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.

109 results for “depreciation”+ Section 355clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi306Mumbai292Bangalore109Chennai80Ahmedabad57Kolkata33Hyderabad19Surat19Lucknow14Indore13Jaipur12Pune6Nagpur5Guwahati5Chandigarh5SC4Rajkot4Cochin3Raipur3Telangana2Calcutta2Patna2Jabalpur1Amritsar1Cuttack1Dehradun1Agra1Jodhpur1Karnataka1

Key Topics

Addition to Income66Section 143(3)60Section 36(1)(viia)52Disallowance50Deduction50Section 133A40Section 14839Depreciation39Section 14A33

CONTINENTAL AUTOMOTIVE COMPONENTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 390/BANG/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, CIT-2(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 92C

depreciation under Section 32 of the Act, after relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Honda Siel Cars India Ltd. (2019) 101 Taxmann 322 (SC) in which it has been IT(TP)A No.390/Bang/2021 Page 40 of 55 held that royalty is treated as capital expenditure. thus accepting that the expenses were genuine

DCIT vs. ING VYSYA BANK, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed while the 68

Showing 1–20 of 109 · Page 1 of 6

Section 80I32
Section 13130
Section 115J28
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 145 of the Act. Therefore, the total depreciation in respect of the investment amounting to Rs.16,99,68,583/- was claimed and that the AO was not correct in adding back the appreciation. The Assessee relied on various decisions in their submissions including the decision of the Hon’ble ITAT, Bangalore in the case of Corporation Bank, Mangalore (ITA.No

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 145 of the Act. Therefore, the total depreciation in respect of the investment amounting to Rs.16,99,68,583/- was claimed and that the AO was not correct in adding back the appreciation. The Assessee relied on various decisions in their submissions including the decision of the Hon’ble ITAT, Bangalore in the case of Corporation Bank, Mangalore (ITA.No

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BANGALORE vs. M/S INFOSYS BPO LTD, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 1333/BANG/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Sept 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt.Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Miss. Neera Malhotra, CIT, DR
Section 10ASection 14ASection 40

355-421 of paper book to submit that addition of deferred revenue is revenue neutral as corresponding increase in income has been treated as profit of business and deduction under section 10 A has been allowed by Ld.AO for assessment year 2007- 08. He has also submitted that deferred revenue for assessment year under consideration has actually been recognised

MR. A. MOHIUDDIN,,MANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

ITA 1223/BANG/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Aravind, Standing Counsel
Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

355 on WDV of the assets as on 1.4.2006. The AO has also worked out the WDV of the assets as on 1.4.2007 also and having noted that excess depreciation was claimed at Rs.83,328, he disallowed the same. 51. Though a specific ground was raised before the CIT(Appeals), but the CIT(A) was not convinced with the arguments

MR. A. MOHIUDDIN,MANGALORE vs. ACIT, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

ITA 166/BANG/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Aravind, Standing Counsel
Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

355 on WDV of the assets as on 1.4.2006. The AO has also worked out the WDV of the assets as on 1.4.2007 also and having noted that excess depreciation was claimed at Rs.83,328, he disallowed the same. 51. Though a specific ground was raised before the CIT(Appeals), but the CIT(A) was not convinced with the arguments

MR. A. MOHIUDDIN,MANGALORE vs. ACIT, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

ITA 164/BANG/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Aravind, Standing Counsel
Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

355 on WDV of the assets as on 1.4.2006. The AO has also worked out the WDV of the assets as on 1.4.2007 also and having noted that excess depreciation was claimed at Rs.83,328, he disallowed the same. 51. Though a specific ground was raised before the CIT(Appeals), but the CIT(A) was not convinced with the arguments

MRS. SHAHANAZ MOHIUDDIN,MANGALORE vs. ACIT, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

ITA 1088/BANG/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Aravind, Standing Counsel
Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

355 on WDV of the assets as on 1.4.2006. The AO has also worked out the WDV of the assets as on 1.4.2007 also and having noted that excess depreciation was claimed at Rs.83,328, he disallowed the same. 51. Though a specific ground was raised before the CIT(Appeals), but the CIT(A) was not convinced with the arguments

MR. A. MOHIUDDIN,MANGALORE vs. ACIT, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

ITA 167/BANG/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Aravind, Standing Counsel
Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

355 on WDV of the assets as on 1.4.2006. The AO has also worked out the WDV of the assets as on 1.4.2007 also and having noted that excess depreciation was claimed at Rs.83,328, he disallowed the same. 51. Though a specific ground was raised before the CIT(Appeals), but the CIT(A) was not convinced with the arguments

ACIT, MANGALORE vs. MRS. SHAHANAZ MOHIUDDIN, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

ITA 1118/BANG/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Aravind, Standing Counsel
Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

355 on WDV of the assets as on 1.4.2006. The AO has also worked out the WDV of the assets as on 1.4.2007 also and having noted that excess depreciation was claimed at Rs.83,328, he disallowed the same. 51. Though a specific ground was raised before the CIT(Appeals), but the CIT(A) was not convinced with the arguments

MR. A. MOHIUDDIN,MANGALORE vs. ACIT, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

ITA 163/BANG/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Aravind, Standing Counsel
Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

355 on WDV of the assets as on 1.4.2006. The AO has also worked out the WDV of the assets as on 1.4.2007 also and having noted that excess depreciation was claimed at Rs.83,328, he disallowed the same. 51. Though a specific ground was raised before the CIT(Appeals), but the CIT(A) was not convinced with the arguments

