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.

118 results for “depreciation”+ Section 152clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi347Mumbai344Chennai140Bangalore118Jaipur63Kolkata39Ahmedabad35Raipur32Indore25Pune21Surat18Lucknow18Chandigarh15Cuttack14Hyderabad10SC6Visakhapatnam5Karnataka5Nagpur4Amritsar3Cochin3Telangana3Agra2Rajkot2Jodhpur1Varanasi1

Key Topics

Addition to Income71Section 143(3)62Section 14858Disallowance56Section 14A53Section 1138Section 15431Deduction31Section 133A28Section 2(15)

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

152) directed the AO to compute the amount of loss or depreciation on cumulative basis which is given as under: 17. Being aggrieved by this direction, the revenue is in appeal before us. 18. In the present ground, the dispute is with regard to method of computing amount of loss or depreciation, whichever is less, for the purpose of setting

Showing 1–20 of 118 · Page 1 of 6

27
Section 10A26
Depreciation23

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

152) directed the AO to compute the amount of loss or depreciation on cumulative basis which is given as under: 17. Being aggrieved by this direction, the revenue is in appeal before us. 18. In the present ground, the dispute is with regard to method of computing amount of loss or depreciation, whichever is less, for the purpose of setting

DCIT vs. M/S JUPITER CAPIAL PVT. LTD.,,

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1595/BANG/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Circle 11(5), M/S. Jupiter Capital (P) Ltd., Bengaluru-560001. No. 54, Richmond Road, Vs. Bengaluru-560025. Pan : Aabcj 5666 R Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri. Pradeep Kumar, Jcit (Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Assessee By : Smt. Pratibha, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 13.11.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.12.2019

For Appellant: Smt. Pratibha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Pradeep Kumar, JCIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)

section (2) shall also apply in relation to a case wherein assesses claims that no expenditure has been incurred by him in relation to the exempt income. Rule 8D contains the method in accordance with which the AO shall determine the amount of expenditure incurred in relation to the exempt income. Rule 8D has three components. First - the amount

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. ASIA POWER PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismsised

ITA 1140/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Chandra Poojarind Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-16 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Asia Power Projects Private Limited, Circle – 1(1)(1), 4 Lake Side Residency, No.4, Bengaluru. Annaswamy Mudaliar Road, Bengaluru – 560 042. Pan : Aadca 0485 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Chavali Narayana, Ca Revenue By : Shri. D. K. Mishra, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 27.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.02.2024

For Appellant: Shri. Chavali Narayana, CAFor Respondent: Shri. D. K. Mishra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

depreciation under section 115JB of the Act, the CIT(A) followed the orders of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT Vs. Bangalore International Airport (BIAL) in ITA No.662/Bang/2014 (Order dated 27.09.2016) in the case of Amline Textiles Pvt. Ltd., Vs. ITO reported in 27 SOT 152

M/S MFAR DEVELOPERS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(3) , BANGALORE

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

ITA 385/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: S/Shri C.R. Krishna & Sachin Mehta, CAsFor Respondent: Shri Saravanan B., CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 14ASection 32Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

depreciation. 1.1. The issue is whether the interest related to the period before the date on which an asset is put to use should be capitalized or allowed as revenue expenditure in P&L account. Section 36(1)(iii) provides: "(iii) the amount of the interest paid in respect of capital borrowed for the purposes of the business or profession

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

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 2038/BANG/2019[2009-10]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore31 Mar 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri. S. V. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234ASection 36(1)(viia)

152 TTJ 546/82 DTR 373 (Chennai) (Trib), the ratio laid down by ITAT, Ahmedabad (ITA No. 1252/Ahd/2012) dtd 26.07.2013 in the case of Bharuch Dist. Central Co-operative Bank Ltd vs ITO, Ward-1, Bharuch also supports the view taken by the Assessing Officer. 8. On merits the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the additions made by Ld.AO. 9. Aggrieved

