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.

11 results for “depreciation”+ Section 747clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi88Mumbai85Jaipur19Kolkata16Bangalore11Chennai8Ahmedabad7Pune6Lucknow4Ranchi4Cuttack3Hyderabad2Patna2Raipur2Surat2Indore2Calcutta1SC1Gauhati1Nagpur1Panaji1Rajkot1

Key Topics

Section 10A25Section 2507Section 92C7Section 43B6Section 143(3)6Deduction6Disallowance5Section 1444Depreciation4Transfer Pricing

ATOS IT SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 226/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, CAFor Respondent: Shri Bijoy Kumar Panda, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92B(2)Section 92C

747,351 1,324,811 13.92% OP/ TC 14.08% 4.63% 8. The TPO rejected 5 comparables selected by the assessee and accepted 3 companies. He applied fresh filters and selected the comparables the margin of which worked out to 25.59% as given below:- IT(TP)A No.226/Bang/2021 Page 5 of 25 Name of the Comparable Company Sr No. Margins (OP/OC

4
Comparables/TP4
Section 1473

ASHRAF NAFISA ALTHAF,MOODUBIDRI MANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, UDUPI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 614/BANG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Sanketh S. Nayak, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nischal B., D.R
Section 139(1)Section 250Section 40Section 43B

747/- Mr. Asraf Nafisa Althaf, Mangalore Page 2 of 21 2. The first ground for our consideration is with regard to disallowance of Service tax payable u/s 43B of the Act and adding the same to the returned income. 3. Facts of the issue are that in this assessment year under consideration, assessee has shown in the balance sheet under

PRACTO TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), BENGALURU, BANGALORE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 311/BANG/2024[AY 2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Feb 2025

Bench: SHRI WASEEM AHMED (Accountant Member), SHRI KESHAV DUBEY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144C(10)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 153

depreciation under section 32 of the Act ought to be allowed.; and 14.2.2. Treating balance AMP expenditure of INR 31,02,747

STERLING COMMERCE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result the appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1497/BANG/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jun 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 92Section 92C

747,316 Depreciation 4,424,969 3005,202 3,605,483 11,035,654 214,981,571 Total operating expenses 58,625,045 41,087,673 115.268.853 Gross profit 32,523,364 Operating profit/ (loss) 4,573,953 7,644 900 (10,933.804) 453.435 1,738,483 Gross profit margin (%) 51.85 Net cost plus margin (%) 7.80 18.61 The Assessee reiterates

M/S TOKAI RIKA MINDA INDIA PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CICLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1513/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 92CSection 92C(2)

747/-under section 92CA of the Income-tax Act, 1961("the Act") with respect to the international transactions rendered by the Appellant during AY 13-14. 2. The learned AO/learned TPO/Hon'ble DRP erred in rejecting the Transfer Pricing ("TP") documentation maintained by the Appellant by invoking provisions of sub-section (3) of 92C of the Act. 3. The learned

M/S. IBM INDIA PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 725/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2020AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate along with Ajay Roti, C.AFor Respondent: Shri K.V Arvind, Advocate
Section 10ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 92C

Section 92CC with the caption “Advance Pricing Agreement” provides through sub-section (1): `The Board, with the approval of the Central Government, may enter into an advance pricing agreement with any person, determining the arm's length price … in relation to an international transaction …’. Sub-section (2) gives the manner of determination of the ALP referred to in sub-section

M/S. KODAVA EDUCATION SOCIETY ,PONNAMPET vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU

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

ITA 764/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeykodava Education Society Acit (Exemptions), Circle-1 Po Box No. 11, Halligattu Unity Building Annexe Vs. Ponnampet 571216 5Th Floor, Mission Road Pan – Aaaak1322J Bengaluru 560027 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vishal Rao, Ca Revenue By: Shri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing: 28.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.07.2024 O R D E R Per: Keshav Dubey, J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi /Cit(A) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/ 2003-24/1061703575(1) Dated 28.02.2024 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1 The Impugned Order Of The Appellate Commissioner Of Income Tax Is Liable To Set Aside In So Far As The Same Is Incorrect, Irregular, Improper, Unlawful & Oppose To The Law & Facts Of The Case. 2 That The Learned Appellate Commissioner Erred In Not Taking Cognizance Of The Fact That The Appellant Had Committed Certain Errors & Omissions In Filling Up The Return Of Income Which Ought To Have Been Substituted With The Correct Figures To Arrive At The Taxable Income, If Any & As Such The Impugned Order Is Liable To Set Aside.

