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.

8 results for “depreciation”+ Section 36(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,598Delhi2,409Bangalore951Chennai856Kolkata479Ahmedabad400Jaipur222Hyderabad186Raipur139Chandigarh126Pune106Karnataka103Indore81Amritsar63Cochin53Visakhapatnam49Lucknow45Surat44Rajkot43SC42Ranchi37Telangana33Jodhpur26Guwahati25Cuttack21Kerala21Nagpur19Dehradun8Calcutta8Patna6Varanasi6Agra5Rajasthan5Allahabad3Panaji3Punjab & Haryana3Jabalpur2D.K. JAIN H.L. DATTU JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1Tripura1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 287Section 2635Addition to Income5Depreciation5Section 260A4Section 324Section 32(1)3Section 80I2Section 36(1)(va)2Section 31

M/S. SELVEL ADVERTISING PVT. LTD. vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 12, KOLKATA

Accordingly, the appeal (ITAT/75/2010) stands dismissed

ITAT/75/2010HC Calcutta06 Jun 2022

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

Section 260ASection 32(1)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 80I

depreciation as revenue expense and in wrongly applying the provisions of Section 32(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on “Purely Temporary Erections” used for less than 180 days? 3 v) Whether, the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “A” Bench, Kolkata erred in Law in upholding the addition of Rs.21,376/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 36

2
Set Off of Losses2
Deduction2

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)

36(1) (iii) of the IT Act. In the case at hand, learned CIT (A) relied upon Section 41(1) of the IT Act and held that the Respondent had received amortization benefit. Amortization is an accounting term that refers to the process of allocating the cost of an asset over a period of time, hence, it is nothing else

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

Accordingly, the appeal fails and it is dismissed

ITAT/230/2017HC Calcutta14 Dec 2021

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

Section 260Section 32Section 40A(9)

36,94,328/- which was processed under section 143(1) on 08.01.2004. The assessment was taken up for scrutiny and accordingly notice under section 143(2) was issued on 07.10.2004. Subsequently, notice under section 142(1) along with a questionnaire was issued on 31.12.2004, the case was discussed with the authorized representative of the assessee. The Assessing Officer on considering

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA - 4, KOLKATA vs. M/S JCT LIIMITED

ITAT/162/2017HC Calcutta25 Nov 2021

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam A N D The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date: November 25, 2021. Appearance : Mr. P.K. Bhowmick, Adv. … For The Appellant Mr. Asim Choudhury, Adv. … For The Respondent The Court : This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act, In Brevity) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 1St June, 2016 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “D” Bench, Kolkata In Ita No.1983/Kol/2013 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. The Revenue Has Framed The Following Substantial Questions Of Law For Our Consideration: “(A) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Learned Tribunal Was Erred In Law In

Section 2Section 260ASection 263Section 32

36 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX) ORIGINAL SIDE IA NO:GA/2/2017 (OLD NO. GA/1419/2017) IN ITAT/162/2017 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-4, KOLKATA VS. M/S. JCT LIMITED BEFORE : THE HON’BLE JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM A N D THE HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA Date: November 25, 2021. Appearance : Mr. P.K. Bhowmick

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)

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOL-I, KOL vs. M/S. JINDAL INDIA LTD.

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue

ITA/95/2011HC Calcutta16 Mar 2023

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 16Th March, 2023 Appearance : Mr. Smarajit Roychowdhury, Adv. ...For The Appellant. Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sanjoy Bhowmick, Adv. Ms. Swapna Das, Adv. ...For The Respondent. The Court : This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’ For Brevity) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30Th November, 2010 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” Bench, Kolkata (The Tribunal) In Ita No.368 & 369/Kol/2010 Years 2005- 06 & 2006-07. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Substantial Questions Of Law For Consideration:

Section 2(18)(b)Section 2(22)(e)Section 260ASection 31

depreciation of rolls prior to 4 30th September, 1991 as 100% and thereafter at 50%, so it to be assumed that the expenditure should be treated as capital expenditure. This aspect was also considered in the case of Malhotra Industrial Corporation taking note of the decision of the High Court of Karnataka in the case of Mysore Spun Concrete Pipe

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

Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter Page 5 of 77 referred to as ‘the Act, 1961’) relating to the assessment year 2006-07. 6. In appeal filed by the respondent ITC before the CIT[Appeal], the appeal was allowed and the receipt of the aforesaid amount of Rs.32.42 crores was held to be a capital receipt

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, KOLKATA vs. M/S. THE PEERLESS GENERAL FINANCE AND INVESTMENT CO. LTD.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the substantial questions of law

ITAT/174/2021HC Calcutta12 Sept 2022

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Supratim Bhattacharya Date : 12Th September, 2022 Appearance : Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. ….For Appellant Mr. Abhijit Chatterjee, Sr. Adv. Mr. Gopal Ram Sharma, 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 22Nd July, 2020, Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, `D Virtual Court’, Kolkata (Tribunal) In Ita No. 1486/Kol/2019, For The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Substantial Questions Of Law For Consideration :- A. Whether The Learned Tribunal Has Committed Substantial Error In Law In Confirming The Decision Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) In Allowing Long Term Capital Loss Of Rs. 1,09,80,30,873/- On Transfer Of Government Securities After Applying Cost Inflation Index On Sale Of Government Securities & Holding He Government Securities Are Not Bond & Debentures For The Purpose Of 3Rd Proviso To Section 48 Of The Act (4Th Proviso After Amendment) Which Is Petently Wrong & Latently Irregular ?

Section 14ASection 260ASection 37(1)Section 40Section 48Section 50

36,337/- against the short term gain computed on depreciable assets under Section 50 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 thereby misread and misinterpreted the said provision of law and so the direction of Tribunal is perverse ? C. Whether the Learned Tribunal has committed substantial error in law in confirming the decision of Ld. CIT(A) for deleting the addition