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 801Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai161Delhi72Ahmedabad48Hyderabad31Chennai26Kolkata24Bangalore14Jaipur13Pune13Rajkot12Indore9Surat8Chandigarh8Lucknow3Nagpur2Guwahati1Raipur1Cochin1Jodhpur1

Key Topics

Section 80H24Section 80I21Section 10A18Deduction13Addition to Income9Section 807Section 801A7Section 27Section 43B6Depreciation

M/S. TATA ELXSI LIMITED., ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 927/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Kincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 10ASection 30Section 80ASection 80H

801A read with other relevant provisions in Chapter V/-A, can it be said that the quantum of deduction allowable under Section 80/A depends upon the assessee claiming or not claiming current depreciation

M/S. TATA ELXSI LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

6
Section 1545
Exemption4
ITA 975/BANG/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jan 2024AY 2020-2021
Section 10ASection 30Section 80ASection 80HSection 80I

depreciation and investment allowance, etc are not actual\nexpense, hence need to be excluded.\nThe provision of section 80AB (i.e. deeming fiction to provide deduction only\nfrom income irrespective of language used) is applicable only to sections\nincluded in Chapter VIA under the heading \"C- deduction in respect of certain\nincome'. It is not applicable to section 10AA

ASST.C.I.T., HUBLI vs. M/S BELLAD & CO, HUBLI

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

ITA 1029/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jul 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S.Bellad & Co., Vidyanagar, Hubli. … Appellant Pa No: Aabfb6457D Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Hubli. … Respondent & Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 1(1), Hubballi. … Appellant Vs. M/S.Bellad & Co., Vidyanagar, Hubballi. … Respondent Assessee By : Shri C.R.Nulvi, Ca Revenue By : Shri C.N.Bipin, Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 04/07/2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 27/07/2016 O R D E R Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am : These Are Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Hubli, Dated 26/02/2015 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. Ita No.1004 & 1029/Bang/2015 Page 2 Of 13 2. Briefly Facts Of The Case Are As Under: The Assessee-Firm Is Engaged In The Business Of Dealers In Hmt Tractors, Spares, Hero Honda Motors-Cycles & Dealing In Sony Products & Also In The Business Of Generation Of Power Through Wind Mills. Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2010-11 Was Filed On 30/09/2010 Declaring Income Of Rs.51,74,070/-. Against Said Return Of Income, Assessment Was Completed By The Acit, Circle 1(1), Hubli, Vide Order Dated 14/03/2013 Passed Under Section 143(3) Income-Tax Act, 1961 ['The Act' For Short] At A Total Income Of Rs.1,51,04,807/- After Making Several Disallowances. One Of Those Disallowances Relates To Expenditure Incurred On Renovation Of Showroom Of Rs.17,18,671/- Treating It Capital Expenditure Allowed Depreciation At 10%. He Also Made Addition Of Rs.29,02,161/- As Deemed Dividend Under Section 2(22)(E) Of The Act. The Ao Also Disallowed Deduction Under Section 80Ia(5) Of The Act As, According To The Ao, After Setting Off Of Brought Forward Loss, There Was No Eligible Profit For Deduction U/S 80Ia Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri C.R.Nulvi, CAFor Respondent: Shri C.N.Bipin, JCIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 40Section 43BSection 80I

depreciation. Hence section 801A becomes insignificant since there is no profit from which this deduction can be claimed. Section 70(1) comes