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 234BSection 234DSection 250

depreciation as raised before CIT(A) instead the AR of the assessee 5 Kodava Education Society vehemently submitted that the assessee had committed certain errors and omissions while filing the return of income which ought to have been substituted with the correct figures to arrive at the taxable income. Further, the ld. A.R. submitted that the ld. CIT(A) erred

INFOSYS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the\nappeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 881/BANG/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed\Nand\Nshri Keshav Dubey\N\N\Nita No. 881/Bang/2023\N Assessment Year: 2019-20\N\Ninfosys Limited\Nplot 44, Konappana Agrahara\Nhosur Road, Konappana\Nbangalore - 560100\Nkarnataka\N\Npan: Aaaci4798L\N\Nappellant\N\Nvs.\N\Ndy. Commissioner Of Income Tax\Ncircle - 3(1)(1)\Nbmtc Building, 80 Feet Road\Nkoramangala, Bangalore – 560095\Nkarnataka\N\Nrespondent\N\Nita No. 245/Bang/2024\N Assessment Year: 2019-20\N\Njt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd)\Ncircle - 3(1)(1)\Nroom No. 241, 2Nd Floor\Nbmtc Building, 80 Feet Road\N6Th Block, Koramangala\Nbangalore - 560095\Nkarnataka\N\Nvs.\N\Ninfosys Limited\Nplot 44, Konappana Agrahara\Nhosur Road, Konappana\Nbangalore - 560100\Nkarnataka\N\Npan: Aaaci4798L\N\Nappellant\N\Nrespondent\N\Nassessee By\Ndepartment By\N\Nsri Padam Chand Khincha – Ca\Nsmt. Srinandini Das – Cit - Dr\N\Ndate Of Hearing\Ndate Of Pronouncement:\N\N09.05.2025\N06.08.2025\N\Norder\N\Nper Keshav Dubey:\N\Nthese Cross Appeals Are Filed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of\Nincome Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short \"Ld.\Ncit(A)/Nfac] Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1056786183(1) Dated 05.10.2023 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax\Nact, 1961 (In Short “The Act\") For The A.Y.2019-20.\N\Npage 2 Of 34\N\N2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - \N\N\"1.\N\Ngeneral Ground\N\N1.

Section 1Section 10ASection 250

747 and Rs.17,94,717\nrespectively from the profit & turnover of 10AA-100% eligible units while\ncomputing deduction under section 10AA without specifying any reason in\nthe show cause notice and order and the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming\nthe same.\n\n2. 2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in relying on the Explanation to below\nsubsection

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. INFOSYS LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 245/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Sri Padam Chand Khincha – CAFor Respondent: Smt. Srinandini Das – CIT - DR
Section 1Section 10ASection 155Section 250

747 and Rs.17,94,717 respectively from the profit & turnover of 10AA-100% eligible units while computing deduction under section 10AA without specifying any reason in the show cause notice and order and the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the same. 2.2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in relying on the Explanation to below subsection 1 of section

IDS SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 537/BANG/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.537/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Ids Software Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Dcit, Vs. Shabari Complex, Ground Floor, Fo Cabin, No.8, Circle – 3(1)(1), Field Marshal Cariappa Road, Ashok Nagar, Bengaluru. Bengaluru-560 025. Pan : Aabci 243O G Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 09.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 92Section 92C

Depreciation & Amortization 14,833,644 Less: Exchange Loss - IT(TP)A No.537/Bang/2021 Page 3 of 11 Total Operating Costs (E) 186,744,765 Operating profit F = (D – E) 17,579,531 Net Operating Margin on cost (F/E) 9.41% 6. In view of he provisions of section 92 of the Act, the income arising from the international transaction

TUMKUR DCC BANK LIMITED ,TUMKUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , TUMKUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2012-13 to 2014-15 are dismissed and the appeal filed for AY

ITA 1/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Shri P.K Gadale

For Appellant: Shri S Ramasubramanian, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Smarak Swain, JCIT (DR)
Section 37(1)

depreciation are accounted for in the books of accounts under accounting principle of “Prudence”, i.e., to provide for known losses. 20. We have noticed earlier that the “Provision for bad and doubtful debts” can be disclosed in the Balance Sheet either as a liability in the Liability side of Balance Sheet or it may be reduced from the corresponding “Asset