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.

1,033 results for “depreciation”+ Section 29clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,676Delhi2,497Bangalore1,033Chennai795Kolkata512Ahmedabad386Jaipur221Hyderabad198Karnataka164Pune131Raipur115Chandigarh109Indore87Amritsar65Cochin55Surat51Visakhapatnam46SC42Lucknow39Ranchi39Rajkot32Telangana26Guwahati25Jodhpur22Cuttack19Kerala16Nagpur13Dehradun6Panaji6Patna6Calcutta5Varanasi5Agra4Allahabad4Rajasthan2D.K. JAIN H.L. DATTU JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Punjab & Haryana1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Gauhati1Tripura1Jabalpur1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)70Addition to Income70Disallowance47Section 14841Deduction39Section 4038Depreciation37Section 1130Section 133A27Section 36(1)(vii)

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 293/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 250Section 254Section 37Section 90

section 32 of the Act due to the nature of succession involved in the present case. Accordingly, the learned CIT(A) upheld the Assessing Officer’s action in disallowing depreciation on intangible assets and dismissed the appeal on this ground. 29

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

Showing 1–20 of 1,033 · Page 1 of 52

...
27
Transfer Pricing27
Section 115J20

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

ITA 290/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 250Section 254Section 37Section 90

section 32 of the Act due to the nature of succession involved in the present case. Accordingly, the learned CIT(A) upheld the Assessing Officer’s action in disallowing depreciation on intangible assets and dismissed the appeal on this ground. 29

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 292/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 250Section 254Section 37Section 90

section 32 of the Act due to the nature of succession involved in the present case. Accordingly, the learned CIT(A) upheld the Assessing Officer’s action in disallowing depreciation on intangible assets and dismissed the appeal on this ground. 29

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 32(1)(ii) of the Act and therefore, they are in the nature of intangible assets, eligible for depreciation at the prescribed rate, wherein it was held as under: “The law has specified items of intangible assets eligible for depreciation in the following categories : (i) know-how (ii) patents (iii) copyrights (iv) trademarks (v) licences (vi) franchises

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 32(1)(ii) of the Act and therefore, they are in the nature of intangible assets, eligible for depreciation at the prescribed rate, wherein it was held as under: “The law has specified items of intangible assets eligible for depreciation in the following categories : (i) know-how (ii) patents (iii) copyrights (iv) trademarks (v) licences (vi) franchises

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 32(1)(ii) of the Act and therefore, they are in the nature of intangible assets, eligible for depreciation at the prescribed rate, wherein it was held as under: “The law has specified items of intangible assets eligible for depreciation in the following categories : (i) know-how (ii) patents (iii) copyrights (iv) trademarks (v) licences (vi) franchises

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

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act and therefore, they are in the nature of intangible assets, eligible for depreciation at the prescribed rate, wherein it was held as under: “The law has specified items of intangible assets eligible for depreciation in the following categories : (i) know-how (ii) patents (iii) copyrights (iv) trademarks (v) licences (vi) franchises

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 32(1)(ii) of the Act and therefore, they are in the nature of intangible assets, eligible for depreciation at the prescribed rate, wherein it was held as under: “The law has specified items of intangible assets eligible for depreciation in the following categories : (i) know-how (ii) patents (iii) copyrights (iv) trademarks (v) licences (vi) franchises

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

section 32(1)(i) is allowed in the present case, the claim of additional depreciation should naturally be allowed. M/s. Syngene International Limited, Bangalore Page 22 of 29

M/S VOLVO INDIA PVT. LTD. vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1537/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153(1)Section 18

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. The claim for deduction as revenue expenditure is made in Gr.No.7 and for depreciation is made in (Additional) Gr.No.23 which is a general ground for allowance of depreciation on the entire consideration paid for business transfer of RDB. 36. The following were claimed as revenue expenditure in the revised return

