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.

23 results for “depreciation”+ Section 32Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai88Delhi71Bangalore23Hyderabad21Kolkata19Indore16Karnataka9SC9Ahmedabad6Chennai4Calcutta2Pune2Telangana1Guwahati1Jaipur1Rajkot1

Key Topics

Section 10A36Section 36(1)(viia)18Deduction17Section 14A15Disallowance15Addition to Income15Section 10B14Section 143(3)11Depreciation11

IBM GLOBAL SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 3464/BANG/2004[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2024AY 2000-2001

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2000-2001

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 10A(2)Section 10A(2)(ia)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

32A, the foregoing provisions of this section, clause (ii) of sub-section (2) of section 33, sub- where the assessee, [before the due date section (4) of section 35 or the second proviso for furnishing the return of income under to clause (ix) of sub-section (1) of section 36, as sub-section (1) of section 139] [***], the case

Showing 1–20 of 23 · Page 1 of 2

Section 36(1)(vii)9
Section 115J7
Section 32(1)(iia)7

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. SAINT GOBAIN CRYSTALS & DETECTORS (I) LTD.,, BANGALORE

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

ITA 708/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 May 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raodeputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 12(3), Bangalore. … Appellant Vs. M/S.Saint Gobain Crystals & Detectors (I)Ltd Sy.No.171/2, Maruthi Indl.Estate Hoodi Rajapalya, Whitefield Main Road, Bangalore-48. … Respondent Pan:Aaacb 6794 R

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, JCIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri N.L.Rajeev, CA
Section 10B

32A, clause (ii) of sub- section (2) of section 33, sub-section (4) of section 35 or the second proviso to clause (ix) of sub- section (1) of section 36, as the case may be, shall not apply in relation to any such allowances or deduction. (ii) no loss referred to in sub-section (1) of section

OPTO CIRCUITS INDIA PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1316/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Shiva Prasad Reddy, ITPFor Respondent: Sri.Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 10BSection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 35(1)(i)Section 37

32A, clause (ii) of sub-section (2) of section 33, sub-section (4) of section 35 or the second proviso to clause (ix) of sub-section 7 ITA No.1316/Bang/2017. M/s.Opto Circuits (India) Limited. (1) of section 36, as the case may be, shall not apply in relation to any such allowance or deduction; (ii) no loss referred

ROBERT BOSCH ENGINEERING AND BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LARGE TAX PAYERS UNIT, BANGALORE

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

ITA 593/BANG/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Sridhar E, CIT (DR)For Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 115Section 115JSection 237Section 80J

depreciation. In the case of Peerless Consultancy Services, the Calcutta High Court relied on Datcons case law and held the assessee therein, engaged in the activity of electronic data processing, as an industrial company for the purposes of investmet allowance. The Calcutta High Court, in the case of Show Wallace & Co, once again relied on the ©atacons case

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 2, LTU, BENGALURU vs. M/S. ROBERT BOSCH ENGINEERING AND BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

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

ITA 446/BANG/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Sridhar E, CIT (DR)For Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 115Section 115JSection 237Section 80J

depreciation. In the case of Peerless Consultancy Services, the Calcutta High Court relied on Datcons case law and held the assessee therein, engaged in the activity of electronic data processing, as an industrial company for the purposes of investmet allowance. The Calcutta High Court, in the case of Show Wallace & Co, once again relied on the ©atacons case

M/S RAMSOFT TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

ITA 1460/BANG/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S.Ramsoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd. No.104A, 4Th Cross, Electronic City, Hosur Road, Bangalore-561229. … Appellant Pa No.Aaacr 6948 R Vs. Deputy Commisioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 12(4), Bangalore. … Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ramasubramanian, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, JCIT(A)
Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14A

32A. Clause (ii) of sub-section (2) of section 33 and sub-section (4) of section 35 of the Act or the second proviso to clause (ix) of sub-section (1) of section 36 shall not be applicable in relation to any such allowance or deduction. Similarly, no loss as referred to in sub-section (1) or in section

