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.

14 results for “depreciation”+ Section 50B(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai67Delhi23Raipur17Bangalore14Chennai13Cochin6Ahmedabad6Kolkata6Amritsar5Hyderabad3Pune2Visakhapatnam1Karnataka1SC1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1

Key Topics

Section 35A15Section 4714Section 50B13Capital Gains8Deduction7Disallowance7Section 1476Section 143(3)5Addition to Income5Section 43B

M/S. MEDI ASSIST INSURANCE TPA PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-12(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands dismissed

ITA 1933/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Medi Assist Insurance Tpa Pvt. Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner Of Tower ‘D’, 4Th Floor, Ibc Income-Tax, Knowledge Park, 4/1 Bannerghatta Vs. Circle - 4(1)(2), Main Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru-560 029. Pan –Aaccm 8044 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Prabhu, C.A Revenue By : Shri Sumeer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 10.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.02.2022 O R D E R Per Beena Pillaithis Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)- 4, Bangalore Dated 22/3/2018 For The Asst. Year 2011-12 For Computing The Short Term Capital Gain At Rs.7,80,38,353/-. 2. The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Before Us “(I) On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Learned Dcit & Cit(A) Erred In Computing The Short Term Capital Gain At Rs.7,80,38,353/- By Adding The Negative Net-Worth Instead Of Restricting The Same To Nil As Deeded Cost, Since Cost Cannot Be A Negative Value Page 2 Of 19

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Prabhu, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sumeer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 50B

1 read with Explanation 2 to section 50B as per which the aggregate value of total asset (written down value in case of depreciable

4
Section 139(1)4
Section 92C4

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1), MYSURU vs. M/S. BHORUKA ALUMINIUM LIMITED, MYSURU

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 2551/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2014-15 Acit, Vs. M/S. Bhoruka Aluminium Ltd., No.427E, 2Nd Floor, Hebbal Industrial Circle – 1(1), Mysuru. Area, Metagalli, Mysuru – 570 016. Pan : Aaacb 8073 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. S. Ramasubramanian, Ca Revenue By : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 08.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.08.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan:

For Appellant: Shri. S. Ramasubramanian, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 2Section 288Section 35ASection 43Section 43(6)(c)Section 48Section 49Section 50B

1 to section 50B as the difference between ‘the aggregate value of total assets of the undertaking or division’ and ‘the value of its liabilities as appearing in books of account’. The ‘aggregate value of total assets of the undertaking or division’ is the sum total of: WDV as determined u/s.43(6)(c)(i)(C) in case of depreciable

M/S MHM HOLDINGS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-12 , BANGALORE

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

ITA 372/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S.M/S. Mhm Holding Pvt. Ltd. Vs Acit, Range - 12 Bengaluru No. 52, Bassappa Road Shantinagar Bengaluru 560027 Pan – Aabcm6614L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Parthasarathi, Adv. Revenue By: Shri K.R. Narayana, Addl Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 23/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 25/11/2022 O R D E R Per: Padmavathy, A.M.

For Appellant: Shri Parthasarathi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, Addl CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 40Section 50B

1 to section 50B as the difference between ‘the aggregate value of total assets of the undertaking or division’ and ‘the value of its liabilities as appearing in books of account’. The ‘aggregate value of total assets of the undertaking or division’ is the sum total of: WDV as determined u/s.43(6)(c)(i)(C) in case of depreciable

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

In the result, the assessee’s appeal stands allowed and revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 93/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Lifestyle International Pvt. Ltd., 77, Town Centre, The Deputy Building No. 3, Commissioner Of West Wing, Income Tax, Off Hal Airport Road, Circle – 4(1)(1), Yamlur, Vs. Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 037. Pan: Aaacl2937J Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2013-14 (By Revenue)

Section 2Section 37Section 43(6)(c)Section 50B

1 read with Explanation 2 of section 50 B. According to these provisions, aggregate value of total asset is reduced by value of liability of such undertaking. The aggregate value of asset and the value of liability as per Explanation 2, is the written down value of depreciable assets, book value of other assets and the book value

M/S TALLY SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

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

ITA 1364/BANG/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Aug 2016AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Sonde, Senior CounselFor Respondent: Smt. Neera Malhotra, CIT-II (D.R)
Section 143(3)Section 928Section 92C

depreciation on such asset. The learned Authorised Representative has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Badridas Daga Vs. CIT 34 ITR 10 and submitted that when the employee of the assessee withdrew 38 IT(TP)A No.1364/Bang/2011 Tally Solutions Pvt. Ltd. the money from the bank account and misappropriate the same, the claim