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

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 2037/BANG/2019[2008-09]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore31 Mar 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri. S. V. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234ASection 36(1)(viia)

152 TTJ 546/82 DTR 373 (Chennai) (Trib), the ratio laid down by ITAT, Ahmedabad (ITA No. 1252/Ahd/2012) dtd 26.07.2013 in the case of Bharuch Dist. Central Co-operative Bank Ltd vs ITO, Ward-1, Bharuch also supports the view taken by the Assessing Officer. 8. On merits the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the additions made by Ld.AO. 9. Aggrieved

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

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 2036/BANG/2019[2007-08]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore31 Mar 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri. S. V. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234ASection 36(1)(viia)

152 TTJ 546/82 DTR 373 (Chennai) (Trib), the ratio laid down by ITAT, Ahmedabad (ITA No. 1252/Ahd/2012) dtd 26.07.2013 in the case of Bharuch Dist. Central Co-operative Bank Ltd vs ITO, Ward-1, Bharuch also supports the view taken by the Assessing Officer. 8. On merits the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the additions made by Ld.AO. 9. Aggrieved

DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LIMITED ,BIDAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , GULBARGA

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 551/BANG/2019[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri. S. V. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234ASection 36(1)(viia)

152 TTJ 546/82 DTR 373 (Chennai) (Trib), the ratio laid down by ITAT, Ahmedabad (ITA No. 1252/Ahd/2012) dtd 26.07.2013 in the case of Bharuch Dist. Central Co-operative Bank Ltd vs ITO, Ward-1, Bharuch also supports the view taken by the Assessing Officer. 8. On merits the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the additions made by Ld.AO. 9. Aggrieved

M/S. BIOCON LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU,, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed on the legal issue raised in ground no

ITA 1858/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2010-11 The Joint M/S. Biocon Ltd., Commissioner Of 20Th Km, Hosur Road, Income-Tax, Electronic City, Large Tax Payers Bangalore – 560 100. Unit [Ltu], Pan: Aaacb7461R Vs. Bangalore. Appellant Respondent : Shri Padam Chand Khincha, Assessee By Ca Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 20-04-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 09-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.03.2018 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-3, Bangalore For A.Y. 2010-11 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Herein Below Are Independent & Without Prejudice To The Other Grounds Preferred By The Appellant. 1. That On Facts & Circumstances Of The ' Case & In Law, The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax Appeals ["Cit(A)"] Dated March 28, 2018 Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act") For Ay 2010-11 To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant, Is Bad In Law & Facts & Liable To Be Quashed. 2. Scope Of Re-Assessment Proceedings

For Respondent: Shri Padam Chand Khincha
Section 147Section 250Section 35

152 ITD 320 (Bangalore - Trib.) wherein the restatement of assets and liabilities was considered as an allowable expenditure under MAT. 5.7 That on facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in disregarding the ruling of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Woodward Governor India

SMT. VASANTHI PADMANABHA SHERUGAR,BELLARY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1, BELLARY

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 545/BANG/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Sept 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri. Sandeep Huilgol, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sridharan P, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

depreciation under section 43A. One of the important reasons for giving the power of rectification to the Tribunal is to see that no prejudice is caused to either of the parties appearing before it by its decision based on a mistake apparent from the record. 13. "Rule of precedent" is an important aspect of legal certainty in rule

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BANGALORE vs. M/S INFOSYS BPO LTD, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 1333/BANG/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Sept 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt.Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Miss. Neera Malhotra, CIT, DR
Section 10ASection 14ASection 40

section 10 A in respect of such unit. Accordingly this ground raised by assessee stands partly allowed. 24. Ground No. 7 is in respect of brand building expenses claimed by assessee. The authorities below has held the brand building to be capital in nature as assessee has derived enduring benefits. However depreciation at 25% has been granted to assessee

