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.

7 results for “depreciation”+ Section 28clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,854Delhi2,620Bangalore1,128Chennai913Kolkata543Ahmedabad407Hyderabad228Jaipur206Karnataka176Pune144Raipur138Chandigarh135Indore94Amritsar78Lucknow56Visakhapatnam53SC52Cochin51Surat46Rajkot41Ranchi36Telangana33Jodhpur27Guwahati24Cuttack23Kerala19Patna15Nagpur14Dehradun9Calcutta7Panaji5Allahabad5Punjab & Haryana4Jabalpur4Agra2Rajasthan2Gauhati1Tripura1Varanasi1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Orissa1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1D.K. JAIN H.L. DATTU JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1

Key Topics

Section 26310Section 287Section 143(3)5Section 80I4Deduction4Depreciation4Section 260A3Section 323Addition to Income3Section 92B

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOL-III vs. M/S. KOTHARI GLOBAL LTD.

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/60/2014HC Calcutta30 Nov 2023

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

Section 263Section 28Section 41Section 41(1)

28 (iv) of the IT Act. 14) Another important issue which arises is the applicability of the Section 41(1) of the IT Act. The said provision is re-produced as under:: “41. Profits chargeable to tax.-(1) Where an allowance or deduction has been made in the assessment for any year in respect of loss, expenditure or trading liability

PRINCIPAL COMM OF INCOME TAX, ASANSOL vs. M/S EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD

Accordingly, the appeal fails and it is dismissed

2
Section 682
Disallowance2
ITAT/230/2017
HC Calcutta
14 Dec 2021

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

Section 260Section 32Section 40A(9)

depreciation which is permissible under section 32 of the Act. Thus, the tribunal concluded that the action of the Assessing Officer in disallowing the claim is based on the premise that the assessee has made a double claim which was found to be factually incorrect by the tribunal. Accordingly, the disallowance was directed to be deleted. ITAT

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, KOLKATA vs. KESORAM INDUSTRIES LTD.

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/131/2018HC Calcutta22 May 2024

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

Section 28Section 32(1)Section 36(1)(vii)

28 read with Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act? (II) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the assessee could claim enhanced depreciation

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -3, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ITC LIMITED

Appeal is allowed to the extent indicated

ITA/125/2018HC Calcutta27 Jun 2024

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI,HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ

28. There is a marked distinction between a lease and a licence. Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act defines a lease of immovable property as a transfer of a right to enjoy such property made for a certain time in consideration for a price paid or promised. Under Section 108 of the said Act, the lessee is entitled

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2, KOLKATA vs. M/S KESORAM INDUSTRIES LTD

In the result, the appeal is dismissed and it is held that substantial

ITAT/67/2022HC Calcutta20 Dec 2022

Bench: :

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 260ASection 68Section 80ISection 92B

section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, stating that the said ground was not relevant to the order of the lower authorities ? We have heard Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant/revenue and Mr. J.P. Khaitan, learned Senior Advocate for the respondent/assessee. It is pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent/assessee that

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) KOLKATA vs. INTEGRATED EDUCATION & RESEARCH CENTRE FOR ENGINEERING & MAN

The appeal stands dismissed

ITAT/276/2017HC Calcutta28 Jul 2022

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Bivas Pattanayak Date : 28Th July, 2022 Appearance : Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. ….For Appellant Mr. Dwip Raj Basu, Adv. …For Respondent The Court :- This Appeal By The Revenue Filed Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act, For Brevity) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 1St June, 2016, Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “C” Bench, Kolkata In Ita No. 620/Kol/2016 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Substantial Questions Of Law For Consideration. I) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Tribunal Erred In Law In Not Considering That Allowing Depreciation In Respect Of A Depreciable Asset For Which The Assessee

Section 11(6)Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 263Section 32Section 35(2)(iv)

depreciation is allowable under Section 32 on the same assets. The assessee submitted the reply to the show cause notice by placing reliance on several decisions of various High Courts and in particular, the decision in the case of CIT Vs. SOCIETY OF SISTERS OF ANNE.; 146 ITR 28

M/S C AND E LIMITED vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX KOLKATA 4 KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the order

ITAT/135/2023HC Calcutta02 Aug 2023

Bench: THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 263Section 801CSection 80I

28, 2016 determining the total income of the assessee of Rs. 1,72,45,790/-. The assessee claimed a deduction under Section 80IC of the Act in respect of its Unit IV being the 7th year of such claim and 2nd year from the date when the assessee made substantial expansion. The date of substantial expansion as mentioned in Form