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.

152 results for “depreciation”+ Section 40A(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai555Delhi438Bangalore152Chennai126Ahmedabad123Kolkata102Raipur100Pune72Jaipur71Hyderabad56Amritsar56Chandigarh49Surat41Visakhapatnam39Indore24Cochin21Cuttack20Rajkot14Guwahati10Lucknow9Jodhpur6Patna5Varanasi5Karnataka5Dehradun3Ranchi3SC3Agra2Nagpur2Calcutta2Allahabad1Jabalpur1Telangana1Kerala1

Key Topics

Addition to Income66Disallowance60Section 143(3)59Section 2(15)48Section 14A44Depreciation40Section 4036Deduction33Section 1126Section 143(2)

AYUB ABDUL KHANDAR TAMATGAR,DHARWAD vs. JCIT, HUBLI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 854/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Years : 2010-11

For Appellant: N.G Rasalkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT (DR)
Section 40A(3)

3 trucks and trucks on hire basis from private truck owners. The lower authorities found that the hire charges paid to private truck owners were debited against the particular truck numbers and such hire charges debited include an amount debited against the truck number owned by the assessee himself on which assessee has also claimed depreciation and running expenses

GOPAL S. PANDITH vs. DCIT,

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Showing 1–20 of 152 · Page 1 of 8

...
25
Transfer Pricing25
Section 92C23
ITA 1186/BANG/2013[2007-08]Status: Disposed
ITAT Bangalore
27 Jul 2016
AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Neera Malhotra, CIT (D.R)
Section 139Section 153Section 153ASection 153DSection 234Section 548

40A(3) are not applicable and addition is not warranted. 12. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred in upholding

SRI. MALLANAGOUDA S. SANKAGOUDSHANI,HUBLI vs. DCIT, HUBLI

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

ITA 904/BANG/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Jason P. Boaz, Assessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kulkarni, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P.K. Srihari, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 40A(3)

depreciation). Subsequently, a notice u/s. 148 dated 1.3.2013 was served on the assessee and the AO assumed jurisdiction u/.s 147 of the Act. The AO has made certain additions/disallowance under the heads mentioned below :- 1. Addition of Rs.37,84,597/- as receipts is improper and unjustified. 2. Addition of a sum of Rs.14,420/- as unexplained cash receipts. 3. Addition

M/S. UNITED BREWERIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE-7, BANGALORE

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

ITA 2532/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Ankur Pai for Shri K.R. VasudevanFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 14ASection 37Section 92C

Depreciation on goodwill 1,57,73,310 IT(TP)A No.2532/Bang/2019 United Brewries Ltd., Bangalore Page 3 of 70 2.2 The AO accordingly proposed to assess the income of the assessee at Rs.429,75,39,850/- against the income of Rs.349,75,85,670/- declared by the assessee in its returned income. The assessee being aggrieved by the additions proposed

M/S LIFESTYLE INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the results appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

ITA 2826/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillai

Section 143(2)

depreciation amounting to Rs.17,11,500/- was claimed. He also observed that professional fees of Rs.40,79,397/- was paid to RNA. The Ld.AO thus disallowed total of Rs.57,90,897/- by invoking provisions of section 40A(2)/37 of the Act. 4.5 The Ld.AO further observed that assessee debited Rs.16,47,303/- as premium on forward contract

M/S.LIFESTYLE INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE

In the results appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

ITA 2334/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillai

Section 143(2)

depreciation amounting to Rs.17,11,500/- was claimed. He also observed that professional fees of Rs.40,79,397/- was paid to RNA. The Ld.AO thus disallowed total of Rs.57,90,897/- by invoking provisions of section 40A(2)/37 of the Act. 4.5 The Ld.AO further observed that assessee debited Rs.16,47,303/- as premium on forward contract

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S LIFESTYLE INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD , BANGALORE

In the results appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

ITA 2473/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillai

Section 143(2)

depreciation amounting to Rs.17,11,500/- was claimed. He also observed that professional fees of Rs.40,79,397/- was paid to RNA. The Ld.AO thus disallowed total of Rs.57,90,897/- by invoking provisions of section 40A(2)/37 of the Act. 4.5 The Ld.AO further observed that assessee debited Rs.16,47,303/- as premium on forward contract

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE vs. M/S. LIFESTYLE INTERNATIONAL (P) LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the results appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

ITA 2260/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillai

Section 143(2)

depreciation amounting to Rs.17,11,500/- was claimed. He also observed that professional fees of Rs.40,79,397/- was paid to RNA. The Ld.AO thus disallowed total of Rs.57,90,897/- by invoking provisions of section 40A(2)/37 of the Act. 4.5 The Ld.AO further observed that assessee debited Rs.16,47,303/- as premium on forward contract

