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.

5 results for “depreciation”+ Section 65clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,723Delhi1,460Bangalore596Chennai486Kolkata319Ahmedabad255Hyderabad134Chandigarh119Jaipur111Pune101Raipur79Surat62Indore55Amritsar53Karnataka45Lucknow40Ranchi35Visakhapatnam34Rajkot33Cochin29Cuttack22SC19Guwahati19Jodhpur16Nagpur16Telangana13Allahabad8Agra7Dehradun5Calcutta5Varanasi4Panaji4Rajasthan3Patna3Punjab & Haryana3Kerala1Orissa1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 2635Section 260A4Addition to Income4Section 1473Section 14A3Section 143(2)2Section 142(1)2Depreciation2

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 32 of the Act 1961, held it to be a “license”. In the present set of facts the question of nomination or transfer of license is not involved. Even at the time of execution of the operating license agreement in question no amount was paid by ITC to ELEL as cost of acquisition of license. 19. M/S ELEL

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 KOLKATA vs. M/S LANDIS GYR

In the result, the substantial questions of law (i)

ITAT/10/2021HC Calcutta03 Apr 2023

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Acting Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 3Rd April, 2023 Appearance : Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. ...For The Appellant Mr. Asim Choudhury, Adv. Mr. Soham Sen, 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 October 17, 2018 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” Bench, Kolkata (The Tribunal) In Ita No.524/Kol/2017 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Substantial Questions Of Law For Consideration:

Section 260ASection 32Section 92C

depreciation on Intellectual property rights under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, considering Intellectual property Rights as technical known now ? (iii) Whether the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in law in treating the provision of obsolescence of inventory or ascertained liability where are no cogent material is unavailable to sustainable the valuation of inventory ? (iv) Whether

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -4, KOLKATA vs. M/S. RELIANCE CHEMOTEX INDUSTRIES LTD

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands

ITAT/308/2018HC Calcutta17 Feb 2022

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

Section 14ASection 260A

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’ in brevity) is directed against the order dated 16th August, 2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” Bench, Kolkata (the ‘Tribunal’ in short) in ITA No.2041/Kol/2014 for the assessment year 2010-11. The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether on the facts

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 KOLKATA vs. M/S BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LTD

Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed

ITAT/211/2022HC Calcutta23 Dec 2022

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

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 263Section 35

65,120/-. Subsequently revised return was filed on 27.03.2018 declaring a total income of Rs. 1054,14,38,420/- and the case was selected for scrutiny and notices under Section 143(2) and Section 142(1) were issued. In response to such notices and the queries which were raised the assessee submitted documents and on certain discrepancies which were found

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) , KOLKATA vs. B.P.PODDAR FOUNDATION FOR EDUCATION

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

ITAT/143/2021HC Calcutta13 Sept 2022

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

Section 11(5)Section 13(1)(b)Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(1)(d)Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

65,97,000/- with M/s. Nissan Developers and Properties Pvt. Ltd. and Poddar Projects Ltd. respectively and both these companies are specified persons of the assessee. Therefore, the Assessing Officer held that these amounts are to be taxed separately at Maximum Marginal Rate in terms of the proviso to Section 164(2) of the Act. Further, the Assessing Officer pointed