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.

122 results for “depreciation”+ Section 171clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai383Delhi309Bangalore122Ahmedabad69Chennai66Jaipur58Raipur40Pune36Hyderabad28Kolkata25Chandigarh21Lucknow19Indore12Ranchi9Visakhapatnam7Karnataka6SC6Amritsar6Cochin5Cuttack4Rajkot4Surat2Nagpur2Patna2Dehradun1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Telangana1Jodhpur1

Key Topics

Section 201(1)112Addition to Income76Disallowance45Section 9(1)(vi)38Deduction37Section 14836Section 143(3)33Section 36(1)(vii)28Depreciation26

M/S KARNATAKA EMTA COAL MINES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2137/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Gudimella V.P. Pavan Kumar &
Section 32(1)(ii)Section 35ESection 37

171-172 of the PB), the AO has specifically observed that the impugned depreciation on of Rs. 51,29,299/- is allowable. 6.16 Ld. A.R. submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the facts and law correctly by observing that the assessee is not the owner of such land comprising the mining area 6.17 Ld. A.R. further submitted

M/S KARNATAKA EMTA COAL MINES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

Showing 1–20 of 122 · Page 1 of 7

Section 56(2)(viib)25
Section 133A25
Section 36(1)(viia)24

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2138/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Gudimella V.P. Pavan Kumar &
Section 32(1)(ii)Section 35ESection 37

171-172 of the PB), the AO has specifically observed that the impugned depreciation on of Rs. 51,29,299/- is allowable. 6.16 Ld. A.R. submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the facts and law correctly by observing that the assessee is not the owner of such land comprising the mining area 6.17 Ld. A.R. further submitted

M/S KARNATAKA EMTA COAL MINES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2135/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Gudimella V.P. Pavan Kumar &
Section 32(1)(ii)Section 35ESection 37

171-172 of the PB), the AO has specifically observed that the impugned depreciation on of Rs. 51,29,299/- is allowable. 6.16 Ld. A.R. submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the facts and law correctly by observing that the assessee is not the owner of such land comprising the mining area 6.17 Ld. A.R. further submitted

M/S KARNATAKA EMTA COAL MINES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2136/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Gudimella V.P. Pavan Kumar &
Section 32(1)(ii)Section 35ESection 37

171-172 of the PB), the AO has specifically observed that the impugned depreciation on of Rs. 51,29,299/- is allowable. 6.16 Ld. A.R. submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the facts and law correctly by observing that the assessee is not the owner of such land comprising the mining area 6.17 Ld. A.R. further submitted

M/S KARNATAKA EMTA COAL MINES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2139/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Gudimella V.P. Pavan Kumar &
Section 32(1)(ii)Section 35ESection 37

171-172 of the PB), the AO has specifically observed that the impugned depreciation on of Rs. 51,29,299/- is allowable. 6.16 Ld. A.R. submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the facts and law correctly by observing that the assessee is not the owner of such land comprising the mining area 6.17 Ld. A.R. further submitted

M/S HIRSCH BRACELET INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

ITA 3392/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri R.S.V.S. Pavan Kumar, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 32(2)Section 50

depreciable asset and the land on which it is situated cannot be segregated as the sale of land and building is as a whole and separate values to the same have not been assigned during sale. The claim of the assessee that the sale price should be considered to be book value of the building and the balance amount needs

M/S. AARIS GROUP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 177/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 177/Bang/2022 (Assessment Year: 2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, CIT-DR
Section 144CSection 234BSection 92D

171,589,561 to the total income of the Appellant by holding that the international transaction relating to SWD services provided by the Appellant to its AEs is not at arm's length. 3:2 The Id.AO/TPO/DRP erred in facts of the case and in law in disregarding the benchmarking analysis and comparable companies selected by the Appellant based

MYSORE MINERALS LIMITED (NOW KNOWN AS KARNATAKA STATE MINERALS CORPORATION LIMITED),BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 4(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 465/BANG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
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)." (emphasis supplied) We are concerned with the provision of section 147 as amended with effect from 1st April 1989. In paragraph 4 of the said decision

MYSORE MINERALS LIMITED (NOW KNOWN AS KARNATAKA STATE MINERALS CORPORATION LIMITED),BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 4(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 464/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
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)." (emphasis supplied) We are concerned with the provision of section 147 as amended with effect from 1st April 1989. In paragraph 4 of the said decision

M/S. FIBERLINK SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BENGALURU

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

ITA 2703/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K

For Appellant: Shri K. Nageswar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkaihalli, CIT (DR)
Section 234BSection 234CSection 253Section 271(1)(c)

171 in respect of reversal of provisions pertaining to bonus, gratuity and leave encashment 7. The learned AO has erred, in law and facts, by disallowing gross repairs and maintenance expenses of INR 20,29,320 considering the same to be capital expenditure and only allowing a deduction of depreciation instead for INR 1,11,764 on such expenditure

M/S ATRIA POWER CORPROATION LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

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

ITA 1394/BANG/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Dec 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A.K. Garodiaassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H.L. Sowmya Achar, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115JSection 211Section 234Section 80I

171 (6) of the Page 32 of 48 Income- Tax Act to be prospective and inapplicable for any assessment year prior to 1st April, 1962, the date on which the Income Tax Act came into force: "11. Now it is a well settled rule of interpretation hallowed by time and sanctified by judicial decisions that, unless the terms

