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.

47 results for “depreciation”+ Section 260Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi392Karnataka127Mumbai85Bangalore47Kolkata43Chennai38Calcutta35Amritsar33Telangana31Kerala18SC16Jaipur13Punjab & Haryana9Ahmedabad6Hyderabad5Indore4Orissa4Lucknow4Cuttack2Gauhati2Nagpur2D.K. JAIN H.L. DATTU JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1Raipur1Rajasthan1Cochin1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Tripura1Visakhapatnam1

Key Topics

Section 201(1)112Deduction40Section 9(1)(vi)32Addition to Income30Depreciation22Disallowance21Double Taxation/DTAA16Limitation/Time-bar16Section 35(1)(iv)

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

section 260A has been filed before the Hon’ble High Court against such order and is pending.” ITA No.288 & 318/Bang/2013 Page 39 of 50 56. Certain investments made by the Assessee in various securities including the government securities were categorised as ‘Available for Sale (AFS)’ and ‘Held for Trading (HFT)’ form and formed part of the stock-in- trade

Showing 1–20 of 47 · Page 1 of 3

14
Section 14A11
TDS11
Section 1010

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

section 260A has been filed before the Hon’ble High Court against such order and is pending.” ITA No.288 & 318/Bang/2013 Page 39 of 50 56. Certain investments made by the Assessee in various securities including the government securities were categorised as ‘Available for Sale (AFS)’ and ‘Held for Trading (HFT)’ form and formed part of the stock-in- trade

M/S. JSW STEEL PROCESSING CENTRES LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(6), BANGALORE

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

ITA 2001/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri. K. Kotresh, CAFor Respondent: Shri. G. Manoj Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 260ASection 32(1)(iia)

section 260A of the Act. The Hon’ble High Court in ITA No.479/18 (judgment dated 20.09.2022), restored the matter to the Tribunal. The relevant finding of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka reads as follows: “ORDER i) The appeal is allowed; Page 2 of 14 ii) Order dated 07.03.2018 in I.T.A.No.2001/Bang/2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

M/S ONMOBILE GLOBAL LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, both these appeals are partly allowed

ITA 139/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 244ASection 32

depreciation is to be allowed @ 60% on the CG/TX cards and switches, etc. This ground is allowed in favour of assessee. Disallowance under Section 14A - Grounds 21 to 21.4 28. During the year under consideration, the assessee had earned a dividend income of Rs.2,04,09,795 which was claimed as exempt after disallowing a sum of Rs.1

M/S. ONMOBILE GLOBAL LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 5(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, both these appeals are partly allowed

ITA 2560/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 244ASection 32

depreciation is to be allowed @ 60% on the CG/TX cards and switches, etc. This ground is allowed in favour of assessee. Disallowance under Section 14A - Grounds 21 to 21.4 28. During the year under consideration, the assessee had earned a dividend income of Rs.2,04,09,795 which was claimed as exempt after disallowing a sum of Rs.1

ING VYSYA BANK LTD. vs. ACIT,

In the result, revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2007-08 is dismissed

ITA 898/BANG/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Feb 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Farhat Hussain Qureshi, CIT (D.R)
Section 115JSection 143(3)

Section 260A has been filed before the Hon'ble High Court against such order and is pending. 5. The CIT (Appeals) erred in allowing the alternate plea of the assessee on the issue of disallowance of Rs.2,75,00,000 of write off of non-convertible debentures by holding that the diminution of valuable investments as eligible for deduction

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

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

ITA 242/BANG/2018[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2022AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar, CA
Section 244ASection 260ASection 43

depreciation on assets leased by the Appellant to M/s. Mohan Meakin on the Page 3 ITA Nos. 239 to 242, 244 & 246/Bang/2018 basis that the appellant met only part of cost when the appellant had met Rs.19,98,000/- out of Rs.22,25,057/- constituting 89.8% of cost? Common Substantial Questions of Law in ITA Nos.5 and 7/2022: 7. Whether

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

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

ITA 244/BANG/2018[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2022AY 1999-00

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar, CA
Section 244ASection 260ASection 43

depreciation on assets leased by the Appellant to M/s. Mohan Meakin on the Page 3 ITA Nos. 239 to 242, 244 & 246/Bang/2018 basis that the appellant met only part of cost when the appellant had met Rs.19,98,000/- out of Rs.22,25,057/- constituting 89.8% of cost? Common Substantial Questions of Law in ITA Nos.5 and 7/2022: 7. Whether

