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.

83 results for “depreciation”+ Section 208clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai386Delhi313Bangalore83Kolkata80Chennai71Ahmedabad64Chandigarh53Raipur39Jaipur18Hyderabad15Lucknow14Surat14Indore13Pune13Karnataka8Ranchi6Kerala5Visakhapatnam4Rajkot4SC4Telangana4Panaji3Agra3Amritsar2Rajasthan1Allahabad1Calcutta1Cochin1D.K. JAIN H.L. DATTU JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1Nagpur1Orissa1

Key Topics

Addition to Income57Disallowance50Section 143(3)44Section 14A35Section 10A32Section 36(1)(vii)30Section 14727Section 1127Deduction27Section 80J

M/S. SYNGENE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE- 6, BANGALORE

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

ITA 147/BANG/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Sri Padamchand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Sumer Singh Meena, DR
Section 10ASection 10BSection 14ASection 250Section 32(1)(iia)Section 80

208 15% 2,82,352 42,353 2,39,999 Vehicles 2,30,796 1,53,865 60% 3,84,661 Computers Total 4,62,54,473 65,23,656 3,97,30,817 3.12 Thus, the decrease in the value of the closing WDV of assets is only on account of depreciation and there is no transfer of assets

Showing 1–20 of 83 · Page 1 of 5

26
Depreciation25
Section 4020

ELIM RESORT PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 3(2)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 238/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanassessment Year :2016-17 M/S. Elim Resorts Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, No.175, Nettigere Village, Ward – 3(2)(2), Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 061. Pan : Aadce 0682 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. B. S. Balachandra, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel For Department. Date Of Hearing : 25.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.02.2020 Of Cit(A)-2, Bengaluru, Relating To Ay 2016-17. 2. The First Issue Raised By The Assessee Is With Regard To Disallowance Of Depreciation On Buildings Of Rs.3,19,208/-. The Opening Wdv As On 01.04.2014 & As On 01.04.2015 As Per The Books Of Accounts Of The Assessee Was As Follows:

For Appellant: Shri. B. S. Balachandra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 32Section 43(1)

section 32 of the I.T.Act, 1961, even though the assessee has not claimed. The assessee’s claim of addition made to the asset is not considered in the absence of any proof furnished by the assessee substantiating the same. Opening W.D.V. as on 01/04/2014 Rs. 3,48,00,000/- Less : Depreciation © 10% Rs. 34,80,000/- Page

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

depreciation of value of securities ; ITA No.288 & 318/Bang/2013 Page 12 of 50 ii) The learned Commissioner (A) ought to have appreciated that the classification of securities for RBI purposes would not take away the benefit which the appellant was entitled to and he ought to have appreciated that the case law referred were distinguishable and accordingly he ought to have

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

depreciation of value of securities ; ITA No.288 & 318/Bang/2013 Page 12 of 50 ii) The learned Commissioner (A) ought to have appreciated that the classification of securities for RBI purposes would not take away the benefit which the appellant was entitled to and he ought to have appreciated that the case law referred were distinguishable and accordingly he ought to have

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1)(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S. BRINDAVAN BEVERAGES PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2508/BANG/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Mar 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri V Srinivasan, Advocate
Section 115Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2Section 234B

Depreciation on Crates 76,00,000 claimed Additional Book Profit offered 32,94,66,417 5.3 It is the contention of the appellant that the levy of interest u/s.234B and 234C the Act, for the failure to pay advance-tax on the additional book profit justified because, the appellant cannot be expected to pay Advance-tax when there

M/S TE CONNECTIVITY INDIA PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LARGE TAX PAYERS UNIT CIRCLE-1 , BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee and the appeal of the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 693/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Nov 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariandshri George George K

For Appellant: Shri T Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT
Section 133(6)

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act of depreciation claimed on software (ii) disallowance of depreciation on goodwill and (iii) restriction of depreciation on server at 15%. 7. Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal to the CIT(A), wherein vide the order dated 26.07.2019, the CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal. To the extent aggrieved

