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.

17 results for “depreciation”+ Section 35Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi41Mumbai30Bangalore17Chennai11Kolkata5SC4Guwahati2Hyderabad2Panaji2Surat1Chandigarh1Cochin1Karnataka1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1Ahmedabad1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)18Section 92C17Addition to Income11Section 43A10Transfer Pricing10Comparables/TP9Disallowance8Section 115J7Section 405

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 [Sections 32 and 43(1)], and also as regards capital assets for scientific research [section 35(1)(iv )] and also regarding patent rights or copyrights [Section 35A

Section 1444
Section 144C(5)4
Depreciation4

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 [Sections 32 and 43(1)], and also as regards capital assets for scientific research [section 35(1)(iv )] and also regarding patent rights or copyrights [Section 35A

M/S TE CONNECTIVITY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2 LTPU , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is treated as partly allowed for 37

ITA 3373/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.3373/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Te Connectivity India Private Limited, Vs. Acit, Te Park, 22B, Doddenakundi Corporation, 2Nd Circle - 2, Large Taxpayer Unit, Phase, Industrial Area, Whitefield Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aabct 7374 C Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Sriram Seshadri, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 22.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.02.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Sriram Seshadri, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C

section 92 of the Act applies. In support of the assessee’s claim that the price received by assessee from its AE for services rendered in the form of carrying out licensed manufacturing activity, is at arm’s length, the assessee filed the transfer pricing study adopting Transaction Net Margin Method (TNMM) as the Most Appropriate Method (MAM) for determination

M/S. BHARAT ELECTRONICS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU, CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU

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

ITA 394/BANG/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Bharat Electronics The Assistant Ltd., Commissioner Of Registered Office, Income Tax, Outer Ring Road Ltu, Nagawara, Circle – 1, Vs. Bangalore – 560 045. Bangalore. Pan: Aaacb5985C Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Smt. Richa .B, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 43A

35A; or (iv) the amount of expenditure of a capital nature referred to in clause (ix) of sub-section (1) of section 36; or (v) the cost of acquisition of a capital asset (not being a capital asset referred to in section 50) for the purposes of section 48, and the amount arrived at after such addition or deduction shall

PRACTO TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), BENGALURU, BANGALORE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 311/BANG/2024[AY 2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Feb 2025

Bench: SHRI WASEEM AHMED (Accountant Member), SHRI KESHAV DUBEY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144C(10)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 153

depreciation under section 32 of the Act ought to be allowed.; and 14.2.2. Treating balance AMP expenditure of INR 31,02,747 as capital in nature even though it was incurred for the purpose of day-to-day business operations of the Appellant and is within the 20% threshold adopted by Learned AO making the said adjustment. The Learned

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S THOUGHT WORKS TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 590/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore04 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Sri.V.Sridhar, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Jairam Raipura, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 43A

35A; or (iv) the amount of expenditure of a capital nature referred to in clause (ix) of sub-section (1) of section 36; or (v) the cost of acquisition of a capital asset (not being a capital asset referred to in section 50) for the purposes of section 48, and the amount arrived at after such addition or deduction shall

THOUGHTWORKS TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 580/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore04 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Sri.V.Sridhar, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Jairam Raipura, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 43A

35A; or (iv) the amount of expenditure of a capital nature referred to in clause (ix) of sub-section (1) of section 36; or (v) the cost of acquisition of a capital asset (not being a capital asset referred to in section 50) for the purposes of section 48, and the amount arrived at after such addition or deduction shall

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

In the result, the assessee's appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes because earlier the appeal was dismissed without deciding additional ground

ITA 1902/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri K.P.Srinivas, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Addl. CIT (D.R)
Section 35Section 35ASection 36Section 43Section 43ASection 48Section 50

35A; or (iv) the amount of expenditure of a capital nature referred to in clause (ix) of sub-section (1) of section 36; or (v) the cost of acquisition of a capital asset (not being a capital asset referred to in section 50) for the purposes of section 48, and the amount arrived at after such addition or deduction shall

M/S INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 159/BANG/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Mar 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S. Infineon Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., 9Th Floor, Prestige Thirulakshmi, No.11, Mg Road, Bangalore-560001 ….Appellant Pan Aabcs 6967N Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Bangalore. ……Respondent.

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan,& Smt Vidya kurup AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (D.R)
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92C

35A before the DRP, whereas the DRP has passed the order under Section 144C (5) of the Act dt.25.09.2019. Further, the final assessment order was passed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Act with total income of Rs.9, 86,91,148/- after considering the relief granted by the DRP in Transfer Pricing Adjustment. Aggrieved by the order

UL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 574/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.574/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kalyani Platina – Block I, 3Rd Floor, 24, Epip Circle -7(1)(1), Zone, Phase – 2Nd, Whitefield, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent C.O.No.127/Bang/2015 (In It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015) Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Cross Objector Respondent It(Tp)A No.655/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bengaluru – 560 066. Circle -7(1)(1), Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Bengaluru. Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92C

depreciation as claimed in the income tax return filed. D. Interest levied under section 234B 40. The learned AO has erred in levying interest under section 234B which is consequential in nature. Grounds raised in Revenue’s appeal in IT(TP)A No.378/Bang/2015: The order of the DRP is opposed to law and the facts and 1) circumstances