M/S BELLAD & COMPANY,HUBLI vs. DCIT, HUBLI

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

ITA 1004/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jul 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S.Bellad & Co., Vidyanagar, Hubli. … Appellant Pa No: Aabfb6457D Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Hubli. … Respondent & Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 1(1), Hubballi. … Appellant Vs. M/S.Bellad & Co., Vidyanagar, Hubballi. … Respondent Assessee By : Shri C.R.Nulvi, Ca Revenue By : Shri C.N.Bipin, Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 04/07/2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 27/07/2016 O R D E R Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am : These Are Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Hubli, Dated 26/02/2015 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. Ita No.1004 & 1029/Bang/2015 Page 2 Of 13 2. Briefly Facts Of The Case Are As Under: The Assessee-Firm Is Engaged In The Business Of Dealers In Hmt Tractors, Spares, Hero Honda Motors-Cycles & Dealing In Sony Products & Also In The Business Of Generation Of Power Through Wind Mills. Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2010-11 Was Filed On 30/09/2010 Declaring Income Of Rs.51,74,070/-. Against Said Return Of Income, Assessment Was Completed By The Acit, Circle 1(1), Hubli, Vide Order Dated 14/03/2013 Passed Under Section 143(3) Income-Tax Act, 1961 ['The Act' For Short] At A Total Income Of Rs.1,51,04,807/- After Making Several Disallowances. One Of Those Disallowances Relates To Expenditure Incurred On Renovation Of Showroom Of Rs.17,18,671/- Treating It Capital Expenditure Allowed Depreciation At 10%. He Also Made Addition Of Rs.29,02,161/- As Deemed Dividend Under Section 2(22)(E) Of The Act. The Ao Also Disallowed Deduction Under Section 80Ia(5) Of The Act As, According To The Ao, After Setting Off Of Brought Forward Loss, There Was No Eligible Profit For Deduction U/S 80Ia Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri C.R.Nulvi, CAFor Respondent: Shri C.N.Bipin, JCIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 40Section 43BSection 80I

depreciation. Hence section 801A becomes insignificant since there is no profit from which this deduction can be claimed. Section 70(1) comes

TATA ELXSI LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER INCOMER TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1152/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Tata Elxsi Ltd., The Deputy 126, Itpb Road, Commissioner Hoody, Of Income Tax, Whitefield, Circle – 7(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 048. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaact7872Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT DR
Section 10ASection 10A(9)Section 250

801A read with other relevant provisions in Chapter V/-A, can it be said that the quantum of deduction allowable under Section 80/A depends upon the assessee claiming or not claiming current depreciation

DCIT vs. M/S FIZA DEVELOPERS & INTERTRADE PVT. LTD.,,

In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed statistical purposes

ITA 1026/BANG/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Dilip for K.V. Arivind, Standing CounselFor Respondent: Sri Narendra Sharma, A.R
Section 131Section 153ASection 68Section 80Section 80I

section 801A(5), un absorbed depreciation of the previous assessment year should be accounted before claim 801A deduction. By virtue

MR. JITENDRA KUMAR NAHATA,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), CIRCLE-6(1)(1) REPRESENTED BY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

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

ITA 41/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Sunaina Bhatia, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Sankarganesh K, JCIT (DR)
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 801ASection 801BSection 80ASection 80I

section 801A, shall be allowed if return is furnished before the due date offihing the return and held that the assessee is squarely entitled for deduction u/s 801A of the Act as all the conditions therein were duly fulfilled by the assessee. The Ld. DR did not refute any of the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) by producing

WEBEX COMMUNICATIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

ITA 210/BANG/2013[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Mar 2019AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri. A. K. Garodia

For Appellant: Shri. Rajan Vora, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Neera Malhotra, CIT &
Section 2Section 80

801A. The Ld. AR submitted that despite the specific direction by the Honourable High Court to consider the definition provided with respect to telecommunication services under TRAI Act, these aspects had not been considered by the Lower Authority, and the claim of the assessee was denied merely based on the definition mentioned in section 80IA

M/S. ABB LIMITED(FORMERLY ASEA BROWN BOVERI LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, ground No.3 raised by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 791/BANG/2008[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2021AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranita No.790 & 791/Bang/2008 Assessment Year : 2002-03 & 2003-04 M/S. Abb Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Ii Floor, East Wing, Income Tax (Ltu), Khanija Bhavan, Bengaluru. Race Course Road, Bengaluru-560 001. Pan : Aaaca 3834 B Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Percy Pardiwala, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. V. Aravind, Standing Counsel
Section 2Section 80H