SRI Y C KALLINATHA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 728/BANG/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri S. Jayaramanassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri. S. V. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. M. K. Biju, JCIT
Section 10ASection 32(1)(iia)Section 36(1)

depreciation of eligible units would be allowable for set off immediately on the expiry of the period of tax holiday i.e. 10 years. The provisions of Sections 32, 32A

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE vs. M/S COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 3041/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita Nos. 3040 & 3041/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Coffee Day Global Limited, Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(3), No.23/2, Coffeeday Square, 3Rd Floor, C.R. Building, Vittal Mallya Road, Queen’S Road, Bengaluru-560 001. Bengaluru-560 001. [Pan: Aabca 5291P]

Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)Section 43A

section 32A & 80J of the Act, was not appropriate. According to the CIT(A), the position of law has changed and the allowance, in the instant case, is under a different provisions of the Act. Before the CIT(A), it was further submitted that, even for the A.Ys.2011-12 & 2012-13, there was a connected claim of additional depreciation

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE vs. M/S COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 3040/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita Nos. 3040 & 3041/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Coffee Day Global Limited, Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(3), No.23/2, Coffeeday Square, 3Rd Floor, C.R. Building, Vittal Mallya Road, Queen’S Road, Bengaluru-560 001. Bengaluru-560 001. [Pan: Aabca 5291P]

Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)Section 43A

section 32A & 80J of the Act, was not appropriate. According to the CIT(A), the position of law has changed and the allowance, in the instant case, is under a different provisions of the Act. Before the CIT(A), it was further submitted that, even for the A.Ys.2011-12 & 2012-13, there was a connected claim of additional depreciation

TEXAS INSTRUMENTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. CIT, BANGALORE

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

ITA 731/BANG/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Jan 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaranit(Tp)A No.731/Bang/2016 Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Texas Instruments (India) Private Limited, Vs. The Additional Commissioner Of Bagmane Tech Park, Income Tax, Ltu, No.66/3, Adjacent To Lrde, Bangalore. Byrasandra, C V Raman Nagar, Bangalore – 560 093. Pan: Aaact 5445M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Sharath Rao, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Pradeep Kumar, Cit (Dr) (Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 6.1.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 7.1.2020

For Appellant: Shri. Sharath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR) (ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 263

32A of the Act, held that if appliances are capable of being installed and used in any place where people work or gather, and desire to communicate, such items cannot be construed as office appliances - the only requirement for claiming deduction under section 32(1)(iia) of the Act is that the assessee should be engaged in the business

M/S. HEALTHCARE GLOBAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for Assessment Year 2010-11 is dismissed

ITA 1900/BANG/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Lalit Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Srinivas, CAFor Respondent: Shri B.R. Ramesh, JCIT (DR)
Section 72ASection 79

depreciation of the amalgamating company shall be deemed to be the loss of the amalgamated company, it has to be seen that it is the case of amalgamation of a company owning an industrial undertaking as has been defined as per clause (aa) of sub section 7 of section 72A as reproduced above. As per this definition

M/S. HEALTHCARE GLOBAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for Assessment Year 2010-11 is dismissed

ITA 1901/BANG/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Lalit Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Srinivas, CAFor Respondent: Shri B.R. Ramesh, JCIT (DR)
Section 72ASection 79

depreciation of the amalgamating company shall be deemed to be the loss of the amalgamated company, it has to be seen that it is the case of amalgamation of a company owning an industrial undertaking as has been defined as per clause (aa) of sub section 7 of section 72A as reproduced above. As per this definition

TELELOGIC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

ITA 1599/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Neera Malhotra, Addl. CIT (D.R)
Section 10ASection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C(2)

sections like 80HHC, 80-IA, etc. The Parliament was aware of the various restricting and limiting provisions like s. 80A and s. 80AB which were in Chapter VI-A which do not appear in Chapter III. The fact that even after its recast, the relief has been retained in Chapter III indicates the intention of Parliament that

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU,, , BENGALURU vs. M/S. VIJAYA BANK, BENGALURU

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

ITA 1834/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Ananthan, C.A &For Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234DSection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(2)(v)Section 37(1)(vii)

32A of the Act at p. 896 held that section prescribes no point of time by which the reserve should be created and in this regard accepted that a reserve created after the closure of the accounts of the year qualifies by observing as under: "The second question which is raised only

