Search: depreciation | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

5 results for “depreciation”+ Section 48clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,930 Delhi1,677 Bangalore710 Chennai488 Kolkata374 Ahmedabad281 Jaipur175 Hyderabad143 Raipur127 Chandigarh97 Indore80 Amritsar80 Pune77 Surat64 Visakhapatnam51 Karnataka48 Cochin40 Lucknow34 Rajkot33 Ranchi31 SC26 Cuttack25 Jodhpur19 Telangana15 Nagpur14 Guwahati12 Panaji10 Kerala8 Allahabad7 Dehradun7 Calcutta5 Patna5 Varanasi5 Agra3 Jabalpur2 ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1 Rajasthan1 A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1

Key Topics

Addition to Income4 Section 260A3 Section 503 Section 312 Depreciation2

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA 4 vs. EVEREADY INDUSTRIES INDIA LIMITED

In the result, the appeal (ITAT/233/2018) is dismissed and the

ITAT/233/2018HC Calcutta30 Nov 2021

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 30Th November, 2021 Appearance :-

Section 2Section 260ASection 43BSection 50

depreciable assets is not only restricted for the purposes of Section 48 or Section 49 of the Act as specifically

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

Appeal is allowed to the extent indicated

ITA/125/2018HC Calcutta

27 Jun 2024

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

depreciation on the same will be claimed by ITC. However, it is mutually agreed that in the event of termination of this Agreement in the manner referred to in Article XVII below or on expiry of this Agreement by efflux of time the Assets will belong to EHIL and ITC shall have no right to them. An inventory of Fixed

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

Section 48 of the Act (4th Proviso after amendment) which is petently wrong and latently irregular ? 2 B. Whether the Learned Tribunal has committed substantial error in law in confirming the decision of Learned CIT(A) for allowing set off of brought forward long term capital loss of Rs. 2,79,36,337/- against the short term gain computed

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)

48,84,39,000/- respectively already claimed u/s 32 of the Act as not double claim of depreciation? b) Whether of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” Bench, ITAT 230 of 2017 Page 3 of 14 was justified in reversing the finding of CIT (Appeals) in deleting the addition

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

48,466/- for the assessment year 2005- 06 and Rs.1,18,50,085/- for the assessment year 2006-07 relating to purchase of steel rolls by treating the same as revenue expenditure ? (ii) Whether the learned Tribunal below committed substantial error of law in deleting the addition of Rs.5,24,80,600/- for the assessment year 2005-06 and Rs.18