M/S.LIFESTYLE INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE

In the results appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

ITA 2333/BANG/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillai

Section 143(2)

depreciation amounting to Rs.17,11,500/- was claimed. He also observed that professional fees of Rs.40,79,397/- was paid to RNA. The Ld.AO thus disallowed total of Rs.57,90,897/- by invoking provisions of section 40A(2)/37 of the Act. 4.5 The Ld.AO further observed that assessee debited Rs.16,47,303/- as premium on forward contract

SRI. PAVAN KANDKUR,HUBBALLI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HUBBALLI

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

ITA 522/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.Shri Pavan Kandkur Vs Principle Commissioner Of Cts No. 3046, Hirepeth Nagar Income Tax Near Akkikonda Aayakar Bhavan Hubballi 580020 Navanagar Pan – Anipk4256B Hubballi 580025 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Balram R. Rao, Adv. Revenue By: Ms. Neera Malmotra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 15/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 17/11/2022 O R D E R Per: Padmavathy, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Cit, Hubali Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Dated 23.03.2022 For Ay 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Conditions 1. Precedent Being Absent The Proceedings-Initiated U/S.263 Of The Act Was Opposed To Law & The Order Passed U/S.263 Is Liable To Be Cancelled. On The Facts There Being No Error Much Less An Error Prejudicial To The 2. Interest Of Revenue, The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax Ought To Have Refrained From Invoking The Provisions Of Sec.263 Of The Act. The Learned Commissioner Ought To Have Considered The Submissions 3. Made By The Appellant & Ought Not To Have Invoked The Proceedings U/S.263 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Balram R. Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malmotra, CIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(3)Section 5(3)Section 8

40A(3). However, this has not been disallowed by the Assessing Officer.” 5. The PCIT issued show cause notice in response to which the assessee made submissions wherein it was stated that he has applied for the Direct Tax Vivad Se Viswas (DTVSV) scheme and has filed a letter before the CIT(A) for withdrawal of his appeal filed against

M/S BHUWALKA STEEL INDUSTRIES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1)(4), BANGALORE

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

ITA 3433/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri. T. Srinivasa, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sunil Kumar Singh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 92BSection 92C

3. This issue was raised before the ld. DRP but they did not accept the objection of the assessee. Before deciding this issue, first we refer to the Memorandum of the Finance Bill 2012 in this regard which is as under:- TRANSFER PRICING REGULATIONS TO APPLY TO CERTAIN DOMESTIC TRANSACTIONS Section 40A of the Act empowers the Assessing Officer

M/S. BHUWALKA STEEL INDUSTRIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1599/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri. T. Srinivasa, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sunil Kumar Singh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 92BSection 92C

3. This issue was raised before the ld. DRP but they did not accept the objection of the assessee. Before deciding this issue, first we refer to the Memorandum of the Finance Bill 2012 in this regard which is as under:- TRANSFER PRICING REGULATIONS TO APPLY TO CERTAIN DOMESTIC TRANSACTIONS Section 40A of the Act empowers the Assessing Officer

M/S MYSORE RACE CLUB LIMITED ,MYSURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2), MYSURU

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

ITA 1480/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Mysore Race Club The Deputy Ltd., Commissioner Of Income Post Box No. 11, Tax, Race Course Road, Vs. Circle – 1 [2], Mysuru – 570 010. Mysuru. Pan: Aabcm5167G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri S.V. Ravishankar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Janardhan, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 04-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 28/10/2016 Passed By Ld.Cit(A), Mysore For Assessment Year 2011- 12 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax [Appeals] In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Equity & Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstance Of The Case. 2. The Appellant Denies Itself Liable To Be Assessed Over & Above The Returned Income By It On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 3. The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax [Appeals] Failed To Appreciate That The Amount Collected From Punters For Disbursement As Dividend To Punters Stands Diverted At Source By Virtue Of Overriding Title On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. [I]. The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax [Appeals] Failed To Appreciate That The Totalizator Collection From The Punters Stands Diverted At Source For Disbursement To Dividend To Punters On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. [Ii]. The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax [Appeals] Failed To Appreciate That Method Of Accounting Adopted By The Appellant Were Accepted By The Revenue From Past

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Janardhan, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 40Section 40A

section 40A(3) of the Act. The Ld.CIT(A) also allowed the claim Page 5 of 14 ITA No. 1480/Bang/2017 pertaining to expenditure disallowed in earlier years for which provision was made and was also not considered by assessing officer in the assessment order. The Ld.CIT(A) also had directed the lower deal to consider the claim of brought forward

UNITED BREWERIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE- 7, BANGALORE