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1)(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S ATRIA HYDEL POWER LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, ITA Nos.534 to 556/Bang/2018 and CO Nos

ITA 114/BANG/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Years : 2010-11 Income-Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. Atria Hydel Power Ltd., Ward - 1(1)(2), #1, Palace Road, Bengaluru. Bangalore-560 001. Pan : Aacca 3754 E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Vikas Suryavamshi, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 211(2)Section 80I

171 (6) of the Income- Tax Act to be prospective and inapplicable for any assessment year prior to 1st April, 1962, the date on which the Income Tax Act came into force: "11. Now it is a well settled rule of interpretation hallowed by time and sanctified by judicial decisions that, unless the terms of a statute expressly so provide

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

171 which is less than 50%. When the AR was questioned he could not give any satisfactory explanation but for filing the copy of Form 56F. However, it is seen from the calculation of deduction sheet furnished before me the difference was due to depreciation as per the Companies Act and as per the IT Act claimed. In view

M/S. HEALTHCARE GLOBAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for Assessment Year 2010-11 is dismissed

ITA 1901/BANG/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Lalit Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Srinivas, CAFor Respondent: Shri B.R. Ramesh, JCIT (DR)
Section 72ASection 79

171 TAXMAN 397. 11. We have considered the rival submissions. First of all, we reproduce the provisions of sub section 1 and 7 of section 72A of the IT Act, 1961. The same are as under. Provisions relating to carry forward and set off of accumulated loss and unabsorbed depreciation

M/S. HEALTHCARE GLOBAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for Assessment Year 2010-11 is dismissed

ITA 1900/BANG/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Lalit Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Srinivas, CAFor Respondent: Shri B.R. Ramesh, JCIT (DR)
Section 72ASection 79

171 TAXMAN 397. 11. We have considered the rival submissions. First of all, we reproduce the provisions of sub section 1 and 7 of section 72A of the IT Act, 1961. The same are as under. Provisions relating to carry forward and set off of accumulated loss and unabsorbed depreciation

M/S INCAP CONTRACT MANUFACTURING SERVICES PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE

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

ITA 697/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhit(Tp)A No.697/Bang/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT) Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 92Section 92C

Section 31(1)(ii) of the Act. Since the assessee did not claim depreciation on goodwill in the return of income and even not made any claim before the CIT (Appeals). Therefore, the issue of allowing depreciation on goodwill has not been examined by the authorities below.” 15. The claim made in the present assessment year has to be allowed

HUBLI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY ,HUBBALLI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), HUBALLI

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

ITA 341/BANG/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Dec 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Smt. Prathibha R., A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 194CSection 194JSection 201Section 250Section 40

171 8.1 The NFAC dismissed the grounds on the reason that the assessee has admitted this addition. Against this, assessee is in appeal before us. Before us, ld. A.R. submitted that the above impugned amount is not charged to P&L account and also not claimed any expenditure on this count. This amount cannot be disallowed by invoking provisions

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S HONEYWELL TECHNOLOGIES SOLUTIONS LAB PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the revenue’s appeal and the assessee’s

ITA 943/BANG/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S.Honeywell Technology Solutions Lab Pvt. Ltd., Boganahalli Village, Survey No.72/5, Doddakananahalli Village, Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, Bengaluru-560103. … Appellant Pan:Aaach 4151 J

For Appellant: Shreya L, CAFor Respondent: Shri C.H.Sundar Rao, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 234CSection 40Section 80J

171/- and allowed depreciation, disallowed loss on marked to market foreign exchange of Rs.14,40,59,739/- and further restricted the claim of deduction us/ 10A and assessed the total income of Rs.87,79,22,043/- and passed the order u/s 143(3) dated 12/3/2013. 4. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed an appeal with

HONEYWELL TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS LAB PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the revenue’s appeal and the assessee’s

ITA 977/BANG/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S.Honeywell Technology Solutions Lab Pvt. Ltd., Boganahalli Village, Survey No.72/5, Doddakananahalli Village, Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, Bengaluru-560103. … Appellant Pan:Aaach 4151 J

For Appellant: Shreya L, CAFor Respondent: Shri C.H.Sundar Rao, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 234CSection 40Section 80J

171/- and allowed depreciation, disallowed loss on marked to market foreign exchange of Rs.14,40,59,739/- and further restricted the claim of deduction us/ 10A and assessed the total income of Rs.87,79,22,043/- and passed the order u/s 143(3) dated 12/3/2013. 4. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed an appeal with

M/S SAP LABS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 561/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 561/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Sap Labs India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 138, Export Promotion Commissioner Of Industrial Park, Income Tax, Whitefield, Circle – 6 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 066. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aafcs3649P Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 437/Bang/2015 (By Revenue) : Shri Aliasgar Rampurawala, Assessee By Ca Revenue By : Shri Arun Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 20-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee As Well As Revenue Against Final Assessment Order Dated 29.01.2015 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle – 6(1)(2), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2010-11 On Following Consolidated Grounds Of Appeal. Assessee’S Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Herein By The Appellant Are Without Prejudice To One Another.

For Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar, CIT DR
Section 92D

depreciation is in the nature of business expenditure. 9. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Dispute Resolution Panel erred in directing the AO to reduce expenses on communication, travel and other expenses incurred in foreign currency both from export turnover and as well as from total turnover for the purpose of computation of deduction