Search: depreciation | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

332 results for “depreciation”+ Section 263clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai886 Delhi692 Bangalore332 Kolkata298 Chennai232 Ahmedabad213 Pune128 Hyderabad89 Jaipur80 Cochin70 Visakhapatnam65 Chandigarh61 Cuttack56 Karnataka53 Indore53 Raipur52 Surat42 Jodhpur30 Lucknow30 Rajkot29 Calcutta11 Agra10 Telangana10 Nagpur9 Amritsar9 SC7 Patna6 Jabalpur5 Kerala4 Panaji3 Varanasi3 Orissa2 Ranchi2 Guwahati2 Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)121 Section 26381 Section 153A78 Section 14A77 Addition to Income76 Disallowance42 Section 14838 Depreciation35 Section 133A25 Section 92C

JANATA TRADERS,GADAG vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HUBLI

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

ITA 401/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Girija, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. G. Manoj Kumar, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69A

depreciation on intangible assets and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) while passing the order under section 263 of the Act has held

NEPAL SINGH RATHOD (HUF),HUBLI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HUBLI, HUBLI

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

Showing 1–20 of 332 · Page 1 of 17

...

23

Transfer Pricing23

ITA 400/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep &For Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

depreciation on intangible assets and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) while passing the order under section 263 of the Act has held

WRITEMEN MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-7(1)(3), BENGALURU

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

ITA 1516/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ashwin D Gowda, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 153Section 56(2)(viib)

depreciation of Rs. 64,40,765/- while computing the total income of the appellant on the facts and circumstances of the case. 11. The learned authorities below are not justified in law in considering a sum of Rs. 92,795/- being the excess amount while considering the disallowance as per computation in the computation of income under normal provisions

MALLIKARJUN VIRUPAXAPPA YARASI,GADAG vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HUBLI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 437/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

section 263 of the Act. 3.2 In view of the above, Ld. A.R. submitted that there was no lack of enquiry or inadequate enquiry on the issue raised in the notice at the time of assessment and the original order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act is not prejudicial to interest of the revenue. 4. The Ld. A.R. submitted

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , BELLARY vs. M/S. SOUTH WEST MINING LIMITED, BELLARY

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and CO filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 457/BANG/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2011-12 Ito M/S. South West Mining Limited Aayakar Bhavan Staff Road Vidya Nagar Fort Bellary Near Talur Cross Karnataka Toranagallu Vs. Bellary 583 201 Karnataka Pan No : Aafcs9792M Appellant Respondent C.O. No.4/Bang/2023 (Arising Out Of Ita No.457/Bang/2023) Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. South West Mining Limited Ito Vs. Bellary 583 201 Ward-1 Karnataka Bellary Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rakesh Joshi, A.R. Revenue By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 20.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.02.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: This Appeal By Revenue & Co By Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of Nfac For The Assessment Year 2011-12 Dated 21.4.2023 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). The Revenue In This Appeal Raised Following Ground: “Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified On The Facts Of The Case & In Law, In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.287.72 Crores Claimed Towards “Mine Development Expenditure” U/S 37(1) In The Computation Of Income Which Was Not Routed Through The Profit & Loss Account.”

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 37Section 37(1)

depreciation is admissible under s. 32. 52. The amortisation of the qualifying expenditure will be allowed in equal instalments over a 10-year period against the profits arising from `ITA No.457/Bang/2023 & CO No.4/Bang/2023 M/s. South West Mining Limited, Bellary Page 36 of 42 the commercial exploitation of any mine or other natural deposit of any of the specified minerals

BIOCON LIMTIED,BANGALORE vs. CIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 is allowed as indicated above

ITA 907/BANG/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Feb 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri C.H. Sundar Rao, CIT-I (D.R)

Section 10ASection 10BSection 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 263Section 35Section 92Section 92C

Section 263 of the Act is in respect of the allocation of weighted deduction (wrongly mentioned by the ld. CIT as weighted depreciation

