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.

54 results for “depreciation”+ Section 80Pclear

Sorted by relevance

Bangalore54Delhi43Chennai24Visakhapatnam21Mumbai20Hyderabad20Kolkata19Surat18Pune16Cochin10Jaipur10Ahmedabad9Karnataka8Jodhpur8Chandigarh5Nagpur4Rajkot3Allahabad2Lucknow2Panaji2Indore2SC2Patna1

Key Topics

Section 36(1)(viia)77Addition to Income44Deduction38Disallowance37Section 143(3)34Depreciation27Section 36(1)(va)22Section 115J19Section 143(1)17

M/S BANGALORE CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in above

ITA 903/BANG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Jun 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri S.Ranganath, CAFor Respondent: Dr.P.K.Srihari, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 4Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

depreciation amounting to Rs.41.578/- 5.The L.A.A. erred in not granting deduction on account u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) on provision towards gratuity amounting to Rs.1,10,000/-“. 2. Ground no.1 is general in nature and does not require any specific finding, as the assessee has not advanced any argument except on the merits of the case. 3. Ground no.2 regarding

Showing 1–20 of 54 · Page 1 of 3

Section 143(1)(a)16
Section 80P(2)(a)15
Section 14A15

M/S KARNATAKA STATE GOVERNMENT HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(2)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as common grounds of law are raised by the assessee

ITA 1500/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2019AY 2009-10
Section 14Section 28Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

depreciation aggregating to Rs. 76,857 should be deducted from the dividend and if it is so done, the total income would get reduced to Rs. 1,32,955. The Income-tax Officer rejected the claim. When the matter was ultimately carried to this court, it took note of the opening words of the sub-section, viz., "where

FARMERS AGRICULTURE SOCIETY LTD KOPPACREDIT CO OPERATIVE,PERIAPATNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(4), MYSURU

ITA 65/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Sriram V. Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 56Section 57Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 . [Ground No. 2.2] ITA Nos. 65 & 71/Bang/2024 Page 5 of 18 1.3 The appellant society would like to state that, the appellant has earned interest income from its investments with State Bank of India, out of its own funds i.e. share capital, reserves & surplus, profits of the current

FARMERS AGRICULTURE CREDIT CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD KOPPA,PERIAPATNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MYSURU

ITA 71/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Sriram V. Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 56Section 57Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 . [Ground No. 2.2] ITA Nos. 65 & 71/Bang/2024 Page 5 of 18 1.3 The appellant society would like to state that, the appellant has earned interest income from its investments with State Bank of India, out of its own funds i.e. share capital, reserves & surplus, profits of the current

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

depreciation, Section 32AB gives deductions in respect of certain investment allowance. After providing for admissible deductions to an assessee, income under this head is ascertained. In a similar way, as noted above, income under the other heads is worked out. If a particular assessee has income under more than one heads, in the income tax returns, the said assessee would

UPPUR VYAVASAYA SEVA SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMITA ,UDUPI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, UDUPI

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

ITA 237/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K., Judciial Member Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Akshay K., CAFor Respondent: Shri Thamba Mahendra, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

Section 80P(2)(a), considering its intact cooperative framework. This request also aligns with the principles set forth in CBDT Circular No. 37/2016, which explicitly states that enhanced profits, subsequent to the making of additions and disallowances, should be eligible for deductions under Chapter VI A of the Act. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, omit

M/S HASSAN CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS SOCIETIES UNION LTD ,HASSAN vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, HASSAN

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

ITA 1509/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri H.N. Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, D.R
Section 2Section 32(1)(iia)Section 80HSection 80ISection 80P(2)(e)

80P(2)(e) of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed both the disallowances and hence the assessee has filed this appeal before us. 3. The first issue relates to disallowance of claim of additional depreciation. During the year under consideration, the assessee made addition to plant and machinery to the extent of Rs.8,80,55,883/-. The assessee claimed

M/S. NANDI HOSPITALITY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 295/BANG/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 44A

80P however return is not filed within due date". Against this observation the assessee filed writ petition before the Hon'ble Madras High Court and the writ petition has been dismissed by observing as under: - "7. The scope of an 'intimation' under section 143(1)(a) of the Act, extends to the making of adjustments based upon errors apparent from

M/S. NANDI HOSPITALITY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 296/BANG/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Jun 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 44A

80P however return is not filed within due date". Against this observation the assessee filed writ petition before the Hon'ble Madras High Court and the writ petition has been dismissed by observing as under: - "7. The scope of an 'intimation' under section 143(1)(a) of the Act, extends to the making of adjustments based upon errors apparent from

M/S. NANDI HOSPITALITY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 294/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 44A

80P however return is not filed within due date". Against this observation the assessee filed writ petition before the Hon'ble Madras High Court and the writ petition has been dismissed by observing as under: - "7. The scope of an 'intimation' under section 143(1)(a) of the Act, extends to the making of adjustments based upon errors apparent from

MASS FAB TECHNOLOGIES,BANGALORE vs. CIT(APPEALS), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by different assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1079/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Dec 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 244ASection 250Section 36(1)(va)