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S U.L. INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 378/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.574/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kalyani Platina – Block I, 3Rd Floor, 24, Epip Circle -7(1)(1), Zone, Phase – 2Nd, Whitefield, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent C.O.No.127/Bang/2015 (In It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015) Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Cross Objector Respondent It(Tp)A No.655/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bengaluru – 560 066. Circle -7(1)(1), Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Bengaluru. Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92C

depreciation as claimed in the income tax return filed. D. Interest levied under section 234B 40. The learned AO has erred in levying interest under section 234B which is consequential in nature. Grounds raised in Revenue’s appeal in IT(TP)A No.378/Bang/2015: The order of the DRP is opposed to law and the facts and 1) circumstances

M/S UL INDIA PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 655/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.574/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kalyani Platina – Block I, 3Rd Floor, 24, Epip Circle -7(1)(1), Zone, Phase – 2Nd, Whitefield, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent C.O.No.127/Bang/2015 (In It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015) Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Cross Objector Respondent It(Tp)A No.655/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bengaluru – 560 066. Circle -7(1)(1), Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Bengaluru. Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92C

depreciation as claimed in the income tax return filed. D. Interest levied under section 234B 40. The learned AO has erred in levying interest under section 234B which is consequential in nature. Grounds raised in Revenue’s appeal in IT(TP)A No.378/Bang/2015: The order of the DRP is opposed to law and the facts and 1) circumstances

MICRO FOCUS SOFTWARE INDIA PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, M/s.Microland Ltd

ITA 2778/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shrib.R.Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.2778/Bang/2017 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S.Micro Focus Software India Pvt. Ltd. (Form Erly Known As Novell Software Development (India) Pvt.Ltd.) ‘Bagmane Tech Park’, D Block, ‘Laurel’ 65/2, C V Raman Nagar, Byrasandra, Bengaluru-560093. … Appellant Pan:Aaacn 6992 K Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 4(1)(2), Bengaluru. … Respondent Appellant By : Smt.Tanmayee Rajkumar, Advocate. Respondent By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 18/11/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/12/2019 O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm : The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S.144C(13) Of The Income- Tax Act,1961 ['The Act' For Short] Dated 27/10/2017 Passed In Pursuance To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel(Drp) Dated 18/09/2017. It(Tp)A No.2778/Bang/2017 Page 2 Of 20 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Smt.Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 92C(3)

depreciation between the Appellant and the comparable companies. 5. Variation of 3% from the arithmetic mean The Ld. AO/ Ld. TPO erred in not granting the benefit of the proviso to Section 92C(2) of the Act to which the Appellant is entitled. 6. Short grant of TDS credit That the AO erred in granting credit for TDS only

M/S TOYOTA KIRLOSKAR MOTORS (P) LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU CIRCLE-1 , BANGALORE

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

ITA 150/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Sri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, D.R
Section 40A(2)

section 92 are not applicable – Para 14.3 (case law filed during the hearing). Ground No.19- Price Reduction of Purchases 3.18 The Appellant follows annual price for various parts being supplied by different manufacturers and suppliers. Part prices are renegotiated on an annual basis. Initial price negotiation with Denso Kirloskar Industries Pvt Ltd was completed in Dec 2011. However, the supplier

M/S TELSIMA COMMUNICATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12

ITA 304/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Sharath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Mahlhotra, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 40Section 92C

depreciation on the i. research and development expenditure treated as capital in nature by the DRP/AO irrespective of the directions of the learned DRP. IT(TP)A No. 304/Bang/2016 Page 8 of 29 j.The learned AO erred in disallowing research and development cost amounting to Rs.3,54,424 relying on the order of the previous assessment year, ignoring that each

MAPEI CONSTRUCTION PRODUCTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

ITA 283/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 283/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Mapei Construction Products (India) Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant A01 & B01, Solus Jain Commissioner Of Heights, Income Tax, 1St Floor, 1St Cross, Circle 4 (1)(2), J C Road, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 002. Pan: Aahcm0464A Appellant Respondent : Shri S. Ramasubramanyam, Assessee By Ca : Shri Janardhan, Addl. Cit Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 04-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 01-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against Final Assessment Order Dated 24/03/2021 Passed By The Ld.Acit, Under National Assessment Centre, New Delhi, Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 143(3A) & (3B) Of The Act, For The Assessment Year 2016- 17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. Jurisdiction 1.1. That The Learned Lower Authorities Erred In Law & On Facts In Referring The Case To The Learned Transfer Pricing

For Respondent: Shri S. Ramasubramanyam
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 40Section 92C

section 143(3A) and (3B) of the act, for the assessment year 2016- 17 on following grounds of appeal: “1. JURISDICTION 1.1. That the learned lower authorities erred in law and on facts in referring the case to the learned Transfer Pricing Page 2 of 22 IT(TP)A No. 283/Bang/2021 Officer (TPO) in violation of Instruction

SOFTLAYER TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

ITA 265/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 92C

section 92CA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) without appreciating that a) there is no amendment to the definition of "income" and charging or computation provision relating to income under the head "Profits & Gains of Business or Profession" do not refer to or include the amounts computed under Chapter X; and b) passing the orders without considering