CISCO SYSTEMS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 2, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 1234/BANG/2025[AY 2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 37(1)

section 263 was considered impermissible. In the present case, on the contrary, the assessment records do not disclose that any enquiry whatsoever was conducted on the two disputed issues in the year under consideration. Mere availability of actuarial reports, tax-audit particulars or depreciation

INGERSOLL RAND (INDIA) LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal is partly allowed

ITA 272/BANG/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. S. Praveena, Addl. CIT (D.R)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80H

263 of the Act. 7.3 The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.42,61,50,000 in respect of excise duty and Rs.99,35,000 in respect of 5 IT(T.P)A No.272/Bang/2012 sales tax to the ‘total turnover’ in arriving at the deduction under section 80HHC of the Act. 7.4 Notwithstanding and without prejudice

OM SAI CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOUHARDA SAHAKARI NIYAMIT,GADAG vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HUBLI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 454/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Susan Dolores George CIT(OSD)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80P

depreciation on intangible assets and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) while passing the order under section 263 of the Act has held

THAYAPPA BALAKRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-1, BENGALURU

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

ITA 1027/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Thayappa Balakrishna, No. 987, 11Th Main, The Principal 1St Block, Commissioner Of 3Rd Stage, Income-Tax, Basaveshwaranagar, Bengaluru – 1. Vs. Bangalore – 560 079. Pan: Abdpb4893N Appellant Respondent : Shri Ravi Shankar .S.V, Assessee By Advocate Revenue By : Shri D.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr

For Respondent: Shri Ravi Shankar .S.V

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

263 was initiated against the original assessment order dated 08.12.2016, wherein the scope was wide for the Ld.PCIT to rake up the issue of lack of verification as regards to the account held by the assessee in Lakshmi Vilas Bank. Page 14 of 24 4.3. Regarding the argument of the Ld.DR to apply Explanation 3 to section

BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGLURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, BENGALURU

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

ITA 656/BANG/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Brocade Communications Systems Pvt. Ltd., Floor 3, B & C Wing & The Principal Floor 8, D Wing, S1 Commissioner Of Wipro Electronic City Income Tax – 1, Sez, Doddathogur Bengaluru. Vs. Village, Bengaluru – 560 100. Pan: Aaccb4490N Appellant Respondent : Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Assessee By Advocate : Smt. Priyadarshini Revenue By Baseganni, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 28-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-08-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 18/03/2020 Passed By The Ld.Pr.Cit For A.Y. 2013-14 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax ('Pr.Cit') Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act'), Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. 2. The Learned Pr.Cit Erred In Law & Facts In Concluding That The Order Of The Assessing Officer ('Ao') Is "Erroneous

For Respondent: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 263Section 28Section 92C

Section 263 of the Act. 7. That the Appellant craves leave, to add, amend, modify, rescind, supplement, or alter any or all of the Grounds stated herein above, either before or at the time of hearing of this appeal.” 2. Brief facts of the case are as under: 2.1 Assessee is a company engaged in the business of software development

M/S. SHIVA FERRIC PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), BENGALURU

The appeal is allowed

ITA 380/BANG/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Shiva Ferric Pvt. Ltd., No. 193, 4Th Floor, Shiv The Principal Sadan Outer Ring Road, Commissioner Of B. Narayanapura, Income-Tax [Central], Bangalore – 560 016. Bengaluru. Vs. Pan: Aaics4564L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 17-01-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 24-01-2023 Order Per Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR

Section 133ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 5Section 68

263. 10. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We notice that the Coordinate Bench in the case of Pavan Kandkur (supra) has considered a similar issue and held that 9. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. We will consider the issue of whether revision proceedings can be initiated when

M/S HARMAN CONNECTED SERVICES CORPORATION INDIA PVT. LTD.,),BANGALORE vs. PR. CIT - 3, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2010-11 is allowed

ITA 1101/BANG/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Harman Connected Services Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Corporation India Private Limited, Income-Tax, [Formerly Known As Symphony Bangalore - 3. Teleca Corporation India Private Limited) No.3 & 3A, Eoiz Industrial Area, Survey No. 85 & 86, Sadarmangla Village, Krishnarajapuram Hobli, Bangalore – 560 066. Pan : Aabcg 5658 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, Advocate : Revenue By Shri. C. H. Sundar Rao, Cit-I Date Of Hearing : 04.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : .12.2018 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, Advocate

