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.

129 results for “depreciation”+ Section 194clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai417Delhi297Bangalore129Chennai85Kolkata70Ahmedabad50Jaipur50Raipur36Hyderabad31Indore16Lucknow14Chandigarh13Cochin12Amritsar12Pune9Karnataka9Surat7Visakhapatnam5SC4Allahabad3Telangana3Nagpur3Ranchi2Agra2Jodhpur2Cuttack2Calcutta2Kerala2Patna1Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Section 201(1)98Addition to Income76Section 143(3)44Disallowance42Deduction42Section 9(1)(vi)30Section 4029Depreciation23Comparables/TP22

M/S TEXAS INSTRUMENTS (INDIA) PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 275/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: FixedITAT Bangalore11 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 115Section 115QSection 143(3)Section 246A

depreciation @ 60% which worked out to Rs.4.21 crores. Though the balance amount works out to Rs.2.81 crores, yet the A.O. has computed net disallowance at Rs.1.31 crore.. The Ld. CIT(A) also confirmed the disallowance by following his order passed for assessment year 2010-11. 6.1 The Ld. A.R. submitted that identical payments made in assessment year

Showing 1–20 of 129 · Page 1 of 7

Section 2(15)21
Transfer Pricing21
Section 36(1)(vii)20

ADDL/JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (LTU) , BANGALORE vs. M/S TEXAS INSTRUMENTS (INDIA) PVT LTD , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 525/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: FixedITAT Bangalore11 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 115Section 115QSection 143(3)Section 246A

depreciation @ 60% which worked out to Rs.4.21 crores. Though the balance amount works out to Rs.2.81 crores, yet the A.O. has computed net disallowance at Rs.1.31 crore.. The Ld. CIT(A) also confirmed the disallowance by following his order passed for assessment year 2010-11. 6.1 The Ld. A.R. submitted that identical payments made in assessment year

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S RAMBUS CHIP TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 61/BANG/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jul 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Jason P.Boaz

For Appellant: Shri G.C.Srivastava, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr.P.K.Srihari, Addl.CIT(DR)
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 234BSection 92C

depreciation at the rate of 25% only was allowed on Circuit Test Boards. 3. Aggrieved by these disallowances and the consequential additions, assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) who partly allowed the same. Against denial of relief to the assessee, IT(TP)A Nos.23 & 61/Bang/20115 M/s.Rambus Chit Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd. Page 4 of 38 assessee

M/S RAMBUS CHIP TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 23/BANG/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jul 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Jason P.Boaz

For Appellant: Shri G.C.Srivastava, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr.P.K.Srihari, Addl.CIT(DR)
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 234BSection 92C

depreciation at the rate of 25% only was allowed on Circuit Test Boards. 3. Aggrieved by these disallowances and the consequential additions, assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) who partly allowed the same. Against denial of relief to the assessee, IT(TP)A Nos.23 & 61/Bang/20115 M/s.Rambus Chit Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd. Page 4 of 38 assessee

M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PRIVATE LIMITED,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, appealsof the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 622/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadavand Shri. Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri. Sunil Jain, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Vandana Sagar
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 194HSection 32Section 40

depreciation u/s 32 on repairs and maintenance for AY 2008-09, AY 2009-10 and AY 2010-11. Ground V: The Appellant craves leave to add, alter and/or amend all or any of the foregoing grounds of appeal. 3. With regard to ground No. 1, the facts in brief borne out from the orders of the authorities below are that

M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PRIVATE LIMITED,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, appealsof the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 596/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Apr 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadavand Shri. Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri. Sunil Jain, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Vandana Sagar
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 194HSection 32Section 40

depreciation u/s 32 on repairs and maintenance for AY 2008-09, AY 2009-10 and AY 2010-11. Ground V: The Appellant craves leave to add, alter and/or amend all or any of the foregoing grounds of appeal. 3. With regard to ground No. 1, the facts in brief borne out from the orders of the authorities below are that

M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PRIVATE LIMITED,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, appealsof the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 636/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadavand Shri. Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri. Sunil Jain, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Vandana Sagar
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 194HSection 32Section 40

depreciation u/s 32 on repairs and maintenance for AY 2008-09, AY 2009-10 and AY 2010-11. Ground V: The Appellant craves leave to add, alter and/or amend all or any of the foregoing grounds of appeal. 3. With regard to ground No. 1, the facts in brief borne out from the orders of the authorities below are that