801A from the business profits for the purpose of computation of deduction under section 80HHC if the export divisions have not claimed deduction under section 80IA as such direction is opposed to the provisions of section 80IB(13) rws ITA Nos. 790, 791, 896 and 897/Bang/2008 Page 10 of 48 80IA(9) in as much as the profits

M/S. ABB LIMITED(FORMERLY ASEA BROWN BOVERI LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, ground No.3 raised by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 790/BANG/2008[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2021AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranita No.790 & 791/Bang/2008 Assessment Year : 2002-03 & 2003-04 M/S. Abb Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Ii Floor, East Wing, Income Tax (Ltu), Khanija Bhavan, Bengaluru. Race Course Road, Bengaluru-560 001. Pan : Aaaca 3834 B Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Percy Pardiwala, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. V. Aravind, Standing Counsel
Section 2Section 80H

801A from the business profits for the purpose of computation of deduction under section 80HHC if the export divisions have not claimed deduction under section 80IA as such direction is opposed to the provisions of section 80IB(13) rws ITA Nos. 790, 791, 896 and 897/Bang/2008 Page 10 of 48 80IA(9) in as much as the profits

ACIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S. ABB LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, ground No.3 raised by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 896/BANG/2008[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2021AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranita No.790 & 791/Bang/2008 Assessment Year : 2002-03 & 2003-04 M/S. Abb Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Ii Floor, East Wing, Income Tax (Ltu), Khanija Bhavan, Bengaluru. Race Course Road, Bengaluru-560 001. Pan : Aaaca 3834 B Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Percy Pardiwala, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. V. Aravind, Standing Counsel
Section 2Section 80H

801A from the business profits for the purpose of computation of deduction under section 80HHC if the export divisions have not claimed deduction under section 80IA as such direction is opposed to the provisions of section 80IB(13) rws ITA Nos. 790, 791, 896 and 897/Bang/2008 Page 10 of 48 80IA(9) in as much as the profits

ACIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S. ABB LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, ground No.3 raised by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 897/BANG/2008[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2021AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranita No.790 & 791/Bang/2008 Assessment Year : 2002-03 & 2003-04 M/S. Abb Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Ii Floor, East Wing, Income Tax (Ltu), Khanija Bhavan, Bengaluru. Race Course Road, Bengaluru-560 001. Pan : Aaaca 3834 B Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Percy Pardiwala, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. V. Aravind, Standing Counsel
Section 2Section 80H

801A from the business profits for the purpose of computation of deduction under section 80HHC if the export divisions have not claimed deduction under section 80IA as such direction is opposed to the provisions of section 80IB(13) rws ITA Nos. 790, 791, 896 and 897/Bang/2008 Page 10 of 48 80IA(9) in as much as the profits

ACIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S KHIVRAJ MOTORS, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 894/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Jun 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. A. K. Garodia & Shri. Lalit Kumari.T.A Nos.894/Bang/2016 (Assessment Year : 2012-13) Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle -1(2)(1), Bengaluru .. Appellant V. M/S. Khivraj Motors, No.10/2, 4Th Floor, Kasturba Road, Bengaluru 560 001 .. Respondent Pan : Aaafk6627K Assessee By : Shri. H. N. Khincha, Ca Revenue By : Shri. M. K. Biju, Jcit Heard On : 01.06.2017 Pronounced On : 02.06.2017 O R D E R Per Lalit Kumar:

For Appellant: Shri. H. N. Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri. M. K. Biju, JCIT
Section 143(2)Section 80Section 801Section 801ASection 80I

section 80--IA deduction in year in which assessee put forth claim, revenue cannot take into consideration loss and depreciation from eligible business of earlier year which was already set-off against income of assessee from other source". The appellant also referred the decision of the CIT(A)-V in their own case, wherein following the above mentioned decision

M/S JINDAL ALUMINIUM LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 919/BANG/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri S. Parthasarathi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Harinder Kumar, CIT(A)-3
Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 80

801A. 4. It has now been noticed that certain income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment due to assessee's failure to disclose Page 7 of 19 fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for A Y 2005-06. The details are as under: 5. During the FY 2004-05, an area of 694 sq. meters