MR. A. MOHIUDDIN,MANGALORE vs. ACIT, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

ITA 165/BANG/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Aravind, Standing Counsel
Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

355 on WDV of the assets as on 1.4.2006. The AO has also worked out the WDV of the assets as on 1.4.2007 also and having noted that excess depreciation was claimed at Rs.83,328, he disallowed the same. 51. Though a specific ground was raised before the CIT(Appeals), but the CIT(A) was not convinced with the arguments

WIPRO LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION- CIRCLE -2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2009-10 to 2011-12 are allowed and the appeals filed for AY 2012-13 are partly allowed

ITA 581/BANG/2019[2010-11]Status: PendingITAT Bangalore15 Oct 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Srinivasan, P.V., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, D.R
Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)

355 ITR 284) (Kar), reversed the decision of the Tribunal and held that the assessee is liable to deduct tax at source from the payment made to Gartner Group. He submitted that the Hon'ble High Court has followed the decision rendered in the case of CIT vs. M/s Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd (ITA No.2808

HP INDIA SALES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU , BANGALORE

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

ITA 524/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am It(Tp)A No.524/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 M/S.Hp India Sales Private The Joint Commissioner Of Limited (Formerly Known As Income-Tax, Ltu V. Bangalore. Hewlett-Packard India Sales Private Limited), 24 Salarpuria Area, Hosur Main Road, Adugodi Bangalore – 560 030. Pan : Aaacc9862F. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Ajay Vohra, Senior Counsel / Sri. Neeraj Jain, Sri.Lalit Attal & Sri.Karon Dhanuka, Advoicates Respondent By : Sri.Harishchandra Naik, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 18.08.2022 Date Of Hearing : 27.07.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 03.01.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2012-2013. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In Import Of Computer Peripherals From Its Associated Enterprises (Aes) For Sale In India & Also Rendered Certain Support Services. The Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2012-2013 Was Filed On 29.02.2012, Admitting Total Income Of Rs.544,61,99,276. The Return Was Revised On 25.03.2014

For Appellant: Sri.Ajay Vohra, Senior Counsel / Sri. Neeraj JainFor Respondent: Sri.Harishchandra Naik, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92BSection 92C

depreciation on intangibles amounting to Rs. 28,73,837 for the year under consideration. Grounds 4.1 to 4.4 17. The above grounds deals with the disallowance of interest on customs duty amounting to Rs.34,68,84,164. The AO disallowed the same for the reason that interest on customs duty is allowable on actual payment basis under section

SHRI.RAJENDRA KUMAR,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 574/BANG/2017[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 May 2017AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadavassessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri. Sudheendra, FCAFor Respondent: Smt. Swapna Das, JCIT
Section 147Section 148

355 ITR 136 in which it has been held that if conditions stipulated in part II of the proviso do not exist, then, when the assessment order passed under sub-Section 3 of Section 143, no action can be taken under section 147 of the Act after the expiry of 4 years from the end of relevant assessment year

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S NSL SUGARS LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the revenue in ITA No

ITA 37/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Nov 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Shri A K Garodiaassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri B.S. Balachandran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C.H. Sundar Rao, CIT(DR-I), ITAT, Bangalore
Section 70Section 72Section 80A(1)Section 80CSection 80I

sections falling in Chapter VI-A. They impose a ceiling on the total amount of deduction and therefore the non obstante clause in s. 80-I(6) cannot restrict the operation of ss. 80A(2) and 80B(5) which operate in different spheres. As observed earlier s. 80- I(6) deals with actual computation of deduction whereas

M/S NSL SUGARS LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the revenue in ITA No

ITA 1228/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Shri A K Garodiaassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri B.S. Balachandran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C.H. Sundar Rao, CIT(DR-I), ITAT, Bangalore
Section 70Section 72Section 80A(1)Section 80CSection 80I

sections falling in Chapter VI-A. They impose a ceiling on the total amount of deduction and therefore the non obstante clause in s. 80-I(6) cannot restrict the operation of ss. 80A(2) and 80B(5) which operate in different spheres. As observed earlier s. 80- I(6) deals with actual computation of deduction whereas

M/S VVD CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, ITA No.3384/Bang/2018 is allowed, while ITA Nos

ITA 3385/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Guruswamy, ITPFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 36(1)(iii)

355 ITR 102 (Bom) held that under the present section 147, no action could be taken after expiry of 4 years from the end of relevant assessment year, unless any income chargeable to tax has escaped ITA Nos. 3384 to 3388/Bang/2018 Page 21 of 57 assessment for such assessment year by reason of failure on the part of assessee

M/S VVD CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, ITA No.3384/Bang/2018 is allowed, while ITA Nos

ITA 3387/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Guruswamy, ITPFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 36(1)(iii)

355 ITR 102 (Bom) held that under the present section 147, no action could be taken after expiry of 4 years from the end of relevant assessment year, unless any income chargeable to tax has escaped ITA Nos. 3384 to 3388/Bang/2018 Page 21 of 57 assessment for such assessment year by reason of failure on the part of assessee

M/S VVD CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, ITA No.3384/Bang/2018 is allowed, while ITA Nos

ITA 3386/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Guruswamy, ITPFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 36(1)(iii)

355 ITR 102 (Bom) held that under the present section 147, no action could be taken after expiry of 4 years from the end of relevant assessment year, unless any income chargeable to tax has escaped ITA Nos. 3384 to 3388/Bang/2018 Page 21 of 57 assessment for such assessment year by reason of failure on the part of assessee