M/S. SAMSUNG R & D INSTITUTE INDIA-BANGALORE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 12(3), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee and the appeal of the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 2228/BANG/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariandshri George George K

For Appellant: Shri T Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT
Section 133(6)

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act of depreciation claimed on software (ii) disallowance of depreciation on goodwill and (iii) restriction of depreciation on server at 15%. 7. Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal to the CIT(A), wherein vide the order dated 26.07.2019, the CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal. To the extent aggrieved

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

section 71 of the Act), returned a total taxable Income of Rs. 2,59,15,640. 10. In the assessment proceedings, the assessee claimed that the sale of the leasehold rights over the land that was sold gave rise to long term capital gain (LTCG). That the sale of building was taxable as short term capital gain (STCG

PRAVESH KOTHARI L/H OF SOHANRAJ KHIMRAJ KOTHARI ,HUBLI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-3, HUBLI

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands dismissed

ITA 201/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Smt.Beena Pillai, Judical Member

For Appellant: Shri B.R.Sudheendra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.N.Siddappaji, Addl.CIT
Section 142Section 194JSection 234ASection 234BSection 234DSection 234aSection 40

depreciation claimed in (III) respect of flat at Mumbai amounting to Rs. 96,000 and Rs. 49,208 be deleted. Interest levied under section

INFOSYS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1) , BANGALORE

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

ITA 962/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri P.C Kincha, C.AFor Respondent: Shri A Sreenivasa Rao, CIT (DR)
Section 1Section 10ASection 2Section 234BSection 250Section 32A

208,93,00,000 should be allowed as deduction for the relevant assessment year. It is ordered accordingly. Disallowance u/s 32AC (Ground No.11) . Page 5 of 18 3. For the relevant assessment year, the assessee had claimed deduction u/s 32AC of the I.T.Act amounting to Rs.132,13,18,483 on account of investment in new plant and machinery. Working

M/S ALTISOURCE BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed partly as indicated hereinabove

ITA 208/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.208/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri K.R Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shishir Srivastava, CIT
Section 143Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

208 & 209/Bang/2016 d) The learned AO/DRP ought to have appreciated that an expense cannot be disallowed under section 40(a) when TDS liability on such expenses has arisen due to retrospective amendment. 18. Disallowance of brought forward business loss and unabsorbed depreciation

CANARA BANK,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU,, BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2014-15 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1899/BANG/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Neera Malhotra, CIT (D.R)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40

Section 36(1)(viia) of the Act is incorrect and therefore delete the disallowance made there under. Consequently, ground NO.3 of the assessee's appeal is allowed. 8. Ground No.4 (4.1 to 4.5) – Depreciation on Investments. 8.1 In these grounds (supra), Revenue assails the order of the learned CIT (Appeals) in directing the Assessing Officer to allow the assessee

M/S LEPAKSHI KNOWLEDGE HUB PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by assessee and revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1260/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year M/S. Leepakshi Knowledge Hub Pvt. Ltd., The Joint No. 26/1, 1 & 2Nd Commissioner Of Ita No. Floor, Ibis Hotel, Income-Tax(Osd), 2013-14 1229/Bang/2018 Hosur Road, Circle – 4(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 Bangalore. 068. Pan: Aabcl4609G M/S. Lepakshi The Deputy Knowledge Hub Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, 2013-14 No. 26/1, 1 & 2Nd Circle – 4(1)(1)

For Appellant: Shri Adarsh G, CA
Section 14ASection 251(2)

depreciation on computers of Rs. 9,208/- under the facts and circumstances of the case. d) The authorities below grossly erred in holding that the furniture & fixtures, office equipment and computers were not put to use under the facts and circumstances of the case. Page 4 of 8 ITA Nos. 1229, 1260 & 1261/Bang/2018 10. The appellant denies itself liable

