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.

1,338 results for “depreciation”+ Section 92clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,602Delhi1,338Bangalore574Chennai360Kolkata255Ahmedabad208Jaipur107Hyderabad98Chandigarh96Pune67Indore42Raipur39Visakhapatnam34Lucknow28Karnataka25Guwahati21Ranchi18Rajkot18SC17Telangana17Surat16Cochin16Amritsar11Nagpur10Kerala8Cuttack5Allahabad5Varanasi4Agra3Jodhpur3Panaji2Jabalpur2Patna2Calcutta1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Dehradun1Gauhati1Rajasthan1Orissa1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)60Addition to Income45Section 115J30Section 14730Depreciation27Disallowance25Section 80I21Section 14820Deduction17Reassessment

GOODYEAR INDIA LTD.,,FARIDABAD vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 5650/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Mr. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Amrinder Singh, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92C

section 92C of the Act. 4.10 That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in applying Bright Line Test (“BLT”) for computing adjustment on account of expenditure on advertisement and brand promotion expenses without appreciating that in absence of specific provision under the Transfer Pricing Regulations in India., adjustment on account of the arm’s length price

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. GUJARAT GUARDIAN LIMITED

Showing 1–20 of 1,338 · Page 1 of 67

...
13
Section 14A12
Exemption10

In the result, no fault can

ITA/669/2008HC Delhi23 Jan 2009

Bench: The Tribunal The Revenue As Well As The Assessee, Filed An Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of 2009:Dhc:240-Db

For Appellant: Ms. Prem Lata BansalFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita Jha
Section 260ASection 37(1)Section 40A(2)

Section 92 of the Act. We concur with the view of the Tribunal. According to us no substantial question of law arises for our consideration. Training Fee 12. As regards this issue in the assessment order it is noted that: the assessee in its return had claimed expenses towards training fee of its personnel under the personnel agreement dated

M/S. DABUR INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6525/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80GSection 80ISection 92CSection 92E

section 92 of the IT Act. It is his submission that so far as agreement with Dabur Nepal Pvt. Ltd., Nepal is concerned, the assessee is having 97.5% of shareholding in Dabur Nepal Pvt. Ltd., Nepal directly/indirectly and, thus, it could not have received any royalty from itself. It is his submission that the marketing agreement dated 05.11.1992 which

M/S. DABUR INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3241/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80GSection 80ISection 92CSection 92E

section 92 of the IT Act. It is his submission that so far as agreement with Dabur Nepal Pvt. Ltd., Nepal is concerned, the assessee is having 97.5% of shareholding in Dabur Nepal Pvt. Ltd., Nepal directly/indirectly and, thus, it could not have received any royalty from itself. It is his submission that the marketing agreement dated 05.11.1992 which

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DABUR INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6256/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80GSection 80ISection 92CSection 92E

section 92 of the IT Act. It is his submission that so far as agreement with Dabur Nepal Pvt. Ltd., Nepal is concerned, the assessee is having 97.5% of shareholding in Dabur Nepal Pvt. Ltd., Nepal directly/indirectly and, thus, it could not have received any royalty from itself. It is his submission that the marketing agreement dated 05.11.1992 which

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DABUR INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3114/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80GSection 80ISection 92CSection 92E

section 92 of the IT Act. It is his submission that so far as agreement with Dabur Nepal Pvt. Ltd., Nepal is concerned, the assessee is having 97.5% of shareholding in Dabur Nepal Pvt. Ltd., Nepal directly/indirectly and, thus, it could not have received any royalty from itself. It is his submission that the marketing agreement dated 05.11.1992 which

EXL SERVICE.COM (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT (LTU), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee as well as ofthe department are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 302/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita No. 302/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income 414, 4Th Floor, Dlf Jasola, Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Tower-B, Plot No. 10 & 11, Dda New Delhi District Centre, Jasola, New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita No. 615/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd., 414, 4Th Floor, Dlf Jasola, Tower- Tax, Circle-1 (Ltu), New Delhi-110017 B, Plot No. 10 & 11, Dda District Centre, Jasola, New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaace5174C Assessee By : Sh. Ajay Vohra, Adv. Sh. Abhishek Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Piyush Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.01.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Piyush Jain, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 92D

Section 92B of the Act with retrospective effect from 01.04.2002. Therefore, interest charged/not charged on outstanding receivables is an international transaction. The reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT-2, Pune Vs Patni Computers System Pvt. Ltd. reported at 215 Taxman 108 (Mum.). The reliance was also placed

