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.

690 results for “depreciation”+ Section 57clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,928Delhi1,581Bangalore690Chennai484Kolkata341Ahmedabad256Jaipur134Hyderabad134Chandigarh126Pune104Raipur77Indore65Surat53Karnataka46Cochin46Rajkot41Lucknow36Ranchi33Visakhapatnam30Amritsar27SC21Jodhpur20Cuttack20Nagpur13Agra10Panaji10Telangana9Guwahati8Allahabad7Patna6Varanasi6Dehradun5Jabalpur3Calcutta2A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Punjab & Haryana1Kerala1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)74Addition to Income68Disallowance53Section 10A39Section 4038Deduction38Section 14A37Section 1132Depreciation32Transfer Pricing

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 292/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 250Section 254Section 37Section 90

depreciation on intangible assets. 46. At the outset, we note that the issues raised by the assessee in its grounds of appeal for the AY 2018-19 is identical to the issue raised by the assessee in ITA No. 290/Bang/2025 for the assessment year 2017- 18. Therefore, the findings given in ITA No. 290/Bang/2025 shall also be applicable

Showing 1–20 of 690 · Page 1 of 35

...
32
Section 14827
Section 133A25

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 293/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 250Section 254Section 37Section 90

depreciation on intangible assets. 46. At the outset, we note that the issues raised by the assessee in its grounds of appeal for the AY 2018-19 is identical to the issue raised by the assessee in ITA No. 290/Bang/2025 for the assessment year 2017- 18. Therefore, the findings given in ITA No. 290/Bang/2025 shall also be applicable

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 290/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 250Section 254Section 37Section 90

depreciation on intangible assets. 46. At the outset, we note that the issues raised by the assessee in its grounds of appeal for the AY 2018-19 is identical to the issue raised by the assessee in ITA No. 290/Bang/2025 for the assessment year 2017- 18. Therefore, the findings given in ITA No. 290/Bang/2025 shall also be applicable

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

ITA 294/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2021-22
For Appellant: \nShri Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: \nShri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 250Section 254Section 37Section 90

section 37(1) of the Act, after due\nverification of facts and supporting documents, and to consider the\napplicability of the judicial precedents relied upon by the assessee. The\nAO shall provide reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee\nand thereafter grant appropriate relief in accordance with law, if the\nclaim is found to be admissible. With these directions

MR.M J ARAVIND ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 222/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 48Section 57

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year)." (emphasis supplied) We are concerned with the provision of section 147 as amended with effect from 1st April 1989. In paragraph 4 of the said decision

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

ITA 291/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2018-19
For Appellant: \nShri Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: \nShri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 250Section 254Section 37Section 90

section 37(1) of the Act, after due\nverification of facts and supporting documents, and to consider the\napplicability of the judicial precedents relied upon by the assessee. The\nAO shall provide reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee\nand thereafter grant appropriate relief in accordance with law, if the\nclaim is found to be admissible. With these directions

M/S VOLVO INDIA PVT. LTD. vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1537/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153(1)Section 18

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. The basis of valuation is set out in para-11 of the valuation report of Bizworth in our view is in fact an intangible acquired by the Assessee and the basis of estimation of its value is reasonable and acceptable. We therefore direct that depreciation be allowed on this intangible treating

M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PRIVATE LIMITED,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, appealsof the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 622/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadavand Shri. Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri. Sunil Jain, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Vandana Sagar
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 194HSection 32Section 40

57(iii) of the Act, where the expression used is "for the purpose of making or earning such income". Section 14A of the Act on the other hand contains the expression "in relation to income which does not form part of the total income". The decision in Rajendra Prasad Moody (supra) cannot be used in the reverse to contend that

M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PRIVATE LIMITED,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, appealsof the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 636/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadavand Shri. Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri. Sunil Jain, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Vandana Sagar
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 194HSection 32Section 40

57(iii) of the Act, where the expression used is "for the purpose of making or earning such income". Section 14A of the Act on the other hand contains the expression "in relation to income which does not form part of the total income". The decision in Rajendra Prasad Moody (supra) cannot be used in the reverse to contend that

M/S DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, appealsof the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 581/BANG/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Apr 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadavand Shri. Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri. Sunil Jain, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Vandana Sagar
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 194HSection 32Section 40

57(iii) of the Act, where the expression used is "for the purpose of making or earning such income". Section 14A of the Act on the other hand contains the expression "in relation to income which does not form part of the total income". The decision in Rajendra Prasad Moody (supra) cannot be used in the reverse to contend that

M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PRIVATE LIMITED,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, appealsof the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 596/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Apr 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadavand Shri. Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri. Sunil Jain, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Vandana Sagar
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 194HSection 32Section 40

57(iii) of the Act, where the expression used is "for the purpose of making or earning such income". Section 14A of the Act on the other hand contains the expression "in relation to income which does not form part of the total income". The decision in Rajendra Prasad Moody (supra) cannot be used in the reverse to contend that

M/S. RMZ HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 954/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 234Section 255Section 255(3)Section 36

57. In the facts of this case the company cannot claim any relief either under s. 70 or s. 71, since its business had not started and there could not be any computation" of business' income or loss incurred by the assessee in the relevant accounting year. In such a situation the expenditure incurred by the assessee for the purpose

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. SANTOSH SHIVAJI LAD, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 1522/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Murali Mohan M, CIT (DR)
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 57

depreciation as well as deduction under section 24 and made addition to its income. The AO also imposed penalty under section 271(1)(c) upon it. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court held that this being a matter of bona fide difference of opinion between assessee and department regarding allowability of claim, imposition of penalty was not justified

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S CORE OBJECTS INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed as indicated hereinabove and appeal filed by revenue stands allowed partly

ITA 517/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Apr 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.517/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT (DR)For Respondent: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar
Section 10ASection 143Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 194JSection 40Section 9(1)(iv)

57 the Page 43 of 55 IT(TP)A No.517 & 570/Bang/2015 assessee has filed the deduction under section 10B as not applicable. Thus, from perusal of return of assessment year 2008-09 it is evident that the assessee has not claimed any deduction under section 10B of the Act in respect of any of the three units of the assessee

M/S. INDUS TRUST ,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BENGALURU

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

ITA 2298/BANG/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2025AY 2012-13
Section 234B

section 32(1)(iia), as the assessee was\nengaged in the business of generation of power. The assessee furnished\ncomplete details during the assessment proceedings, including the\ndepreciation working as per the Income-tax Act and the windmill ledger\naccount.\n15. It was argued that the AO erred in holding that the assessee was\nnot eligible for additional depreciation

M/S. SYNGENE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE- 6, BANGALORE

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

ITA 147/BANG/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Sri Padamchand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Sumer Singh Meena, DR
Section 10ASection 10BSection 14ASection 250Section 32(1)(iia)Section 80

57,472 23,25,00,199 additional depreciation 5.5 It was also contended that assuming without admitting that additional depreciation is to be disallowed, the increase in business profits of EOU and SEZ units as a result of disallowance of additional depreciation is eligible for deduction under section

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1629/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14 Bosch Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Hosur Road, Adugodi, Of Income Tax, Ltu, Bangalore – 560 030. Circle 1, Pan: Aaacm 9840P Bangalore. Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Advocate Respondent By : Shri V S Chakrapani, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 01.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S.2. This Appeal Is Against The Order Of The Cit(Appeals), Bangalore-9, Bangalore Dated 31.3.2018 For The Assessment Year 2013- 14. 3. The Assessee Raised Grounds Pertaining To The Following Issues:- Deduction U/S. 35(2Ab) Computed On Net Expenditure As Opposed To Gross Expenditure Disallowance Of Provision For Bad & Doubtful Debts I) Disallowance Of Provision For Long Term Service Award Disallowance Of Expenditure U/S. 14A Of The Act Ii) Page 2 Of 67

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V S Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 14ASection 35Section 37Section 43BSection 80J

depreciation claimed by the Appellant by reducing the subsidy received by it from the cost of the asset. 6.2. That in doing so, the CIT(A) has lost sight of the fact that the object of the subsidy granted to the Appellant by the Government of Maharashtra under the Package Scheme of Incentive, 2001 was to encourage dispersal of industries

UNITED BREWERIES LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ADDL..C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 722/BANG/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Sept 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT-III (D.R)
Section 14A

57 of the Act as the purpose of taking the loan is not claimed by the assessee for the investment in shares. Therefore in any case, the interest expenditure on the borrowed fund which is not utilized for the purpose of assessee’s business is not an allowable claim. Therefore without going into the controversy of whether the disallowance

DCIT, SHIMOGA vs. M/S AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE, SHIMOGA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1268/BANG/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Aug 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Dr.Shankar Prasad K, JCIT (D.R)For Respondent: Smt. Sheetal, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32Section 32(2)Section 57

section 57 provides for depreciation u/s.32(2). It shows that even in computing the income from other sources, the assessee

M/S. LTIMINDTREE LIMITED (SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO M/S. MINDTREE LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3),, BANGALORE

ITA 27/BANG/2023[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 May 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Sri Tata Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri. Ganesh.R.Ghale, Standing Counsel

57,067/- in respect of addition to Vehicles of Rs. 7,60,896/-, when in fact the Learned Assessing Officer had not denied the same in the assessment order. 3.8.2. Without prejudice to the above, the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) is not justified in denying depreciation by stating that "the appellant could have brought on record the documents relating