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.

115 results for “depreciation”+ Section 224clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi373Mumbai276Bangalore115Raipur82Chennai75Kolkata43Jaipur31Ahmedabad24Surat23Lucknow15Hyderabad15Pune12Amritsar11SC7Cochin7Nagpur7Chandigarh5Visakhapatnam4Ranchi4Cuttack3Jodhpur2Karnataka2Kerala1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Indore1Telangana1Allahabad1

Key Topics

Addition to Income66Disallowance54Section 143(3)42Section 14341Section 15439Deduction32Depreciation31Section 1129Section 14A28Section 2

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

224, it was held that ownership of an asset is a must; for a rightful claim of depreciation. In view of the condition that the lease-agreements were only for a specified period, which on the date of expiry would be restored to the owner, therefore gives no entitlement of depreciation to the assessee as in the present case

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

Showing 1–20 of 115 · Page 1 of 6

27
Section 10A27
Section 153A23

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

224, it was held that ownership of an asset is a must; for a rightful claim of depreciation. In view of the condition that the lease-agreements were only for a specified period, which on the date of expiry would be restored to the owner, therefore gives no entitlement of depreciation to the assessee as in the present case

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

224, it was held that ownership of an asset is a must; for a rightful claim of depreciation. In view of the condition that the lease-agreements were only for a specified period, which on the date of expiry would be restored to the owner, therefore gives no entitlement of depreciation to the assessee as in the present case

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

224, it was held that ownership of an asset is a must; for a rightful claim of depreciation. In view of the condition that the lease-agreements were only for a specified period, which on the date of expiry would be restored to the owner, therefore gives no entitlement of depreciation to the assessee as in the present case

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

224, it was held that ownership of an asset is a must; for a rightful claim of depreciation. In view of the condition that the lease-agreements were only for a specified period, which on the date of expiry would be restored to the owner, therefore gives no entitlement of depreciation to the assessee as in the present case

SHANKARANARAYANA CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU

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

ITA 1269/BANG/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Nov 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Respondent: Shri A. Shankar, Sr
Section 132Section 143Section 14ASection 153ASection 250

224 ITR 19 [SC]] and consequent assessment under section 153A is null and void-ab-inito on the parity of the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ajith Jain, reported in 260 ITR 80. [iii]. The learned Commissioner of Income tax [Appeals] has not discharged the burden of proving that there

SHANKARANARAYANA CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(4), C R BUILDINGS, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU

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

ITA 1271/BANG/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Nov 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Respondent: Shri A. Shankar, Sr
Section 132Section 143Section 14ASection 153ASection 250

224 ITR 19 [SC]] and consequent assessment under section 153A is null and void-ab-inito on the parity of the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ajith Jain, reported in 260 ITR 80. [iii]. The learned Commissioner of Income tax [Appeals] has not discharged the burden of proving that there

SHANKARANARAYANA CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,SNS HOUSE, RESIDENCY ROAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU

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

ITA 1268/BANG/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Nov 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Respondent: Shri A. Shankar, Sr
Section 132Section 143Section 14ASection 153ASection 250

224 ITR 19 [SC]] and consequent assessment under section 153A is null and void-ab-inito on the parity of the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ajith Jain, reported in 260 ITR 80. [iii]. The learned Commissioner of Income tax [Appeals] has not discharged the burden of proving that there

SHANKARANARAYANA CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(4), C R BUILDINGS, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU

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

ITA 1270/BANG/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Nov 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Respondent: Shri A. Shankar, Sr
Section 132Section 143Section 14ASection 153ASection 250

224 ITR 19 [SC]] and consequent assessment under section 153A is null and void-ab-inito on the parity of the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ajith Jain, reported in 260 ITR 80. [iii]. The learned Commissioner of Income tax [Appeals] has not discharged the burden of proving that there

M/S. TATA ELXSI LIMITED., ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 927/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Kincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 10ASection 30Section 80ASection 80H

depreciation and investment allowance. Therefore, the term profits and gains are not synonymous with the term 'income'. The Apex Court overruled its earlier judgement in the case of Motilal Pesticides (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC), holding that language of section 80HH and 80M are materially different as section 80HH uses the expression "profits and gains" whereas section 80M refers

TATA ELXSI LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER INCOMER TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1152/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Tata Elxsi Ltd., The Deputy 126, Itpb Road, Commissioner Hoody, Of Income Tax, Whitefield, Circle – 7(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 048. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaact7872Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT DR
Section 10ASection 10A(9)Section 250

depreciation and investment allowance. Therefore, the term profits and gains are not synonymous with the term 'income'. The Apex Court overruled its earlier judgement in the case of Motilal Pesticides (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC), holding that language of section 80HH and 80M are materially different as section 80HH uses the expression "profits and gains" whereas section 80M refers

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

depreciation on Goodwill as it has not satisfied the mandatory conditions as specified in 6th proviso to section 32(1) and Explanation 3 and 7 to section 43(1) of the Act. The DRP relied on the following decisions: a) Decision of the Panaji Bench of the ITAT in the case of Chowgule & Co. Pvt. Ltd. v/s. ACIT reported