80P however return is not filed within due date". Against this observation the assessee filed writ petition before the Hon'ble Madras High Court and the writ petition has been dismissed by observing as under: - ITA No.995 & 1079/Bang/2022 Itek Packz, Bangalore Page 18 of 20` "7. The scope of an 'intimation' under section 143(1)(a) of the Act, extends

ITEK PACKZ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by different assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 995/BANG/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Dec 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 244ASection 250Section 36(1)(va)

80P however return is not filed within due date". Against this observation the assessee filed writ petition before the Hon'ble Madras High Court and the writ petition has been dismissed by observing as under: - ITA No.995 & 1079/Bang/2022 Itek Packz, Bangalore Page 18 of 20` "7. The scope of an 'intimation' under section 143(1)(a) of the Act, extends

M/S. NIRMAL ENVIRO SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by different assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1154/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jan 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojarishri Panati Vidyanath Reddy Vs Acit, Circle - 4(3)(1) 10, 32Nd Main, 5Th Cross Bengaluru Dollars Colony, Btm Layout 1St Stage, Bengaluru 560068 Pan – Afmpr3580F (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Nirmal Enviro Solutsions P. Ltd. Vs Acit, Circle - 3(1)(1) 26, 9Th Cross, 16Th Main Bengaluru Btm Layout, 1St Stage Bengaluru 560068 Pan – Aadcn1064H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Miss Sunaiana Bhatia, Ca Revenue By: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing: 18.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.01.2023 O R D E R Per: Chandra Poojari, A.M.

For Appellant: Miss Sunaiana Bhatia, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 36Section 36(1)(va)

80P however return is not filed within due date". Against this observation the assessee Nirmal Enviro Solutions P. Ltd. filed writ petition before the Hon'ble Madras High Court and the writ petition has been dismissed by observing as under: - "7. The scope of an 'intimation' under section 143(1)(a) of the Act, extends to the making of adjustments

SRI PANATI VIDYANATH REDDY ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by different assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1148/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jan 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojarishri Panati Vidyanath Reddy Vs Acit, Circle - 4(3)(1) 10, 32Nd Main, 5Th Cross Bengaluru Dollars Colony, Btm Layout 1St Stage, Bengaluru 560068 Pan – Afmpr3580F (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Nirmal Enviro Solutsions P. Ltd. Vs Acit, Circle - 3(1)(1) 26, 9Th Cross, 16Th Main Bengaluru Btm Layout, 1St Stage Bengaluru 560068 Pan – Aadcn1064H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Miss Sunaiana Bhatia, Ca Revenue By: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing: 18.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.01.2023 O R D E R Per: Chandra Poojari, A.M.

For Appellant: Miss Sunaiana Bhatia, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 36Section 36(1)(va)

80P however return is not filed within due date". Against this observation the assessee Nirmal Enviro Solutions P. Ltd. filed writ petition before the Hon'ble Madras High Court and the writ petition has been dismissed by observing as under: - "7. The scope of an 'intimation' under section 143(1)(a) of the Act, extends to the making of adjustments

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

depreciation, Section 32AB gives deductions in respect of certain investment allowance. After providing for admissible deductions to an assessee, income under this head is ascertained. In a similar way, as noted above, income under the other heads is worked out. If a particular assessee has income under more than one heads, in the income tax returns, the said assessee would

HASSAN CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS SOCIETIES UNION LIMITED,HASSAN vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1, HASSAN

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

ITA 682/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Years: 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ramanathan, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 32Section 32(1)(iia)

section 32(1)(iia ). In the light of the aforesaid decision, we are of the view that one of the basis on which the revenue authorities disallowed the claim of the Assessee for disallowance of additional depreciation cannot be sustained.” 8. Hence, we are convinced with the alternative contention of the assessee. We have earlier noticed that

CANARA BANK,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 530/BANG/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri G.Sarangan, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.R.Reddy, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)(viia)

depreciation in the value of assets, if any, as on the date of balance on account of fall in values of investments should be allowed as a deduction in computing profits and gains of business of the banking company. In support of this, he relied on CBDT circular No.18/2015 dated 2/11/2015 and also on the following precedents: a. UCO Bank

M/S. CANARA BANK,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 479/BANG/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri G.Sarangan, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.R.Reddy, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)(viia)

depreciation in the value of assets, if any, as on the date of balance on account of fall in values of investments should be allowed as a deduction in computing profits and gains of business of the banking company. In support of this, he relied on CBDT circular No.18/2015 dated 2/11/2015 and also on the following precedents: a. UCO Bank

JCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S CANARA BANK, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 601/BANG/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri G.Sarangan, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.R.Reddy, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)(viia)

depreciation in the value of assets, if any, as on the date of balance on account of fall in values of investments should be allowed as a deduction in computing profits and gains of business of the banking company. In support of this, he relied on CBDT circular No.18/2015 dated 2/11/2015 and also on the following precedents: a. UCO Bank

ADDL.CI.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S CANARA BANK, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 813/BANG/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri G.Sarangan, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.R.Reddy, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)(viia)

depreciation in the value of assets, if any, as on the date of balance on account of fall in values of investments should be allowed as a deduction in computing profits and gains of business of the banking company. In support of this, he relied on CBDT circular No.18/2015 dated 2/11/2015 and also on the following precedents: a. UCO Bank