rao, CIT-I(DR)
Section 1Section 10Section 234D

section 145 of the Act. Therefore, the total depreciation in respect of the investment amounting to Rs.16,99,68,583/- was claimed

ING VYSYA BANK LTD. vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed while the 68

ITA 288/BANG/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Feb 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2005-06 M/S. Ing Vysya Bank Ltd., Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Ing Vysya House, Income Tax, No.22, M.G. Road, Circle 11(4), Bangalore – 560 001. Bangalore. Pan: Aabct 0529M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2005-06 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Ing Vysya Bank Ltd., Income Tax, Bangalore – 560 001. Circle 11(4), Pan: Aabct 0529M Bangalore. Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri S. Ananthan, C.A. Revenue By : Shri C.H. Sundar Rao, Cit-I(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 20.01.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.02.2015 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri C.H. Sundar Rao, CIT-I(DR)
Section 1Section 10Section 234D

section 145 of the Act. Therefore, the total depreciation in respect of the investment amounting to Rs.16,99,68,583/- was claimed

M/S THE SOUTH CANARA DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OP BANK LTD,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1, MANGALORE

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

ITA 218/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar – AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nandini Das, CIT (DR)
Section 145Section 22(1)

section 145(1) of the Act, which was in force during the relevant assessment years.” 50. It is not in dispute before us that identical decision has also been rendered by the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in the case of CIT v. Federal Bank, 301 ITR 188 (Ker) and the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case

M/S THE SOUTH CANARA DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OP BANK LTD,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1, MANGALORE

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

ITA 219/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar – AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nandini Das, CIT (DR)
Section 145Section 22(1)

section 145(1) of the Act, which was in force during the relevant assessment years.” 50. It is not in dispute before us that identical decision has also been rendered by the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in the case of CIT v. Federal Bank, 301 ITR 188 (Ker) and the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case

ACIT CIRCLE 1(1) & TPS, MANGALURU vs. M/S THE SOUTH CANARA DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, MANGALURU

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

ITA 2332/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar – AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nandini Das, CIT (DR)
Section 145Section 22(1)

section 145(1) of the Act, which was in force during the relevant assessment years.” 50. It is not in dispute before us that identical decision has also been rendered by the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in the case of CIT v. Federal Bank, 301 ITR 188 (Ker) and the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case

ACIT CIRCLE1(1)& TPS , MANGALURU, MANGALURU vs. M/S SOUTH KANARA DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD, MANGALURU

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

ITA 2331/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar – AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nandini Das, CIT (DR)
Section 145Section 22(1)

section 145(1) of the Act, which was in force during the relevant assessment years.” 50. It is not in dispute before us that identical decision has also been rendered by the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in the case of CIT v. Federal Bank, 301 ITR 188 (Ker) and the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case

M/S THE SOUTH CANARA DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OP BANK LTD,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1, MANGALORE

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

ITA 217/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar – AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nandini Das, CIT (DR)
Section 145Section 22(1)

section 145(1) of the Act, which was in force during the relevant assessment years.” 50. It is not in dispute before us that identical decision has also been rendered by the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in the case of CIT v. Federal Bank, 301 ITR 188 (Ker) and the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case

ACIT CIRCLE 1 (1)&TPS, MANGALURU vs. M/S THE SOUTH CANARA DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED.,, MANGALURU

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

ITA 2333/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar – AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nandini Das, CIT (DR)
Section 145Section 22(1)

section 145(1) of the Act, which was in force during the relevant assessment years.” 50. It is not in dispute before us that identical decision has also been rendered by the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in the case of CIT v. Federal Bank, 301 ITR 188 (Ker) and the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case

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

145 (Delhi Trib.) xii. Km. Preeti Singh v. ITO [2019] 176 ITD 137 (Delhi - Trib.) 5. According to the ld. AR, the assessee is entitled depreciation since the assessee fulfilled the conditions laid down in Section

ASHRAF NAFISA ALTHAF,MOODUBIDRI MANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, UDUPI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 614/BANG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Sanketh S. Nayak, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nischal B., D.R
Section 139(1)Section 250Section 40Section 43B

depreciation under section 32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961( 43 of 1961). (a) The CENVAT credit shall be allowed even if any inputs or capital goods (5) as such or after being partially processed are sent to a job worker for further processing, testing, repair, re-conditioning, or for the manufacture of intermediate goods necessary for the manufacture

M/S FLIPKART INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is allowed and the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 202/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Apr 2018AY 2015-16

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

For Respondent: Shri C.H. Sundar Rao, CIT
Section 131

depreciation on the value of intangible generated.” 16. Thereafter the CIT(A) gave certain directions in the matter of quantification of the value of intangible and the addition to be made to the total income. The revenue is aggrieved by these directions as this will reduce the profit margin on cost of purchases while working out the valuation of intangibles

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)

section 145 of the Act. It was also submitted that the difference between the ITA Noss.898 & 967/Bang/2013 38 sale price and the price at which the investments are recorded for tax purposes, is offered to tax in the year of sale and as such depreciation

M/S. ALTISOURCE BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 183/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Nitin G. Inamdar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Srinivas T. Bidari, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)

depreciation and disallowed the balance Rs.2,06,53,968/-. 7. Aggrieved the assessee filed the objections before the DRP sustained the disallowance on the ground that the assessee has claimed internet and telephone expenses separately and that the telecommunication line expenses pertain to expenses incurred for IT infrastructure which is capital in nature. Aggrieved by the final order passed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU vs. FLIPKART INDIA PVT LTD, BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1394/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Shivanand Kalakeri, CIT(DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 37

depreciation in earlier years. Accordingly he made a net addition of Rs.5141 crores to the income of the assessee. 6. The ld. AO further found that assessee has claimed a deduction of Rs.147 crores as ESOP expenditure. The ld. AO was explained that these are payment to employees on account of cross-charge of expenditure by the holding company

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU vs. FLIPKART INDIA PVT LTD, BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1395/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Shivanand Kalakeri, CIT(DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 37

depreciation in earlier years. Accordingly he made a net addition of Rs.5141 crores to the income of the assessee. 6. The ld. AO further found that assessee has claimed a deduction of Rs.147 crores as ESOP expenditure. The ld. AO was explained that these are payment to employees on account of cross-charge of expenditure by the holding company

GEORGE JOSEPH FERNANDEZ,RAICHUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, RAICHUR

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

ITA 1965/BANG/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Apr 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri. A. K. Garodia

For Appellant: Shri. Balasubramaniam, CAFor Respondent: Shri. K. R. Narayana, JCIT
Section 145

depreciation on the assets in respect of Ajay Meetu Industrial Fabrication proportionate to 2 months was arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of Sec 32 read with sec 43(6)(c) of the IT Act of 1961. ITA.1965, 1966 & 2925/Bang/2017 Page - 5 8. The Ld. CIT (A) misdirected himself by confirming the order of Ld. AO wherein

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 valuation of investments. The facts leading to this addition, as set out by the Assessing Officer are as under: Page 5 of 48 Page 6 of 48 7.1 On appeal before the ld.CIT(A) the ld.CIT(A) granted relief following the decision of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for earlier years. 7.2 Being aggrieved

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 valuation of investments. The facts leading to this addition, as set out by the Assessing Officer are as under: Page 5 of 48 Page 6 of 48 7.1 On appeal before the ld.CIT(A) the ld.CIT(A) granted relief following the decision of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for earlier years. 7.2 Being aggrieved