IBM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(1)(1), BENGALURU

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

ITA 584/BANG/2020[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jun 2022AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, CA
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 29Section 36(1)(vii)Section 50B

50B is a self-contained code which provides for a deduction of net worth of the undertaking and not sales tax paid. 4. Payments to clubs for membership and subscription expenses 4.1 The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in disallowing club membership and subscription expenses as being capital in nature without giving cognizance

M/S. ABB LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. THE ADDL. CIT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1281/BANG/2010[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 May 2015AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz Assessment Year : 1997-98

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwalla, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Arvind, Sr. Counsel

depreciable assets and therefore, the same cannot be taxed u/s. 41 (2). Taxing gain on slump sale as capital gain is also not possible because the Apex Court following the decision in CIT V. B. C. Srinivasa Setty (128 ITR 294) held that the charging section and the computation sections are integrated code and if one fails other fails

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE vs. M/S.PADMINI PRODUCTS PVT LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all the assessment years are dismissed

ITA 1530/BANG/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Apr 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaramanassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Biju, Jt. CIT(DR)(ITAT-3)For Respondent: Shri M. Gandhi, CA
Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(VA)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 47

depreciation of Rs 1,42,92,623/- on intangibles being brand names and trademarks valued at s.65.26.40,150/-. 2. The lower authorities have failed to appreciate that revaluation of the intangibles was effected by the erstwhile firm, before the succession, and not that of the Appellant and therefore, they were not justified in observing that the aforesaid intangible assets were

M/S.PADMINI PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all the assessment years are dismissed

ITA 1531/BANG/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Apr 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaramanassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Biju, Jt. CIT(DR)(ITAT-3)For Respondent: Shri M. Gandhi, CA
Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(VA)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 47

depreciation of Rs 1,42,92,623/- on intangibles being brand names and trademarks valued at s.65.26.40,150/-. 2. The lower authorities have failed to appreciate that revaluation of the intangibles was effected by the erstwhile firm, before the succession, and not that of the Appellant and therefore, they were not justified in observing that the aforesaid intangible assets were

TYCO FIRE AND SECURITY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 270/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.270/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Acit, M/S. Tyco Fire & Security India Private Limited, Vs. D-601, Rmz Centennial, Circle - 7(1)(1), Kundalahalli Main Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aabct 0087 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Rajan Vora, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 27/11.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Rajan Vora, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92(1)Section 92B(1)

1 to section 50B as the difference between ‘the aggregate value of total assets of the undertaking or division’ and ‘the value of its liabilities as appearing in books of account’. The ‘aggregate value of total assets of the undertaking or division’ is the sum total of: WDV as determined u/s.43(6)(c)(i)(C) in case of depreciable

M/S PADMINI PRODUCTS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

ITA 2255/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2018AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri M. Gandhi, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Siddappaji, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 2Section 43(1)Section 47Section 50B

1. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) is not justified in upholding the action of the Learned Assessing Officer in denying depreciation of Rs.1,64,95,840/-(Rs.84,56,239/-+Rs.80,39,601/-) on intangibles being brand names and trademarks valued at Rs.65,26,40,150/-. 2. The lower authorities have failed to appreciate that revaluation of the intangibles was effected

M/S MANGALORE CHEMICALS AND FERTILIZERS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

ITA 2921/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sri. V S Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 35A

1 Captive Power generating units 2014-15 2015-16 142,98,35,558 2 captive power generating units and Plant and Machinery in ammonia section 12. Thus, as per the staggered implementation explained above, the Assessee completed the entire investment in urea/ammonia section together with the captive power generating units to continue to be qualified to receive subsidies

M/S MANGALORE CHEMICALS AND FERTILIZERS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

ITA 2922/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sri. V S Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 35A

1 Captive Power generating units 2014-15 2015-16 142,98,35,558 2 captive power generating units and Plant and Machinery in ammonia section 12. Thus, as per the staggered implementation explained above, the Assessee completed the entire investment in urea/ammonia section together with the captive power generating units to continue to be qualified to receive subsidies

M/S TE CONNECTIVITY INDIA PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU,CIRCLE-1, , BENGALURU

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

ITA 2680/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Sumeet Khurana, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.S. Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 92

1)(iia) of the Act, as certified in the tax audit report issued by the Chartered Accountant and accordingly the Appellant was eligible to claim additional depreciation on such assets at the rate of 20% for the AY 2013-14. IT(TP)A No.2680/Bang/2017 Page 40 of 50 15. That the learned AO/learned DRP has erred in not appreciating