M/S DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, appealsof the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 581/BANG/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Apr 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadavand Shri. Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri. Sunil Jain, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Vandana Sagar
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 194HSection 32Section 40

depreciation u/s 32 on repairs and maintenance for AY 2008-09, AY 2009-10 and AY 2010-11. Ground V: The Appellant craves leave to add, alter and/or amend all or any of the foregoing grounds of appeal. 3. With regard to ground No. 1, the facts in brief borne out from the orders of the authorities below are that

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

section 35E(3)(iii) wherein it is specified that, this allowance is not claimable in respect of items of a capital nature, on which depreciation is allowable u/s 32 of the Act. It is seen that the items included by the AO (as extracted in the AO’s order) are in the nature of depreciable items. The assessee

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

section 35E(3)(iii) wherein it is specified that, this allowance is not claimable in respect of items of a capital nature, on which depreciation is allowable u/s 32 of the Act. It is seen that the items included by the AO (as extracted in the AO’s order) are in the nature of depreciable items. The assessee

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

section 35E(3)(iii) wherein it is specified that, this allowance is not claimable in respect of items of a capital nature, on which depreciation is allowable u/s 32 of the Act. It is seen that the items included by the AO (as extracted in the AO’s order) are in the nature of depreciable items. The assessee

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 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

section 35E(3)(iii) wherein it is specified that, this allowance is not claimable in respect of items of a capital nature, on which depreciation is allowable u/s 32 of the Act. It is seen that the items included by the AO (as extracted in the AO’s order) are in the nature of depreciable items. The assessee

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

section 35E(3)(iii) wherein it is specified that, this allowance is not claimable in respect of items of a capital nature, on which depreciation is allowable u/s 32 of the Act. It is seen that the items included by the AO (as extracted in the AO’s order) are in the nature of depreciable items. The assessee

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)

depreciation by residual clause in section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. 23. The Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of B. Raveendran Pillai v. CIT, 194

M/S TE CONNECTIVITY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2 LTPU , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is treated as partly allowed for 37

ITA 3373/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.3373/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Te Connectivity India Private Limited, Vs. Acit, Te Park, 22B, Doddenakundi Corporation, 2Nd Circle - 2, Large Taxpayer Unit, Phase, Industrial Area, Whitefield Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aabct 7374 C Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Sriram Seshadri, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 22.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.02.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Sriram Seshadri, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C

depreciation generated as a result of amalgamation in the hands of amalgamated company needs depper judicial scrutiny especially in the light of the intent of the legislature to keep amalgamation a tax neutral scheme for companies and not to provide any scope to derive undue tax benefits. In particular he drew attention to Explanation 7 to Sec.43

DCIT vs. M/S TIMKEN ENGINEERING AND RESEARCH PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 469/BANG/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 May 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Aliasger Rampurawala, CAFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Panda, CIT (DR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

section 194-I nor 194-J. Learned DR of the revenue could not point out any difference in facts in the present case and in the case of Destimony Enterprises Limited vs. ITO (TDS) (Supra). Hence, respectfully following this Tribunal order, we hold that the disallowance made by the AO in the present case

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S TIMKEN ENGINEERING & RESEARCH INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 686/BANG/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 May 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Aliasger Rampurawala, CAFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Panda, CIT (DR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

section 194-I nor 194-J. Learned DR of the revenue could not point out any difference in facts in the present case and in the case of Destimony Enterprises Limited vs. ITO (TDS) (Supra). Hence, respectfully following this Tribunal order, we hold that the disallowance made by the AO in the present case

M/S TIMKEN ENGINEERING & RESEARCH INDIA P. LTD. vs. DCIT,

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 335/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Aliasger Rampurawala, CAFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Panda, CIT (DR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

section 194-I nor 194-J. Learned DR of the revenue could not point out any difference in facts in the present case and in the case of Destimony Enterprises Limited vs. ITO (TDS) (Supra). Hence, respectfully following this Tribunal order, we hold that the disallowance made by the AO in the present case

TIMKEN ENGINEERING & RESEARCH INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 604/BANG/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 May 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Aliasger Rampurawala, CAFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Panda, CIT (DR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

section 194-I nor 194-J. Learned DR of the revenue could not point out any difference in facts in the present case and in the case of Destimony Enterprises Limited vs. ITO (TDS) (Supra). Hence, respectfully following this Tribunal order, we hold that the disallowance made by the AO in the present case

M/S. TIMKEN ENGINEERING & RESEARCH INDIA PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 1339/BANG/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 May 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Aliasger Rampurawala, CAFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Panda, CIT (DR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

section 194-I nor 194-J. Learned DR of the revenue could not point out any difference in facts in the present case and in the case of Destimony Enterprises Limited vs. ITO (TDS) (Supra). Hence, respectfully following this Tribunal order, we hold that the disallowance made by the AO in the present case