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

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

ITA 241/BANG/2018[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2022AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar, CA
Section 244ASection 260ASection 43

depreciation on assets leased by the Appellant to M/s. Mohan Meakin on the Page 3 ITA Nos. 239 to 242, 244 & 246/Bang/2018 basis that the appellant met only part of cost when the appellant had met Rs.19,98,000/- out of Rs.22,25,057/- constituting 89.8% of cost? Common Substantial Questions of Law in ITA Nos.5 and 7/2022: 7. Whether

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

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

ITA 246/BANG/2018[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2022AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar, CA
Section 244ASection 260ASection 43

depreciation on assets leased by the Appellant to M/s. Mohan Meakin on the Page 3 ITA Nos. 239 to 242, 244 & 246/Bang/2018 basis that the appellant met only part of cost when the appellant had met Rs.19,98,000/- out of Rs.22,25,057/- constituting 89.8% of cost? Common Substantial Questions of Law in ITA Nos.5 and 7/2022: 7. Whether

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

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

ITA 240/BANG/2018[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2022AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar, CA
Section 244ASection 260ASection 43

depreciation on assets leased by the Appellant to M/s. Mohan Meakin on the Page 3 ITA Nos. 239 to 242, 244 & 246/Bang/2018 basis that the appellant met only part of cost when the appellant had met Rs.19,98,000/- out of Rs.22,25,057/- constituting 89.8% of cost? Common Substantial Questions of Law in ITA Nos.5 and 7/2022: 7. Whether

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

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

ITA 239/BANG/2018[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2022AY 1995-96

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar, CA
Section 244ASection 260ASection 43

depreciation on assets leased by the Appellant to M/s. Mohan Meakin on the Page 3 ITA Nos. 239 to 242, 244 & 246/Bang/2018 basis that the appellant met only part of cost when the appellant had met Rs.19,98,000/- out of Rs.22,25,057/- constituting 89.8% of cost? Common Substantial Questions of Law in ITA Nos.5 and 7/2022: 7. Whether

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. SRI. ADICHUNCHANAGIRI SHIKSHANA TRUST, MANDYA

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 594/BANG/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Nov 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Abraham P George

For Appellant: Shri L. Bharath, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sudhakar Rao, CIT-DR-I
Section 11Section 12ASection 260ASection 6

section 260A have been filed before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka”. 9. We find that the issue is covered by the decision of the Co- ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case, wherein it has been held as under; “ 13. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials on record. The Tribunal

M/S WIPRO LTD,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, all 6 appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1217/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, CA
Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

section 260A of the Act and that the matter had not attained finality. The learned Departmental Representative placed reliance on the findings of the Assessing Officer and the DRP on this issue and reiterated the arguments in the orders of the authorities below. 25. We have heard both parties and carefully perused and considered the material on record. We find

M/S WIPRO LTD,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, all 6 appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1218/BANG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, CA
Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

section 260A of the Act and that the matter had not attained finality. The learned Departmental Representative placed reliance on the findings of the Assessing Officer and the DRP on this issue and reiterated the arguments in the orders of the authorities below. 25. We have heard both parties and carefully perused and considered the material on record. We find

M/S WIPRO LTD,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, all 6 appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1216/BANG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, CA
Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

section 260A of the Act and that the matter had not attained finality. The learned Departmental Representative placed reliance on the findings of the Assessing Officer and the DRP on this issue and reiterated the arguments in the orders of the authorities below. 25. We have heard both parties and carefully perused and considered the material on record. We find

M/S WIPRO LTD,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, all 6 appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1219/BANG/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, CA
Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

section 260A of the Act and that the matter had not attained finality. The learned Departmental Representative placed reliance on the findings of the Assessing Officer and the DRP on this issue and reiterated the arguments in the orders of the authorities below. 25. We have heard both parties and carefully perused and considered the material on record. We find

M/S WIPRO LTD,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, all 6 appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1220/BANG/2014[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, CA
Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

section 260A of the Act and that the matter had not attained finality. The learned Departmental Representative placed reliance on the findings of the Assessing Officer and the DRP on this issue and reiterated the arguments in the orders of the authorities below. 25. We have heard both parties and carefully perused and considered the material on record. We find

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE vs. M/S. WIPRO LTD,, BANGALORE

In the result, all 6 appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2338/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, CA
Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

section 260A of the Act and that the matter had not attained finality. The learned Departmental Representative placed reliance on the findings of the Assessing Officer and the DRP on this issue and reiterated the arguments in the orders of the authorities below. 25. We have heard both parties and carefully perused and considered the material on record. We find

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE vs. M/S. WIPRO LTD,, BANGALORE

In the result, all 6 appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2328/BANG/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, CA
Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

section 260A of the Act and that the matter had not attained finality. The learned Departmental Representative placed reliance on the findings of the Assessing Officer and the DRP on this issue and reiterated the arguments in the orders of the authorities below. 25. We have heard both parties and carefully perused and considered the material on record. We find