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 195Section 263Section 40

depreciation being a statutory allowance cannot be disallowed under section 40(a)(i) of the Act. 5. Before us, the learned AR for the assessee was heard in support of the grounds raised. The learned AR assailed the jurisdiction of the CIT in invoking the provisions of section 263

CISCO SYSTEMS CAPITAL (INDIA) PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1215/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Mar 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2010-11 Ms. Cisco System Capital (India) Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Private Limited, Bengaluru-2, Divyashree Chamber ‘B’ Wing, Vs. Bengaluru. No.11, O’Shougnessey Road, Bengaluru – 560 025. Pan : Aaccc 4552 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Rajan Vora, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Muzaffar Hussain, Cit (Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 05.02.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.03.2020 O R D E R Per A.K. Garodiathis Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee & The Same Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Pcit(A), Bengaluru-2, Bengaluru, Dated 10.03.2017 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:

For Appellant: Shri. Rajan Vora, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Muzaffar Hussain, CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 142Section 263Section 32

depreciation on leased networking equipments and audio streamlining equipments without ascertaining whether the assessee could be considered to be the owner of the assets as is required in section 32 of the IT Page 3 of 6 Act, 1961. He pointed out that in the present year also, as per the impugned order passed by learned PCIT under section 263

MANJUNATHA,K R PET vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE-3, BANGALORE

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

ITA 364/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar S.V, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Srinivasa T Bidari, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 44A

depreciation in the assessment and also the deletion of penalty by the AO are erroneous to the interest of the revenue. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the PCIT the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The assessee raised the following grounds “1. The order of the learned principal Commissioner of income tax passed under section 263

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

ITA 1119/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

For Appellant: Shri Jairam Raipura, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Annamalli & Shri Narendra Sharma, A.Rs

depreciation was allowed in draft assessment order, however, the same has been removed in final order. In our opinion, the claim of deduction u/s 35(2AB) of the Act has been allowed to the assessee. Now this ground has become infructuous and dismissed accordingly. 27. Ground Nos.11.1 & 12.1 are regarding non granting of foreign tax credit and short credit

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

ITA 621/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

For Appellant: Shri Jairam Raipura, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Annamalli & Shri Narendra Sharma, A.Rs

depreciation was allowed in draft assessment order, however, the same has been removed in final order. In our opinion, the claim of deduction u/s 35(2AB) of the Act has been allowed to the assessee. Now this ground has become infructuous and dismissed accordingly. 27. Ground Nos.11.1 & 12.1 are regarding non granting of foreign tax credit and short credit

TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

ITA 468/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

For Appellant: Shri Jairam Raipura, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Annamalli & Shri Narendra Sharma, A.Rs

depreciation was allowed in draft assessment order, however, the same has been removed in final order. In our opinion, the claim of deduction u/s 35(2AB) of the Act has been allowed to the assessee. Now this ground has become infructuous and dismissed accordingly. 27. Ground Nos.11.1 & 12.1 are regarding non granting of foreign tax credit and short credit

M/S. TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU, CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

ITA 582/BANG/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

For Appellant: Shri Jairam Raipura, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Annamalli & Shri Narendra Sharma, A.Rs

depreciation was allowed in draft assessment order, however, the same has been removed in final order. In our opinion, the claim of deduction u/s 35(2AB) of the Act has been allowed to the assessee. Now this ground has become infructuous and dismissed accordingly. 27. Ground Nos.11.1 & 12.1 are regarding non granting of foreign tax credit and short credit

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

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

ITA 296/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

For Appellant: Shri Jairam Raipura, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Annamalli & Shri Narendra Sharma, A.Rs

depreciation was allowed in draft assessment order, however, the same has been removed in final order. In our opinion, the claim of deduction u/s 35(2AB) of the Act has been allowed to the assessee. Now this ground has become infructuous and dismissed accordingly. 27. Ground Nos.11.1 & 12.1 are regarding non granting of foreign tax credit and short credit