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.

20 results for “depreciation”+ Section 35D(2)(c)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai103Delhi94Chennai37Ahmedabad37Bangalore20Raipur19Hyderabad15Chandigarh12Kolkata11Cochin8Pune6Visakhapatnam5Rajkot5Cuttack4Guwahati3Jaipur3SC2Karnataka2Indore1Agra1Kerala1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)34Section 36(1)(viia)32Addition to Income18Section 14815Depreciation15Disallowance15Section 234B11Section 115J11Deduction11

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 234B
Section 26310
Section 35D9
Section 143(2)9
Section 250
Section 37
Section 37(1)

depreciation is admissible under s. 32, shall not be deemed to be expenditure incurred by the assessee for any of the purposes specified in sub-s. (2). (4) The deduction to be allowed under sub-s. (1) for any relevant previous year shall be—(a) An amount equal to one-tenth of the expenditure specified in sub- s. (2) (such

M/S SERENDIPITY INFOLABS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2428/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Dec 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. R Premi, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 292BSection 56(2)(viib)

C’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2015-16 Serendipity Infolabs Pvt. The Dy. Commissioner of Ltd., Income Tax, (amalgamate with ANI Central Circle-6(1)(1), Technologies Pvt. Ltd.,) Vs. Bengaluru. Regent Insignia, #414, 3rd Floor, 4th Block, 17th Main, 100 Feet Road, Koramangala, Bengaluru

BOSCH LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

ITA 671/BANG/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Sept 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri A.K.Garodia, Accounant Member & Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr CounselFor Respondent: Shri G.R.Reddy, CIT-I
Section 154Section 92C(2)

35D of the Act if the conditions prescribed in that sec. are existing but this is not a case that share issue expenses are eligible for depreciation u/s 32 of the Act. Hence, this judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court is also not applicable in the present case. 17. The third judgment cited by him is the judgment

M/S THE HIMALAYA DRUG COMPANY,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

ITA 187/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Laliet Kumarit(Tp)A No.187/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri. Padam Chand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Susan D. George, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 92CSection 92C(2)

2) (xv) of the Act if it satisfies otherwise the tests laid down by the law."85. The OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines, para 7.13 emphasises that there should not be any automatic inference about an AE receiving an entity group service only because it gets an incidental benefit for being part of a larger concern and not to any specific

SUBEX LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 373/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Mar 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B. Ramakotaiah & Shri Narendra Kumar Choudhury

For Appellant: Shri Raghunathan S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT-II(DR)
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 35D

depreciation on computer software and working out deduction u/s. 10AA as against assessee’s claims. Another issue on non-granting of foreign tax credit is also involved. Aggrieved on the DRP’s orders, assessee is in appeal and raised as many as 32 grounds. Likewise, Revenue is also aggrieved on the DRP’s directions allowing some IT(TP)A Nos.373

M/S. TOYOTA TAUSHO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -3(1)(1), BENGALURU

Accordingly, this ground is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2806/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Darpan Kirpalani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, CIT (D.R)
Section 143(3)Section 92C(2)

35D in relation to the expenditure incurred for increase in authorized share capital. IT(TP)A No.2806/Bang/2017 Page 4 of 51 16. That the learned AO erred in consequently levying interest under section 234B of the Act. Under any case, the levy of interest is unwarranted and highly excessive. That the Appellant craves leave

ADDL.CI.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S CANARA BANK, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 813/BANG/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri G.Sarangan, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.R.Reddy, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)(viia)

Section, FM&S Wing, Bangalore. HO, No.112, JC Road, Bangalore-560002. 479/Bang/2009 2006-07 -do- Addl.CIT, LTU Bangalore. 793/Bang/2011 2007-08 -do- -do- 693/Bang/2012 2008-09 -do- -do- 601/Bang/2010 2005-06 Joint CIT,LTU, Canara Bank, Bangalore. Bangalore. 530/Bang/2009 2006-07 Addl.CIT,LTU,B’lore. -do- 813/Bang/2011 2007-08 -do- -do- 684/Bang/2012 2008-09 Joint CIT, LTU,B’lore

ADDL.CIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S CANARA BANK, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 530/BANG/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri G.Sarangan, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.R.Reddy, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)(viia)

Section, FM&S Wing, Bangalore. HO, No.112, JC Road, Bangalore-560002. 479/Bang/2009 2006-07 -do- Addl.CIT, LTU Bangalore. 793/Bang/2011 2007-08 -do- -do- 693/Bang/2012 2008-09 -do- -do- 601/Bang/2010 2005-06 Joint CIT,LTU, Canara Bank, Bangalore. Bangalore. 530/Bang/2009 2006-07 Addl.CIT,LTU,B’lore. -do- 813/Bang/2011 2007-08 -do- -do- 684/Bang/2012 2008-09 Joint CIT, LTU,B’lore

CANARA BANK,BANGALORE vs. ADDL.C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 793/BANG/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri G.Sarangan, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.R.Reddy, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)(viia)

Section, FM&S Wing, Bangalore. HO, No.112, JC Road, Bangalore-560002. 479/Bang/2009 2006-07 -do- Addl.CIT, LTU Bangalore. 793/Bang/2011 2007-08 -do- -do- 693/Bang/2012 2008-09 -do- -do- 601/Bang/2010 2005-06 Joint CIT,LTU, Canara Bank, Bangalore. Bangalore. 530/Bang/2009 2006-07 Addl.CIT,LTU,B’lore. -do- 813/Bang/2011 2007-08 -do- -do- 684/Bang/2012 2008-09 Joint CIT, LTU,B’lore

CANARA BANK,BANGALORE vs. ADDL. C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 693/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri G.Sarangan, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.R.Reddy, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)(viia)

