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.

116 results for “depreciation”+ Section 253clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai609Delhi518Bangalore116Chennai103Kolkata75Chandigarh42Jaipur35Ahmedabad31Pune30Lucknow20Hyderabad17Cuttack16Amritsar15Surat14Rajkot14Guwahati14Indore13Cochin12Raipur8Panaji7SC6Jodhpur6Telangana6Karnataka5Ranchi5Varanasi4Allahabad4Nagpur3Dehradun2Patna1

Key Topics

Addition to Income72Disallowance63Section 143(3)57Section 14A44Section 10A43Section 1138Deduction37Depreciation32Section 2(15)30Section 92C

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 75 is a section for compensating the-Government of delayed payment of the service tax / excise, there are separate provisions for penalizing the assessee for non-payment or delayed payment of service tax / excise. The assessee submits that as held by the Courts, the recovery of interest u/s 75 of the service tax / excise law is automatic and does

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

Showing 1–20 of 116 · Page 1 of 6

27
Section 153A27
Section 36(1)(iii)26

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 75 is a section for compensating the-Government of delayed payment of the service tax / excise, there are separate provisions for penalizing the assessee for non-payment or delayed payment of service tax / excise. The assessee submits that as held by the Courts, the recovery of interest u/s 75 of the service tax / excise law is automatic and does

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 75 is a section for compensating the-Government of delayed payment of the service tax / excise, there are separate provisions for penalizing the assessee for non-payment or delayed payment of service tax / excise. The assessee submits that as held by the Courts, the recovery of interest u/s 75 of the service tax / excise law is automatic and does

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 75 is a section for compensating the-Government of delayed payment of the service tax / excise, there are separate provisions for penalizing the assessee for non-payment or delayed payment of service tax / excise. The assessee submits that as held by the Courts, the recovery of interest u/s 75 of the service tax / excise law is automatic and does

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 75 is a section for compensating the-Government of delayed payment of the service tax / excise, there are separate provisions for penalizing the assessee for non-payment or delayed payment of service tax / excise. The assessee submits that as held by the Courts, the recovery of interest u/s 75 of the service tax / excise law is automatic and does

M/S I & B SEEDS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 3415/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Nitish Ranjan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K, D.R
Section 43(1)

253 (Bangalore - Trib.) is also found to be well placed. In view of above, the disallowance or depreciation as made by the AO is upheld. M/s. I&B Seeds Private Limited, Bangalore Page 8 of 26 7. Further, it was observed by the Ld. CIT(A) that the assessee has relied upon certain decisions to support its contention that differential

M/S. ALLEGIS SERVICES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)- 1, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 1693/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016 – 17

For Appellant: Shri C Narayan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Chndrashekar,JCIT -DR
Section 135Section 143Section 253Section 37(1)Section 80Section 80GSection 80G(2)(iv)

253 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 1, Bangalore ["the CIT(A)"] dated 27 May 2019, on the following grounds: Page 2 of 10 A. Y : 2016 – 17 1.The learned CIT(A) has erred, in fact and law, by not allowing the eligible deduction of donation amounting

M/S SAMSUNG R & D INSTITUTE INDIA BANGALORE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ADDL.C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed, while the appeal by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 705/BANG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Aug 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anurag Sahay, CIT-III(DR)
Section 10BSection 250

depreciation on goodwill in the appeal filed before the CIT(Appeals). 13. Before the CIT(A), the assessee submitted that under the provisions of section 253

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)

253 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') on the following grounds: Page 2 of 15 IT(TP)A No. 2703/Bang/2017 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law and based on the directions of the DRP: A. General 1. The order of the learned AO and directions

M/S MFAR DEVELOPERS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(3) , BANGALORE

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

ITA 385/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: S/Shri C.R. Krishna & Sachin Mehta, CAsFor Respondent: Shri Saravanan B., CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 14ASection 32Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

253, the only two questions answered in the judgment were: (i) "Whether sub section (2) and sub section (3) of Section 14A inserted with effect from 01.04.2007 will apply to all pending assessments? (ii) Whether Rule 8D is retrospectively applicable?" The question whether the section will attract even when there is potential of exempt dividend income from share investment

M/S INCAP CONTRACT MANUFACTURING SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 are allowed

ITA 2214/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Narayana, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.V.Pradeep Kumar, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(ii)

253)(Bang.-Trib) where it was decided that customer distribution networks does not result in intangible asset and the AO referred to the relevant portion of the decision in the order. In the assessment proceedings, the AO dealt on two issues, first claim of depreciation on goodwill relying on the Apex Court decision in the case of Smifs Securities

M/S INCAP CONTRACT MANUFACTURING SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 are allowed

ITA 2215/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Narayana, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.V.Pradeep Kumar, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(ii)

253)(Bang.-Trib) where it was decided that customer distribution networks does not result in intangible asset and the AO referred to the relevant portion of the decision in the order. In the assessment proceedings, the AO dealt on two issues, first claim of depreciation on goodwill relying on the Apex Court decision in the case of Smifs Securities

M/S INCAP CONTRACT MANUFACTURING SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 are allowed