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S LEEPAKSHI KNOWLEDGE HUB PRIVATE LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by assessee and revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1229/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year M/S. Leepakshi Knowledge Hub Pvt. Ltd., The Joint No. 26/1, 1 & 2Nd Commissioner Of Ita No. Floor, Ibis Hotel, Income-Tax(Osd), 2013-14 1229/Bang/2018 Hosur Road, Circle – 4(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 Bangalore. 068. Pan: Aabcl4609G M/S. Lepakshi The Deputy Knowledge Hub Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, 2013-14 No. 26/1, 1 & 2Nd Circle – 4(1)(1)

For Appellant: Shri Adarsh G, CA
Section 14ASection 251(2)

depreciation on computers of Rs. 9,208/- under the facts and circumstances of the case. d) The authorities below grossly erred in holding that the furniture & fixtures, office equipment and computers were not put to use under the facts and circumstances of the case. Page 4 of 8 ITA Nos. 1229, 1260 & 1261/Bang/2018 10. The appellant denies itself liable

M/S LEPAKSHI KNOWLEDGE HUB PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by assessee and revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1261/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year M/S. Leepakshi Knowledge Hub Pvt. Ltd., The Joint No. 26/1, 1 & 2Nd Commissioner Of Ita No. Floor, Ibis Hotel, Income-Tax(Osd), 2013-14 1229/Bang/2018 Hosur Road, Circle – 4(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 Bangalore. 068. Pan: Aabcl4609G M/S. Lepakshi The Deputy Knowledge Hub Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, 2013-14 No. 26/1, 1 & 2Nd Circle – 4(1)(1)

For Appellant: Shri Adarsh G, CA
Section 14ASection 251(2)

depreciation on computers of Rs. 9,208/- under the facts and circumstances of the case. d) The authorities below grossly erred in holding that the furniture & fixtures, office equipment and computers were not put to use under the facts and circumstances of the case. Page 4 of 8 ITA Nos. 1229, 1260 & 1261/Bang/2018 10. The appellant denies itself liable

M/S. IBM INDIA PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 725/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2020AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate along with Ajay Roti, C.AFor Respondent: Shri K.V Arvind, Advocate
Section 10ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 92C

Section 92CC with the caption “Advance Pricing Agreement” provides through sub-section (1): `The Board, with the approval of the Central Government, may enter into an advance pricing agreement with any person, determining the arm's length price … in relation to an international transaction …’. Sub-section (2) gives the manner of determination of the ALP referred to in sub-section

VIJAYA BANK ,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LARGE TAX PAYER UNIT , BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13 is dismissed

ITA 915/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jan 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Pramod Kumar Singh, JCIT (D.R)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

208 Taxmann 511 and pendency of the issue of depreciation on HTM category securities before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 3. The CIT (Appeals) has erred in holding that the Sec. 115JB of the Act are not applicable to banking companies. 4. Any other ground urged at the time of appeal.” 36. Ground Nos. 1 & 2 – Depreciation on HTM Securities

CANARA BANK ,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU , BANGALORE

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

ITA 865/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Mar 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S.Canara Bank, Bsca Section, Head Office, J C Road, Bengaluru-560 002. Pan: Aaacc 6106 G … Appellant Vs. Joint Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Ltu, Bengaluru. … Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S.Ananathan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40

depreciation in value of investments as confirmed by the ld.CIT(A). This issue is also decided in favour of the assessee, in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2010-11 (supra) wherein it is held as follows: “21.2 We heard rival submissions and perused material on record. This issue was decided by the co-ordinate bench in the case

M/S. RMZ HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 954/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 234Section 255Section 255(3)Section 36

208 ITR 989 in which it was held that deduction under Section 36(1)(iii) can only be allowed on the interest if the assessee borrows capital for its own business. Hence, it was held that interest on the borrowed amount could not be allowed if such amount had been advanced to a subsidiary company of the assessee. With respect

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S SRI BASAVESHWAR VEERASHAIVA VIDYAVARDHAK SANGHA , BAGALKOTE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 65/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 35ASection 80G

depreciation claimed by the assessee is not considered nor mentioned the reason in assessment order for not allowing it. The Assessing Officer has not disposed of the application so far. Aggrieved by the order Under Section 143(3) read with Section 153A of the Act, the assessee is moved this appeal before the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals