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.

29 results for “depreciation”+ Section 5Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai85Delhi61Chennai33Pune31Bangalore29Kolkata21Raipur17Jaipur8Surat7Panaji7Hyderabad6Indore4Ranchi4Ahmedabad3SC3Amritsar2Cochin2Karnataka2Cuttack1Visakhapatnam1Allahabad1Chandigarh1

Key Topics

Section 3555Addition to Income22Section 2(15)21Section 1114Section 214Disallowance14Section 143(3)12Section 115J10Section 688Section 143(2)

BHUWALKA SALES CORPORATION,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1436/BANG/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Apr 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Jason P. Boazi.T. A. No.1436/Bang/2013 (Assessment Year : 2009-10) M/S. Bhuwalka Sales Corporation, No.5, Walker Lane, Bhuwalka Landmark, Langford Road, Richmond Town, Bangalore-560 025 …. Appellant. Pan Aaifb 0063G Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Bangalore. ….. Respondent. Appellant By : Shri K. Seshadri, C.A. Respondent By : Shri P. Dhivahar, Jcit (D.R). Date Of Hearing : 2.2.2015. Date Of Pronouncement : 1.4.2015. O R D E R Per Shri Jason P. Boaz, A.M. : This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Bangalore Dt.12.8.2013 For Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Facts Of The Case, Briefly, Are As Under :- 2.1 The Assessee, In The Business Of Trading In Rolled Products, Filed The Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2009-10 On 26.9.2009 Declaring Income Of Rs.49,25,026. The Return Was Processed Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short 'The Act') & The Case Was Taken Up For Scrutiny. The Assessment Was Completed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Vide

For Appellant: Shri K. Seshadri, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P. Dhivahar, JCIT (D.R)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

Showing 1–20 of 29 · Page 1 of 2

7
Exemption7
Deduction7
Section 251(1)(a)
Section 68

Depreciation 5A 9,969.00 3,694.00 8 NET BLOCK 56,470.00 57,376.00 2. Investments 04 10,000.00 10,000.00 3. Current Assets, loans and 05 161,466,386.00 97,910,966.00 advances a. Sundry Debtors b.Cash & Bank Balances. 06 262,459.14 45,208,083.29 c.Loans & Advances 07 4,037,631.00 653,526.00 166,036,476.14 143,772,575.29 Less

M/S. GOKULAM SHELTERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1)(1), , BANGALORE

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

ITA 44/BANG/2023[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Mar 2023AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Besaganni, D.R
Section 115JSection 33

section 115JB 1 Whether the profit and Loss account is prepared in Yes accordance with the provisions of Parts II of Schedule III to the Companies Act, 2013 (If yes, write ‘Y’, if no write ‘N’ 2 If 1 is no, whether profit and loss account is prepared in Yes accordance with the provisions of the Act governing such company

KUMAR ORGANIC PRODUCTS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 4(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1061/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H.N.Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35

depreciation has been granted on the cost of acquisition. We also find that the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Tejas Networks Ltd. (supra) is not on the issue ITA Nos.1057 to 1062/Bang/2019 Page 9 of 17 that arises in this appeal. It deals with a situation where the prescribed authority has allowed certain expenditure

KUMAR ORGANIC PRODUCTS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1057/BANG/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jul 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H.N.Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35

depreciation has been granted on the cost of acquisition. We also find that the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Tejas Networks Ltd. (supra) is not on the issue ITA Nos.1057 to 1062/Bang/2019 Page 9 of 17 that arises in this appeal. It deals with a situation where the prescribed authority has allowed certain expenditure

KUMAR ORGANIC PRODUCTS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 4(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1060/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H.N.Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35

depreciation has been granted on the cost of acquisition. We also find that the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Tejas Networks Ltd. (supra) is not on the issue ITA Nos.1057 to 1062/Bang/2019 Page 9 of 17 that arises in this appeal. It deals with a situation where the prescribed authority has allowed certain expenditure

KUMAR ORGANIC PRODUCTS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 4(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1058/BANG/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H.N.Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35

depreciation has been granted on the cost of acquisition. We also find that the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Tejas Networks Ltd. (supra) is not on the issue ITA Nos.1057 to 1062/Bang/2019 Page 9 of 17 that arises in this appeal. It deals with a situation where the prescribed authority has allowed certain expenditure

KUMAR ORGANIC PRODUCTS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 4(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1062/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jul 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H.N.Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35

depreciation has been granted on the cost of acquisition. We also find that the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Tejas Networks Ltd. (supra) is not on the issue ITA Nos.1057 to 1062/Bang/2019 Page 9 of 17 that arises in this appeal. It deals with a situation where the prescribed authority has allowed certain expenditure

KUMAR ORGANIC PRODUCTS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 4(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1059/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H.N.Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35

depreciation has been granted on the cost of acquisition. We also find that the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Tejas Networks Ltd. (supra) is not on the issue ITA Nos.1057 to 1062/Bang/2019 Page 9 of 17 that arises in this appeal. It deals with a situation where the prescribed authority has allowed certain expenditure

M/S. UDUPI NIRMITHI KENDRA,UDUPI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 1962/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects do not involve carrying

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1,, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 2089/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects do not involve carrying

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1),, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 2087/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects do not involve carrying

M/S. UDUPI NIRMITHI KEDRA,UDUPI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE - 1, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 947/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects do not involve carrying

M/S. DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE -1, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 948/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects do not involve carrying

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1),, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 2088/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects do not involve carrying

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1),, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 2086/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects do not involve carrying

M/S PROVIMI ANIMAL NUTRITION INDIA PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed

ITA 26/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri K.P Kumar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.N Siddappaji, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 35

depreciation on the capital expenditure. The Ld CIT(A) confirmed the orders passed by the AO in both the years on this issue. 4. We heard the parties and perused the record. We noticed that the issue as to whether furnishing of Form No.3CL is mandatory for allowing deduction u/s 35(2AB) of the Act came to be considered

M/S TIMKEN ENGINEERING & RESEARCH INDIA P. LTD. vs. DCIT,

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 335/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Aliasger Rampurawala, CAFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Panda, CIT (DR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

section 234C of the Act of INR 64,731. [corresponding to ground 19] 23. That the Appellant craves leave to add to and/or to alter, amend, rescind, modify thegrounds herein above or produce further documents before or at the time of hearing ofthis Appeal. [corresponding to ground20] ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL Transfer Pricing Related: 24. The learned AO / TPO erred

DCIT vs. M/S TIMKEN ENGINEERING AND RESEARCH PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 469/BANG/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 May 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Aliasger Rampurawala, CAFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Panda, CIT (DR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

section 234C of the Act of INR 64,731. [corresponding to ground 19] 23. That the Appellant craves leave to add to and/or to alter, amend, rescind, modify thegrounds herein above or produce further documents before or at the time of hearing ofthis Appeal. [corresponding to ground20] ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL Transfer Pricing Related: 24. The learned AO / TPO erred

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S TIMKEN ENGINEERING & RESEARCH INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 686/BANG/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 May 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Aliasger Rampurawala, CAFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Panda, CIT (DR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

section 234C of the Act of INR 64,731. [corresponding to ground 19] 23. That the Appellant craves leave to add to and/or to alter, amend, rescind, modify thegrounds herein above or produce further documents before or at the time of hearing ofthis Appeal. [corresponding to ground20] ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL Transfer Pricing Related: 24. The learned AO / TPO erred

TIMKEN ENGINEERING & RESEARCH INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 604/BANG/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 May 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Aliasger Rampurawala, CAFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Panda, CIT (DR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

section 234C of the Act of INR 64,731. [corresponding to ground 19] 23. That the Appellant craves leave to add to and/or to alter, amend, rescind, modify thegrounds herein above or produce further documents before or at the time of hearing ofthis Appeal. [corresponding to ground20] ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL Transfer Pricing Related: 24. The learned AO / TPO erred