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.

42 results for “depreciation”+ Section 2(24)(xviii)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi200Mumbai69Chandigarh45Bangalore42Chennai23Pune18Jaipur16Kolkata14Ahmedabad8Hyderabad5Nagpur2Lucknow2Cuttack1Guwahati1Calcutta1SC1Surat1

Key Topics

Section 153A52Section 14335Section 143(3)32Addition to Income27Section 13224Disallowance24Section 1118Deduction18Section 14A17Depreciation

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

xviii) appended to section 2(24) provides so-, but to the excepting part concerning any award of subsidy (by whatever name called) made towards the cost of an asset, it will be dealt with by the Explanation 10 appended to section 43(1) and will be designated as merely a capital receipt and followed by consequent deduction from the cost

Showing 1–20 of 42 · Page 1 of 3

16
Section 14713
Section 15412

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

xviii) appended to section 2(24) provides so-, but to the excepting part concerning any award of subsidy (by whatever name called) made towards the cost of an asset, it will be dealt with by the Explanation 10 appended to section 43(1) and will be designated as merely a capital receipt and followed by consequent deduction from the cost

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

xviii) appended to section 2(24) provides so-, but to the excepting part concerning any award of subsidy (by whatever name called) made towards the cost of an asset, it will be dealt with by the Explanation 10 appended to section 43(1) and will be designated as merely a capital receipt and followed by consequent deduction from the cost

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

xviii) appended to section 2(24) provides so-, but to the excepting part concerning any award of subsidy (by whatever name called) made towards the cost of an asset, it will be dealt with by the Explanation 10 appended to section 43(1) and will be designated as merely a capital receipt and followed by consequent deduction from the cost

M/S E4E TECH SUPPORT (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

ITA 1053/BANG/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jun 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P. Chandrashekar, CIT (D.R)
Section 10ASection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 234DSection 92C

depreciation allowances of preceding assessment years; 18. levying a sum of Rs 22,32,010/- as interest under section 234B and a sum of Rs. 3,57,121 as interest under section 234D. The appellant submits that each of the above grounds/ sub-grounds are independent and without prejudice to one another. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary

M/S NAVODAYA GRAMA VIKAS CHARITABLE TRUST ,MANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-1 , MANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 553/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Oct 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri V.Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, JCIT (D.R)
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(2)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

24] of the judgment, it was held as under: - “In view of the aforesaid well-settled legal position and there adm it tedly being not even an allegation in the reasons recorded that there was any failure on the port of the petitioner to disclose truly and fully all material facts liable to be quashed and set aside on this

M/S.NAVODAYA GRAMA VIKAS CHARITABLE TRUST ,MANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-1 , , MANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 552/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Oct 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri V.Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, JCIT (D.R)
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(2)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

24] of the judgment, it was held as under: - “In view of the aforesaid well-settled legal position and there adm it tedly being not even an allegation in the reasons recorded that there was any failure on the port of the petitioner to disclose truly and fully all material facts liable to be quashed and set aside on this

M/S. UE DEVELOPMENT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 2381/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Dec 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, JCIT (D.R)
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

2) of the Act and the Assessing Officer is not authorized to refer to any other reason even if it can be otherwise inferred or gathered from the records. The Assessing Officer is confined to the recorded reasons to support the assumption of jurisdiction. He cannot record only some of his action is ever challenged in a court

M/S TATA ADVANCED MATERIALS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-12(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 2181/BANG/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, JCIT (D.R)
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

2) of the Act and the Assessing Officer is not authorized to refer to any other reason even if it can be otherwise inferred or gathered from the records. The Assessing Officer is confined to the recorded reasons to support the assumption of jurisdiction. He cannot record only some of his action is ever challenged in a court

TATA ADVANCED MATERIALS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-12(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 2182/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, JCIT (D.R)
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

2) of the Act and the Assessing Officer is not authorized to refer to any other reason even if it can be otherwise inferred or gathered from the records. The Assessing Officer is confined to the recorded reasons to support the assumption of jurisdiction. He cannot record only some of his action is ever challenged in a court

M/S MAHARASHTRA APEX CORPORATION LIMITED ,MANIPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , , UDUPI

240 & 241/Bang/2018

ITA 247/BANG/2018[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2019AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar Rao, C. AFor Respondent: Shri Vikas Suryavamshi, Addl. CIT DR
Section 143Section 154

xviii). The same are reproduced herein below: - “Submission on Issues relating to the common grounds of appeal being claim of depreciation on Assets given under Lease GROUNDS a) The learned Appellate Officer has erred in concluding the appellant is not entitled to claim depreciation on assets leased out to customers as the lease is a financial lease in spite

M/S MAHARASHTRA APEX CORPORATION LIMITED ,MANIPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , , UDUPI

240 & 241/Bang/2018

ITA 248/BANG/2018[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar Rao, C. AFor Respondent: Shri Vikas Suryavamshi, Addl. CIT DR
Section 143Section 154

xviii). The same are reproduced herein below: - “Submission on Issues relating to the common grounds of appeal being claim of depreciation on Assets given under Lease GROUNDS a) The learned Appellate Officer has erred in concluding the appellant is not entitled to claim depreciation on assets leased out to customers as the lease is a financial lease in spite