CHANDRASHEKAR HEMANTH ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 7(2)(4) BANGALORE, BENGALURU

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

ITA 1677/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sridhar E, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 69ASection 80

224/- and for the A.Y. 2016-17, a sum of Rs. 36,65,795/- and after adjusting the said losses with the incomes earned during the above said three years, the total loss available for set off is Rs. 37,35,274/-. As rightly pointed out by the assessee, mistakenly, the income for the A.Y. 2014-15 were also taken

SRI. SATISH RAJAPUR,HOSPET vs. DCIT, BELLARY

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

ITA 425/BANG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Sept 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Jason P. Boaz, Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Gurunathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, Jt.CIT(DR)
Section 2Section 32(1)(iia)Section 40a

depreciation has been made by the assessee. Accordingly, we are of the view that this issue requires a proper verification and examination of relevant facts at the level of the Assessing Officer and then, adjudication as per law by considering the decision of the coordinate Bench in the case of ACIT v. R. Prabhu (supra). Hence this issue

M/S. UNITED BREWERIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 308/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Ankur Pai, A.R. a/wFor Respondent: Shri Saravanan B., DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 14ASection 250Section 92C

depreciation @ 12.5 %, without any reason. 14.1 After hearing both the parties, we are of the opinion that similar issue came for consideration before this Tribunal in assessee’s own case in IT(TP)A No.2532/Bang/2019 cited (supra), wherein the Tribunal has held as under: “36. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. Similar issue

UNITED BREWERIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE- 7, BANGALORE

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

ITA 345/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Ankur Pai, A.R. a/wFor Respondent: Shri Saravanan B., DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 14ASection 250Section 92C

depreciation @ 12.5 %, without any reason. 14.1 After hearing both the parties, we are of the opinion that similar issue came for consideration before this Tribunal in assessee’s own case in IT(TP)A No.2532/Bang/2019 cited (supra), wherein the Tribunal has held as under: “36. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. Similar issue

M/S INNOVITI PAYMENT SOLUTIONS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1278/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jan 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumarm/S. Innoviti Payment Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Appellant No. 41, 2Nd & 3Rd Floor, Ngr The Edge, Iii Main, V Cross, Sai Baba Mandir Road, Halasuru, Bengaluru – 560008. Pan. Aabci0504M Vs The Ito, Ward – 3 (1) (1), Respondent Bengaluru. Assessee By : Shri B. M. Tambakar, C. A. Revenue By : Shri R. N. Sidappaji, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 07 – 12 – 2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 09 – 01 – 2019 O R D E R Per Bench: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Which Is Directed Against The Order Of Cit (A) – 3, Bangalore Dated 23.02.2018 For A. Y. 2014 – 15. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:- “1. Grounds Relating To Natural Justice The Learned Income Tax Officer 3(1)(1) (Hereinafter " Ad") & The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 3 (Hereinafter "Cit-A") Have Erred In Passing The Order Without Considering All The Submissions & / Or Without Appreciating Properly The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Law Applicable. 2. Grounds Relating To Rejection Of Equity Shares Valuation Report Issued By Independent Chartered Accountant The Order Of The Learned Ao Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (`The Act') & Confirmed By Learned Cit-A Is Erroneous In Reckoning That Share Premium Collected Is Above Fair Market Value & Thereby Liable To Tax In Pursuance To Section 56(2)(Viib) By Adopting Rule 11Ua(A) To The Exclusion Of The Option Under Rule 11Ua(B) As Opted By The Assessee Without Taking

For Appellant: Shri B. M. Tambakar, C. AFor Respondent: Shri R. N. Sidappaji, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 56Section 56(2)(viib)

depreciation, Increase/Decrease in current assets, noncurrent assets, capital expenditure and current liabilities, net cash flow was worked out and the same was discounted @ 15%. Such present value of cash flow was worked out at Rs. 549 lacs. To this, terminal value was added at Rs. 4 1,322 Lacs and in this manner, Enterprise value was worked

TOYOTA BOSHOKU AUTOMOTIVE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,RAMANAGARAM vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU, CIRCLE-2, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 362/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan, Hon’Ble & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Ms. Hirali Desai, ARFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 92D

depreciation on the above expenditure as per law after discussing in detail. After receipt of the DRP order, the AO passed assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144C(13) r.w.s 144B of the Act on 22/4/2021. 3. Feeling aggrieved from the above order, the assessee filed appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. 3.1 The ld.AR submitted that the similar

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S JUPITER CAPITAL PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

Accordingly, appeal of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1563/BANG/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(2)

depreciation expenses are concerned. In so far as disallowance of an adhoc sum of Rs.45 lacs on aircraft maintenance expenses is concerned, in the absence of details, disallowance was required to be made but that had to be based on bifurcation of fixed costs of running the aircraft, which cannot be disallowed because fixed costs have to be incurred irrespective

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S JUPITER CAPITAL PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

Accordingly, appeal of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1219/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(2)

depreciation expenses are concerned. In so far as disallowance of an adhoc sum of Rs.45 lacs on aircraft maintenance expenses is concerned, in the absence of details, disallowance was required to be made but that had to be based on bifurcation of fixed costs of running the aircraft, which cannot be disallowed because fixed costs have to be incurred irrespective