Section, FM&S Wing, Bangalore. HO, No.112, JC Road, Bangalore-560002. 479/Bang/2009 2006-07 -do- Addl.CIT, LTU Bangalore. 793/Bang/2011 2007-08 -do- -do- 693/Bang/2012 2008-09 -do- -do- 601/Bang/2010 2005-06 Joint CIT,LTU, Canara Bank, Bangalore. Bangalore. 530/Bang/2009 2006-07 Addl.CIT,LTU,B’lore. -do- 813/Bang/2011 2007-08 -do- -do- 684/Bang/2012 2008-09 Joint CIT, LTU,B’lore

JCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S CANARA BANK, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 601/BANG/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri G.Sarangan, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.R.Reddy, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)(viia)

Section, FM&S Wing, Bangalore. HO, No.112, JC Road, Bangalore-560002. 479/Bang/2009 2006-07 -do- Addl.CIT, LTU Bangalore. 793/Bang/2011 2007-08 -do- -do- 693/Bang/2012 2008-09 -do- -do- 601/Bang/2010 2005-06 Joint CIT,LTU, Canara Bank, Bangalore. Bangalore. 530/Bang/2009 2006-07 Addl.CIT,LTU,B’lore. -do- 813/Bang/2011 2007-08 -do- -do- 684/Bang/2012 2008-09 Joint CIT, LTU,B’lore

JCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S CANARA BANK, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 684/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri G.Sarangan, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.R.Reddy, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)(viia)

Section, FM&S Wing, Bangalore. HO, No.112, JC Road, Bangalore-560002. 479/Bang/2009 2006-07 -do- Addl.CIT, LTU Bangalore. 793/Bang/2011 2007-08 -do- -do- 693/Bang/2012 2008-09 -do- -do- 601/Bang/2010 2005-06 Joint CIT,LTU, Canara Bank, Bangalore. Bangalore. 530/Bang/2009 2006-07 Addl.CIT,LTU,B’lore. -do- 813/Bang/2011 2007-08 -do- -do- 684/Bang/2012 2008-09 Joint CIT, LTU,B’lore

M/S. CANARA BANK,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 479/BANG/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri G.Sarangan, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.R.Reddy, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)(viia)

Section, FM&S Wing, Bangalore. HO, No.112, JC Road, Bangalore-560002. 479/Bang/2009 2006-07 -do- Addl.CIT, LTU Bangalore. 793/Bang/2011 2007-08 -do- -do- 693/Bang/2012 2008-09 -do- -do- 601/Bang/2010 2005-06 Joint CIT,LTU, Canara Bank, Bangalore. Bangalore. 530/Bang/2009 2006-07 Addl.CIT,LTU,B’lore. -do- 813/Bang/2011 2007-08 -do- -do- 684/Bang/2012 2008-09 Joint CIT, LTU,B’lore

CANARA BANK,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 530/BANG/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri G.Sarangan, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.R.Reddy, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)(viia)

Section, FM&S Wing, Bangalore. HO, No.112, JC Road, Bangalore-560002. 479/Bang/2009 2006-07 -do- Addl.CIT, LTU Bangalore. 793/Bang/2011 2007-08 -do- -do- 693/Bang/2012 2008-09 -do- -do- 601/Bang/2010 2005-06 Joint CIT,LTU, Canara Bank, Bangalore. Bangalore. 530/Bang/2009 2006-07 Addl.CIT,LTU,B’lore. -do- 813/Bang/2011 2007-08 -do- -do- 684/Bang/2012 2008-09 Joint CIT, LTU,B’lore

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

depreciation) under Section 35(2AB) of the Act to the units claiming deduction under Section 10B of the Act. The undisputed facts on this issue, as per the record before us, is that the assessee incurs R&D expenditure which are claimed as revenue in nature and are shown as a line item of deduction in the unit-wise profit

SHREE GAVI SIDDESHWARA MINERALS ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INOCME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

ITA 512/BANG/2019[202-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2019

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234DSection 263

section 35D and amortised at the rate of 1/10th. The CIT-A similarly held the view of the AO that since the assessee is not the owner of the mines, depreciation is not allowable. The view of the AO & CIT-A is incorrect as the assessee has acquired the mining lease and licence rights for extraction of iron ore vide

SHREE GAVI SIDDESHWARA MINERALS ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INOCME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

ITA 513/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234DSection 263

section 35D and amortised at the rate of 1/10th. The CIT-A similarly held the view of the AO that since the assessee is not the owner of the mines, depreciation is not allowable. The view of the AO & CIT-A is incorrect as the assessee has acquired the mining lease and licence rights for extraction of iron ore vide

SHREE GAVI SIDDESHWARA MINERALS ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INOCME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

ITA 514/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234DSection 263

section 35D and amortised at the rate of 1/10th. The CIT-A similarly held the view of the AO that since the assessee is not the owner of the mines, depreciation is not allowable. The view of the AO & CIT-A is incorrect as the assessee has acquired the mining lease and licence rights for extraction of iron ore vide

M/S SHREE GAVI SIDDESHWARA MINERALS ,BANGALORE vs. THE COMMISSIONE OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) , BANGALORE

ITA 863/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234DSection 263

section 35D and amortised at the rate of 1/10th. The CIT-A similarly held the view of the AO that since the assessee is not the owner of the mines, depreciation is not allowable. The view of the AO & CIT-A is incorrect as the assessee has acquired the mining lease and licence rights for extraction of iron ore vide

SHREE GAVI SIDDESHWARA MINERALS ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INOCME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

ITA 511/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234DSection 263

section 35D and amortised at the rate of 1/10th. The CIT-A similarly held the view of the AO that since the assessee is not the owner of the mines, depreciation is not allowable. The view of the AO & CIT-A is incorrect as the assessee has acquired the mining lease and licence rights for extraction of iron ore vide