BANGALORE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 510/BANG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Sept 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raobangalore International Airport Ltd. Administration Block, Bial, Devanahalli Bangalore-560 300. … Appellant Pan:Aabc8973D Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(2), Bangalore. … Respondent & Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(2), Bangalore. … Appellant Vs. Bangalore International Airport Ltd. Bangalore-560 300. … Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sampath Raghunathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 43B

depreciation has to be considered for as many years as coming in the books of account irrespective of any rider for a particular number of years. We, therefore, hold that reference to the provisions of sections 71 to 73 for arriving at the conclusion that ITA Nos.510 & 662/Bang/2014 Page 29

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S BANGALORE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 662/BANG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Sept 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raobangalore International Airport Ltd. Administration Block, Bial, Devanahalli Bangalore-560 300. … Appellant Pan:Aabc8973D Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(2), Bangalore. … Respondent & Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(2), Bangalore. … Appellant Vs. Bangalore International Airport Ltd. Bangalore-560 300. … Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sampath Raghunathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 43B

depreciation has to be considered for as many years as coming in the books of account irrespective of any rider for a particular number of years. We, therefore, hold that reference to the provisions of sections 71 to 73 for arriving at the conclusion that ITA Nos.510 & 662/Bang/2014 Page 29

M/S. INDUS TRUST ,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

ITA 2298/BANG/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2025AY 2012-13
Section 234B

section\n32(1)(iia) of the Act. The disallowance of additional depreciation is\ntherefore directed to be deleted.\n21.4 The next issue relates to depreciation on transformer and power\nevacuation infrastructure. The lower authorities have treated these\nassets as general plant and machinery eligible only for 15% depreciation\non the reasoning that they are not exclusively designed for windmills.\n21.5

ATOS IT SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 226/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, CAFor Respondent: Shri Bijoy Kumar Panda, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92B(2)Section 92C

29,943,651 Operating costs: Sub-contracting charges - 27,593,262 27,593,262 Employee benefit expenses 1,156,062,332 1,025,578 1,157,087,910 Depreciation/ amortisation expenses 172,779,722 - 172,779,722 Corporate support services 22,632,176 - 22,632,176 Other expenses 308,533,991 308,533,991 - Total operating cost

BOSCH GLOBAL SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1696/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: and Smt. Pratibha R – AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Nandini Das, CIT
Section 10ASection 32(1)(iia)

depreciation or otherwise) in computing the income chargeable under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession" of any previous year.” 15.3 The relevant clause in present case is clause (iii) according to which any office appliance including the computer or computer software shall not be included in the “New asset” for purpose of this section. On careful perusal

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

29 provides that income referred to in Section 28 shall be computed in accordance with the provisions contained in Sections 30 to 43D. These sections provide for deductions of various kinds. Among them, Section 32 relates to depreciation

TEKTRONIX (INDIA) PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 673/BANG/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Mar 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri. A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A 673/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2007 – 08

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Mr. Muzaffar Hussain, CIT – DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 147Section 148

section 40(a)(i) of the act for disallowance of depreciation on such capitalised expenditure and Page 29 of 31 IT(TP)A 673/Bang/2017

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

ITA 975/BANG/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jan 2024AY 2020-2021
Section 10ASection 30Section 80ASection 80HSection 80I

29 provides that income referred to in Section 28\nshall be computed in accordance with the provisions contained in Sections 30 to 43D.\nThese sections provide for deductions of various kinds. Among them, Section 32\nrelates to depreciation

M/S SAMSUNG R & D INSTITUTE INDIA BANGALORE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as per revised\ngrounds stands allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue\nstands dismissed for the years under consideration

ITA 484/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2024AY 2014-15
For Appellant: \nSmt. Tanmayee RajkumarFor Respondent: \nShri D.K. Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 32Section 40

29 taxmann.com 111, SMS Demag Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT\nreported in (2010) 38 SOT 496 and held that provisions of section\n40(a)(i)/(ia) referred to outgoing expenditure and not capital\nexpenditure and hence depreciation

FIBRES & FABRICS INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 918/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, Jt. CIT(DR)
Section 32(1)(ii)

depreciation on goodwill. We hold accordingly and direct the AO to allow the same. Hence, the ground of appeal is allowed. 27. The second issue relates to the denial of carry forward losses on the ground of belated receipt of Form ITR-V. It is not in dispute that the appellant had submitted Form ITR-V, but it was submitted