ITA 2216/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Narayana, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.V.Pradeep Kumar, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(ii)

253)(Bang.-Trib) where it was decided that customer distribution networks does not result in intangible asset and the AO referred to the relevant portion of the decision in the order. In the assessment proceedings, the AO dealt on two issues, first claim of depreciation on goodwill relying on the Apex Court decision in the case of Smifs Securities

ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S MPHASIS LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed and appeal filed by assessee stands allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 429/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144C

section 1OA/1OB/1OAA on the excess depreciation disallowed. GROUND RELATING ADDITIONAL CLAIM 10. The lower income tax authorities have erred in: a. Dis-regarding the additional claim made by the Appellant during the assessment proceedings with respect to depreciation of goodwill, additional TDS claim and deduction u/s 40(a)(ia) on the ground that valid claim can only be made

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

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1280/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 1280/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Intel Technology India Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant 5Th Floor, Embassy Paragon Commissioner Of Building, Thoobarahali Income Tax, Village, Ltu, Circle – 1, Itpl Road, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 037. Pan: Aaaci5394J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharath Rao, Ca : Ms. Neera Malhotra, Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 18-08-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 11-10-2021 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against Final Assessment Order Dated 27.02.2015 Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Act For Assessment Year 2011-12. Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Under: 2. The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Software Development, Sales & Support Services, Technology & Hardware Design Support & Investment Management Services.

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CA
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 253(1)(a)Section 92Section 92C

253(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act,1961 ("the Act") in respect of the order passed by the Honorable Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-1, Bangalore ["Hon'ble CIT (A)"]. The said appeal is preferred against the appellate order of the CIT (A) issued in connection with the assessment order of Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Large Tax Payers

M/S. TOYOTA KIRLOSKAR MOTOR PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU, CIRCLE-1, , BENGALURU

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

ITA 1333/BANG/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd. Plot No.1, Bidadi Industrial Area So Bidadi Acit Vs. Ramanagar Ltu, Circle-1 Bengaluru 562 109 Banalore Pan No : Aaact5415B Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Padam Chand Kincha, A.R. Respondent By : Smt. Kumutha D., D.R. Date Of Hearing : 24.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.12.2024

For Appellant: Sri Padam Chand Kincha, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Kumutha D., D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234B(3)Section 250

depreciation; b. Disregarding accounting methodology adopted by the Appellant and not appreciating that amount capitalized was based on fair estimates made for work already completed but for which final bills were pending; and c. Not appreciating that the assets were acquired and put to use during the year under consideration. Other grounds: 5. The learned AO has erred in levying

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S TESCO HINDUSTAN SERVICE CENTRE PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, both the assessee's appeal as well as revenue’s appeal are partly allowed

ITA 191/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri S. Raghunathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (D.R)
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 92C

section 10A when the principle underlying both these provisions is one and the same. Therefore, we do not see any merit in these appeals. The substantial question of law framed is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.” Respectfully following the aforementioned decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case

FIBRES & FABRICS INTERNATIONAL P LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCEL-11(3), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1352/BANG/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Feb 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S.Fibres & Fabrics International Pvt. Ltd. No.21, E-1, 2Nd Phase, Peenya Industrial Area, Bangalore-560058. … Appellant Pan: Aaacf 6841 M Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(3), Bangalore. … Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 147Section 253Section 32(1)(ii)

253 of the Income-tax Act. 1961 ['the Act"], against the Order ("impugned order") passed by the Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals)-I, Bangalore ["learned CIT(A)"] dated 01 August 2014 (received on 09 October 2014), on the following grounds, which may kindly be considered without prejudice to one another Ground 1: Order contrary to law, facts and is violative

CAE FLIGHT TRAINING (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

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

ITA 520/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 520/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Cae Flight Training (India) Pvt. Ltd., Survey No. 26 & 27, The Deputy Bandaramanahalli Commissioner Of Village, Income Tax, Anneshwara Panchayat, Central Circle – 2 (2), Kasaba Hobli, Vs. Bangalore. Devanahalli Taluk, Bengaluru – 562 110. Pan: Aadcc1248A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ketan Ved, Ca : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Revenue By Cit Dr-1 Date Of Hearing : 02-08-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 02-08-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Assessment Order Dated 12/04/2022 By The Ld.Dcit, Central Circle – 2(2), Bangalore On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, M/S. Cae Flight Training (India) Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As The "Appellant") Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Under Section 253 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act") Against The Order Passed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central Circle

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, CA
Section 253Section 92CSection 92D

253 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") against the order passed by The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle Page 2 of 19 IT(TP)A No. 520/Bang/2022 2(2), BLR ("Assessing Officer" or "AO") dated 12 April 2022 in pursuance of the Directions issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP") - 1, Bengaluru dated 11 March

M/S ADC (INDIA) COMMUNICATIONS AND INFOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

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

ITA 1230/BANG/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Sept 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A.K. Garodia, Accountant Membe

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT-II(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 133(6)Section 253

253 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act') on the following grounds: That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, 1. That the order of the learned Income Tax Officer, Ward 11(1), Bangalore (`Assessing Officer' or `AO') to the extent prejudicial to the Appellant is bad in law and liable to be quashed. [corresponding