M/S MAHARASHTRA APEX CORPORATION LIMITED ,MANIPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , UDUPI , UDUPI

240 & 241/Bang/2018

ITA 255/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar Rao, C. AFor Respondent: Shri Vikas Suryavamshi, Addl. CIT DR
Section 143Section 154

xviii). The same are reproduced herein below: - “Submission on Issues relating to the common grounds of appeal being claim of depreciation on Assets given under Lease GROUNDS a) The learned Appellate Officer has erred in concluding the appellant is not entitled to claim depreciation on assets leased out to customers as the lease is a financial lease in spite

M/S MAHARASHTRA APEX CORPORATION LIMITED ,MANIPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , , UDUPI

240 & 241/Bang/2018

ITA 245/BANG/2018[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2019AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar Rao, C. AFor Respondent: Shri Vikas Suryavamshi, Addl. CIT DR
Section 143Section 154

xviii). The same are reproduced herein below: - “Submission on Issues relating to the common grounds of appeal being claim of depreciation on Assets given under Lease GROUNDS a) The learned Appellate Officer has erred in concluding the appellant is not entitled to claim depreciation on assets leased out to customers as the lease is a financial lease in spite

M/S MAHARASHTRA APEX CORPORATION LIMITED ,MANIPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , , UDUPI

240 & 241/Bang/2018

ITA 252/BANG/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar Rao, C. AFor Respondent: Shri Vikas Suryavamshi, Addl. CIT DR
Section 143Section 154

xviii). The same are reproduced herein below: - “Submission on Issues relating to the common grounds of appeal being claim of depreciation on Assets given under Lease GROUNDS a) The learned Appellate Officer has erred in concluding the appellant is not entitled to claim depreciation on assets leased out to customers as the lease is a financial lease in spite

M/S MAHARASHTRA APEX CORPORATION LIMITED ,MANIPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , , UDUPI

240 & 241/Bang/2018

ITA 251/BANG/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar Rao, C. AFor Respondent: Shri Vikas Suryavamshi, Addl. CIT DR
Section 143Section 154

xviii). The same are reproduced herein below: - “Submission on Issues relating to the common grounds of appeal being claim of depreciation on Assets given under Lease GROUNDS a) The learned Appellate Officer has erred in concluding the appellant is not entitled to claim depreciation on assets leased out to customers as the lease is a financial lease in spite

M/S MAHARASHTRA APEX CORPORATION LIMITED ,MANIPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , , UDUPI

240 & 241/Bang/2018

ITA 253/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar Rao, C. AFor Respondent: Shri Vikas Suryavamshi, Addl. CIT DR
Section 143Section 154

xviii). The same are reproduced herein below: - “Submission on Issues relating to the common grounds of appeal being claim of depreciation on Assets given under Lease GROUNDS a) The learned Appellate Officer has erred in concluding the appellant is not entitled to claim depreciation on assets leased out to customers as the lease is a financial lease in spite

M/S MAHARASHTRA APEX CORPORATION LIMITED ,MANIPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , , UDUPI

240 & 241/Bang/2018

ITA 249/BANG/2018[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar Rao, C. AFor Respondent: Shri Vikas Suryavamshi, Addl. CIT DR
Section 143Section 154

xviii). The same are reproduced herein below: - “Submission on Issues relating to the common grounds of appeal being claim of depreciation on Assets given under Lease GROUNDS a) The learned Appellate Officer has erred in concluding the appellant is not entitled to claim depreciation on assets leased out to customers as the lease is a financial lease in spite

M/S MAHARASHTRA APEX CORPORATION LIMITED ,MANIPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , , UDUPI

240 & 241/Bang/2018

ITA 243/BANG/2018[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2019AY 1999-00

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar Rao, C. AFor Respondent: Shri Vikas Suryavamshi, Addl. CIT DR
Section 143Section 154

xviii). The same are reproduced herein below: - “Submission on Issues relating to the common grounds of appeal being claim of depreciation on Assets given under Lease GROUNDS a) The learned Appellate Officer has erred in concluding the appellant is not entitled to claim depreciation on assets leased out to customers as the lease is a financial lease in spite

M/S MAHARASHTRA APEX CORPORATION LIMITED ,MANIPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , , UDUPI

240 & 241/Bang/2018

ITA 250/BANG/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar Rao, C. AFor Respondent: Shri Vikas Suryavamshi, Addl. CIT DR
Section 143Section 154

xviii). The same are reproduced herein below: - “Submission on Issues relating to the common grounds of appeal being claim of depreciation on Assets given under Lease GROUNDS a) The learned Appellate Officer has erred in concluding the appellant is not entitled to claim depreciation on assets leased out to customers as the lease is a financial lease in spite