DCIT (LTU), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. EXL SERVICE.COM (INDIA) PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee as well as ofthe department are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 615/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita No. 302/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income 414, 4Th Floor, Dlf Jasola, Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Tower-B, Plot No. 10 & 11, Dda New Delhi District Centre, Jasola, New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita No. 615/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd., 414, 4Th Floor, Dlf Jasola, Tower- Tax, Circle-1 (Ltu), New Delhi-110017 B, Plot No. 10 & 11, Dda District Centre, Jasola, New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaace5174C Assessee By : Sh. Ajay Vohra, Adv. Sh. Abhishek Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Piyush Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.01.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Piyush Jain, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 92D

Section 92B of the Act with retrospective effect from 01.04.2002. Therefore, interest charged/not charged on outstanding receivables is an international transaction. The reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT-2, Pune Vs Patni Computers System Pvt. Ltd. reported at 215 Taxman 108 (Mum.). The reliance was also placed

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. LANDBASE INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

ITA 4849/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)

section 32 of the Act. 6. Based on the above stated submission he prayed that for the aforesaid cumulative reasons, it is respectfully submitted that the assessee has rightly claimed depreciation on golf course as “plant”. 7. The LD DR vehemently supported the orders of the lower authorities. The main contention of the learned departmental representative was that

M/S LANDBASE INDIA LTD.,,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

ITA 138/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)

section 32 of the Act. 6. Based on the above stated submission he prayed that for the aforesaid cumulative reasons, it is respectfully submitted that the assessee has rightly claimed depreciation on golf course as “plant”. 7. The LD DR vehemently supported the orders of the lower authorities. The main contention of the learned departmental representative was that

LANDBASE INDIA LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

ITA 4998/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)

section 32 of the Act. 6. Based on the above stated submission he prayed that for the aforesaid cumulative reasons, it is respectfully submitted that the assessee has rightly claimed depreciation on golf course as “plant”. 7. The LD DR vehemently supported the orders of the lower authorities. The main contention of the learned departmental representative was that

LANDBASE INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

ITA 653/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)

section 32 of the Act. 6. Based on the above stated submission he prayed that for the aforesaid cumulative reasons, it is respectfully submitted that the assessee has rightly claimed depreciation on golf course as “plant”. 7. The LD DR vehemently supported the orders of the lower authorities. The main contention of the learned departmental representative was that

LANDBASE INDIA LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

ITA 4999/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)

section 32 of the Act. 6. Based on the above stated submission he prayed that for the aforesaid cumulative reasons, it is respectfully submitted that the assessee has rightly claimed depreciation on golf course as “plant”. 7. The LD DR vehemently supported the orders of the lower authorities. The main contention of the learned departmental representative was that

LANDBASE INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

ITA 4560/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)

section 32 of the Act. 6. Based on the above stated submission he prayed that for the aforesaid cumulative reasons, it is respectfully submitted that the assessee has rightly claimed depreciation on golf course as “plant”. 7. The LD DR vehemently supported the orders of the lower authorities. The main contention of the learned departmental representative was that

M/S. ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES (HOLDINGS) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 2671/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 143Section 92C

depreciation of goodwill as per the rates applicable for the year under consideration. 70. Ground No.5.1 to 5.6 – Transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.4,83,97,589/- on account of payment of corporate charges. 71. Facts on record show that during the year the assessee in the course of carrying on of its software development business has entered, interalia, into international

M/S. ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES (HOLDINGS) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 90/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 143Section 92C

depreciation of goodwill as per the rates applicable for the year under consideration. 70. Ground No.5.1 to 5.6 – Transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.4,83,97,589/- on account of payment of corporate charges. 71. Facts on record show that during the year the assessee in the course of carrying on of its software development business has entered, interalia, into international

M/S MSD PHARMACEUTICALS (P) LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 1423/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. Rashmi Chopra, Adv &For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 92Section 92C

depreciation. Other Grounds 21. The Ld. AO/Hon’ble DRP has erred both on facts and in law in initiating the penalty under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 22. The Ld. AO/Hon’ble DRP has erred both on facts and in law in charging interest under section 234C of the Act. आयकर अपील सं

ARIVENT TECHNOLOGIES HOLDINGS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 1308/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr.Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay I.Bara, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

92. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. ITA No.7112/Del/2017 [Assessee’s appeal] Assessment Year: 2013-14 93. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal relating to Assessment Year 2013-14:- 1. “That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in completing the assessment under Section 144C(1) r.w.s

ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES (HOLDINGS) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 1 , NEW DELHI

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

ITA 7637/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr.Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay I.Bara, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

92. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. ITA No.7112/Del/2017 [Assessee’s appeal] Assessment Year: 2013-14 93. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal relating to Assessment Year 2013-14:- 1. “That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in completing the assessment under Section 144C(1) r.w.s

M/S. ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES (HOLDINGS) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 1944/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr.Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay I.Bara, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

92. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. ITA No.7112/Del/2017 [Assessee’s appeal] Assessment Year: 2013-14 93. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal relating to Assessment Year 2013-14:- 1. “That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in completing the assessment under Section 144C(1) r.w.s