VIJAYA BANK ,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LARGE TAX PAYER UNIT , BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13 is dismissed

ITA 915/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jan 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Pramod Kumar Singh, JCIT (D.R)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

32A of the Act at p. 896 held that section prescribes no point of time by which the reserve should be created and in this regard accepted that a reserve created after the closure of the accounts of the year qualifies by observing as under : "The second question which is raised only

ACIT, MANGALORE vs. M/S CORPORATION BANK, MANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1264/BANG/2013[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Mar 2015AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Abraham P George

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.K.Srihari, Addl.CIT
Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viiia)

32A of the Act at p. 896 held that section prescribes no point of time by which the reserve should be created and in this regard accepted that a reserve created after the closure of the accounts of the year qualifies by observing as under : "The second question which is raised only

ADDL/JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (LTU) , BANGALORE vs. M/S VIJAYA BANK , BANGALORE

Accordingly the grounds raised by the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 528/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahum/S. Bank Of Baroda Vs. Addl. Cit, Ltu, (Erstwhile Vijaya Bank) Bmtc Building 7Th Floor, Central Accounts 6Th Block, Koramangala Bengaluru 560095 Dept., 41/2, M.G. Road Bengaluru 560001 Pan – Aaacvo3787 (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Circle - 2(1)(1) Vs. M/S. Bank Of Baroda Room No. 561, 5Th Floor (Erstwhile Vijaya Bank) Aayakar Bhavan 7Th Floor, Central Accounts M.K. Road Dept., 41/2, M.G. Road Mumbai 400020 Bengaluru 560001 Pan – Aaacvo3787 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ananthan, Ca& Smt. Lalitha Rameswaran, Ca Revenue By: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.04.2023 M/S. Bank Of Baroda

For Appellant: Shri Ananthan, CA&For Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 194JSection 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

32A of the Act at p. 896 held that section prescribes no point of time by which the reserve should be created and in this regard accepted that a reserve created after the closure of the accounts of the year qualifies by observing as under: "The second question which is raised only

M/S VIJAYA BANK ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU , BANGALORE

Accordingly the grounds raised by the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 321/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahum/S. Bank Of Baroda Vs. Addl. Cit, Ltu, (Erstwhile Vijaya Bank) Bmtc Building 7Th Floor, Central Accounts 6Th Block, Koramangala Bengaluru 560095 Dept., 41/2, M.G. Road Bengaluru 560001 Pan – Aaacvo3787 (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Circle - 2(1)(1) Vs. M/S. Bank Of Baroda Room No. 561, 5Th Floor (Erstwhile Vijaya Bank) Aayakar Bhavan 7Th Floor, Central Accounts M.K. Road Dept., 41/2, M.G. Road Mumbai 400020 Bengaluru 560001 Pan – Aaacvo3787 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ananthan, Ca& Smt. Lalitha Rameswaran, Ca Revenue By: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.04.2023 M/S. Bank Of Baroda

For Appellant: Shri Ananthan, CA&For Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 194JSection 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

32A of the Act at p. 896 held that section prescribes no point of time by which the reserve should be created and in this regard accepted that a reserve created after the closure of the accounts of the year qualifies by observing as under: "The second question which is raised only

SOFTBRANDS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

ITA 1094/BANG/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Aug 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri Cherian K Baby, C. AFor Respondent: Shri Sibichen K Mathew, CIT (D.R)
Section 10ASection 133(6)Section 143(3)

32A, cl. (ii) of sub-s. (2) of s. 33 and sub-s. (4) of s. 35 of the Act or the second proviso to cl. (ix) of sub-s. (1) of s. 36 shall not be applicable in relation to any such allowance or deduction. Similarly no loss as referred

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S BRITISH ENGINES(I)P LTD, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1277/BANG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jan 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, JCIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dave, CA
Section 10ASection 10B

32A, cl. (ii) of sub-s. (2) of s. 33 and sub-s. (4) of s. 35 of the Act or the second proviso to cl. (ix) of sub- s. (1) of s. 36 shall not be applicable in relation to any such allowance or deduction. Similarly no loss as referred