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. SAINT GOBAIN CRYSTALS & DETECTORS (I) LTD.,, BANGALORE

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

ITA 708/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 May 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raodeputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 12(3), Bangalore. … Appellant Vs. M/S.Saint Gobain Crystals & Detectors (I)Ltd Sy.No.171/2, Maruthi Indl.Estate Hoodi Rajapalya, Whitefield Main Road, Bangalore-48. … Respondent Pan:Aaacb 6794 R

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, JCIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri N.L.Rajeev, CA
Section 10B

152. 5.3 As regards reckoning of period of 10 consecutive years, learned AR of the assessee submitted that since respondent- assessee-company opted out of provisions of sec.10B for two years, first year should be reckoned from 1999-2000 onwards. Accordingly, he submitted that the respondent-assessee-company is entitled for deduction even for assessment year

MSOURCE(INDIA)PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

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

ITA 1178/BANG/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Oct 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri S.K.Yadav & Shri A. K. Garodia

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Khincha, C. AFor Respondent: Miss Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 10Section 10ASection 115Section 115JSection 234CSection 32(2)Section 72(2)

depreciation of A.Y. 2002-03 as per section 72(2) r.w. section 32(2) of the Act. 4. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of DCIT, in denying the application for revision of claim of deduction under section 10A. The appellant prays that the Department be directed to consider the revision of the claim. 5. The learned

M/S. YASHASWI FISH MEAL AND OIL COMPANY,UDUPI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

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

ITA 63/BANG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shi V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

152 are substantially different from the provisions as they stood prior to such substitution. Under the old provisions of section 147, separate clauses (a) and (b) laid down the circumstances under which income escaping assessment for the past assessment years could be assessed or reassessed. To confer jurisdiction under section 147(a) two conditions were required to be satisfied : firstly

M/S. YASHASWI FISH MEAL AND OIL COMPANY,UDUPI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

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

ITA 62/BANG/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shi V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

152 are substantially different from the provisions as they stood prior to such substitution. Under the old provisions of section 147, separate clauses (a) and (b) laid down the circumstances under which income escaping assessment for the past assessment years could be assessed or reassessed. To confer jurisdiction under section 147(a) two conditions were required to be satisfied : firstly

M/S. YASHASWI FISH MEAL AND OIL COMPANY,UDUPI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

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

ITA 66/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shi V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

152 are substantially different from the provisions as they stood prior to such substitution. Under the old provisions of section 147, separate clauses (a) and (b) laid down the circumstances under which income escaping assessment for the past assessment years could be assessed or reassessed. To confer jurisdiction under section 147(a) two conditions were required to be satisfied : firstly

M/S. YASHASWI FISH MEAL AND OIL COMPANY,UDUPI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

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

ITA 65/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shi V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

152 are substantially different from the provisions as they stood prior to such substitution. Under the old provisions of section 147, separate clauses (a) and (b) laid down the circumstances under which income escaping assessment for the past assessment years could be assessed or reassessed. To confer jurisdiction under section 147(a) two conditions were required to be satisfied : firstly

M/S. YASHASWI FISH MEAL AND OIL COMPANY,UDUPI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

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

ITA 64/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shi V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

152 are substantially different from the provisions as they stood prior to such substitution. Under the old provisions of section 147, separate clauses (a) and (b) laid down the circumstances under which income escaping assessment for the past assessment years could be assessed or reassessed. To confer jurisdiction under section 147(a) two conditions were required to be satisfied : firstly

DCIT vs. M/S FIZA DEVELOPERS & INTERTRADE PVT. LTD.,,

In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed statistical purposes

ITA 1026/BANG/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Dilip for K.V. Arivind, Standing CounselFor Respondent: Sri Narendra Sharma, A.R
Section 131Section 153ASection 68Section 80Section 80I

section 32 with effect from 1.4.2002 and in terms of this explanation, the depreciation is to be allowed irrespective of the claim by the assessee. The assessee has mentioned in form No.10CCB that the initial AY for claiming deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the Act is AY 2003-04 but is not clear what was the value of the depreciable