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

ITA 345/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Ankur Pai, A.R. a/wFor Respondent: Shri Saravanan B., DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 14ASection 250Section 92C

3) of the Act. 15. The Supreme Court, in the case of Steel City Beverages Ltd., considered the issue of whether the bottles and crates can be construed the definition of "Plant" and held bottles those could not be considered as stock in trade. However, the issue that arose before the Supreme Court under the Bihar Sales Tax Supplementary (Deferment

M/S. UNITED BREWERIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 308/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Ankur Pai, A.R. a/wFor Respondent: Shri Saravanan B., DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 14ASection 250Section 92C

3) of the Act. 15. The Supreme Court, in the case of Steel City Beverages Ltd., considered the issue of whether the bottles and crates can be construed the definition of "Plant" and held bottles those could not be considered as stock in trade. However, the issue that arose before the Supreme Court under the Bihar Sales Tax Supplementary (Deferment

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE vs. M/S. LIFESTYLE INTERNATIONAL (P) LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue and the cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2258/BANG/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Apr 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR
Section 37Section 40A(2)Section 43(5)Section 92C

40A(2) and alternatively u/s 37 of the I T Act holding that the TPO while determining the ALP has not disputed the genuineness of the payment and has accepted the ALP declared by the assessee. 3. On the facts of the case, whether the ld.CIT(A) was justified in deleting the above addition made without appreciating the fact that

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE vs. M/S. LIFESTYLE INTERNATIONAL (P) LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue and the cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2259/BANG/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Apr 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR
Section 37Section 40A(2)Section 43(5)Section 92C

40A(2) and alternatively u/s 37 of the I T Act holding that the TPO while determining the ALP has not disputed the genuineness of the payment and has accepted the ALP declared by the assessee. 3. On the facts of the case, whether the ld.CIT(A) was justified in deleting the above addition made without appreciating the fact that

M/S. CISCO SYSTEMS CAPITAL (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,SPECIAL RANGE-2, BANGALORE

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

ITA 2614/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jun 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 92C

3 is raised against not allowing set off of brought forward depreciation loss. 4.1. The Ld.AR submitted that, in the return of income filed by assessee, it had claimed set off of brought forward depreciation of loss amounting to Rs.28,54,47,236/- pertaining to assessment year 2009-10 and Rs.83,52,86,117/- pertaining to assessment year

M/S MAXIM INDIA INTEGRATED CIRCUIT DESIGN PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

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

ITA 1305/BANG/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Mar 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.1305/Bang/2011 Assessment Year : 2007-08 M/S. Maxim India Integrated Circuit Income Tax Officer, Design Pvt. Ltd., Ward–12(1), #132/133, West Wing, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Bengaluru. Domlur Post, Off Old Airport Road, Bengaluru – 560 037. Pan : Aaacm 9437 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Padam Chand Khincha, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Pradeep Kumar, Cit (Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 24.02.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.03.2020 O R D E R Per A. K. Garodiathis Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee & The Same Is Directed Against The Assessment Order For The Assessment Year 2007-08, Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. This Appeal Was Already Decided By The Tribunal As Per Its Order Dated 29.09.2020 & Thereafter, The Assessee Moved A Miscellaneous Petition (Mp) & As Per The Mp No.63/Bang/2019 Dated 01.11.2019, This Tribunal Order Was Recalled By The Tribunal For A Limited Purpose For Adjudicating Additional Grounds Of Appeal. Hence, Now We Have To Decide Only The Additional Ground Raised By The Assessee Which Reads As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri. Padam Chand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 32

depreciation of Rs.53,500/- on computers due to foreign exchange gain adjustment, then deduction under section 10A of the IT Act, 1961 should be allowed on the basis of assessed income after making these two disallowances. He submitted that this issue is being raised before the Tribunal by way of this additional ground and since this is a legal ground

M H SUDHARSHAN REDDY ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1169/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Aug 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleshri M H Sudharshan Reddy, 20, 1St H Cross, 8Th Main, S S Layout, Shardha Colony, Basaveshwaranagar, Bangalore-560 079 ….Appellant. Pan Alips 3131M Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 6(2)(1), Bangalore. ……Respondent. Assessee By: Shri R. Chandrashekar, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri Priyadarshi Misra, Jcit (D.R.)

For Appellant: Shri R. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Misra, JCIT (D.R.)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 194CSection 194H

3) of the Act dt.13.12.2010 find that, the assessee has submitted 6 the details and the Assessing Officer made adhoc addition referred at Page 2 para 2 of the order which is read as under : Further on verification of Form No 3CD, placed at page 41 of the Paper book in particular Clause 27(a), the Chartered Accountant has qualified