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.

67 results for “depreciation”+ Revision u/s 263clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai530Delhi404Kolkata201Bangalore196Chennai170Ahmedabad128Pune88Hyderabad67Cochin64Jaipur54Chandigarh48Visakhapatnam39Cuttack39Indore36Raipur34Surat24Rajkot23Jodhpur21Lucknow20Karnataka16Nagpur6Amritsar6Patna5Agra4Kerala2SC2Telangana2Varanasi2Panaji1Calcutta1Jabalpur1Guwahati1Ranchi1

Key Topics

Section 26389Section 143(3)78Disallowance33Addition to Income33Section 115J31Section 80I27Depreciation27Deduction27Section 244A24Section 36(1)(viii)

MADHUCON PROJECTS LTD, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYD, HYDERABAD

ITA 1326/HYD/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 Mar 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya
Section 132Section 153ASection 254(2)Section 801ASection 80I

depreciation. i. Once the income is estimated there cannot be further addition on any account under the head "Income from Business". 2. Consequent to passing of Revision order u/s 263

MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Showing 1–20 of 67 · Page 1 of 4

24
Section 14A20
Section 15418
ITA 1938/HYD/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 Mar 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya
Section 132Section 153ASection 254(2)Section 801ASection 80I

depreciation. i. Once the income is estimated there cannot be further addition on any account under the head "Income from Business". 2. Consequent to passing of Revision order u/s 263

MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

ITA 1937/HYD/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 Mar 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya
Section 132Section 153ASection 254(2)Section 801ASection 80I

depreciation. i. Once the income is estimated there cannot be further addition on any account under the head "Income from Business". 2. Consequent to passing of Revision order u/s 263

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. TRACKS & TOWERS INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED(PART IX), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 1515/HYD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal
Section 133ASection 139Section 139(1)Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80I

263 proceedings are pending. The order u/s. 143(1) is placed at pages 211-222 of paper book volume-2. Referring to pages 223-227 of the paper book volume-2, he submitted that the AO in the order passed u/s. 143(3) for AY 2020-21 has allowed the claim of deduction u/s. 80IA. Referring to the decision

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. TRACKS & TOWERS INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED(PART IX), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 1514/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal
Section 133ASection 139Section 139(1)Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80I

263 proceedings are pending. The order u/s. 143(1) is placed at pages 211-222 of paper book volume-2. Referring to pages 223-227 of the paper book volume-2, he submitted that the AO in the order passed u/s. 143(3) for AY 2020-21 has allowed the claim of deduction u/s. 80IA. Referring to the decision

PENNAR INDUSTRIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-5(1),, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee company is partly allowed/partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 832/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Us:

Section 143(3)Section 263

revised the order passed by the AO under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 20.09.2022, the Ld. AR submitted that the AO vide his notice u/s 142(1) of the Act, dated 20/02/2022, had specifically directed the assessee company to furnish complete details of the debts that were written off during the year under consideration, i.e., details

ROCKSALT INTERACTIVE GAMES PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2) , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 403/HYD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarm/S. Rocksalt Interactive Income Tax Officer, Vs. Games Pvt. Ltd., Ward 3(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan Aafcr3033A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.A. Respondent By : Shri Vijay Bhaskar Reddy, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.12.2022 O R D E R Per Shri Laliet Kumar, J.M. : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dt.30.03.2020 Of The Learned Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax/Cit-3, Hyderabad Relating To Assessment Year 2015-16 U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’).

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Bhaskar
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 263Section 72Section 73Section 73ASection 74Section 74ASection 80

depreciation and. whether the assessee is entitled for set off of the same against current year's income have not been verified by the AO while completing the scrutiny assessment. Only when the AO applied his mind and takes a decision in consonance with the legal position arid as per the provisions of the Act, then the revisionary powers

LYCOS INTERNET LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 1769/HYD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, СА
Section 14ASection 249(4)(a)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)

depreciation of Rs.11,68,93,844/- and book profit u/s 115JB of the Act was admitted at Rs.32,82,86,986/-. During the scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3), the Assessing Officer has made various disallowances and computed the taxable income under the normal provisions of the Act at Rs.3,37,52,244/- and book profit as per MAT provisions

CAMBRIDGE TECHNOLOGY ENTERPRISES LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 536/HYD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.536/Hyd/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S Cambridge Technology Vs. Dcit Enterprises Limited Circle-1(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan :Aaacu3358G] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Shiva Sewak, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 28/10/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 24/01/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.03.2019 Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax [Ld.Pcit], Hyderabad Pertaining To A.Y.2012-13. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Company, Engaged In The Business Of Rendering Software Services, Filed Its Return Of Income For The A.Y.2012-13 On 26.09.2012, Admitting Total Income Of Rs.4,05,55,380/- Under Normal Provisions Of Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) & Rs.1,47,09173/-

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Shiva Sewak, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)

revise the assessment order on the ground that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) r.w.s.144C of the Act dated 29.11.2016 is erroneous, in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue on the issue of failure on the part of the Assessing Officer to verify certain issues, which he ought

SPANDANA SPHOORTY FINANCIAL LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(2), HYD, HYDERABAD

ITA 990/HYD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Laxmi Prasao Sahuassessment Year: 2011-12 Spandana Sphoorty Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Financials Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-3(2), Hyderabao. Hyderabao. Pan – Aaics 6213N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs Spandana Sphoorty Income Tax, Circle-3(2), Financials Ltd., Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan – Aaics 6213N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri G.V.N. Hari Revenue By: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai Date Of Hearing: 10/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 04/10/2021 O R D E R Per L.P. Sahu, A.M.:

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. HariFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

Depreciation Spandana Spoorty Financial Ltd., Hyd. on website 1,152 Disallowance u/s 14A 6,77,46,792 Loss assessed 27,23,29,304 ========== 4. By virtue of powers vested under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Pr. CIT – 3, Hyderabad called for the assessment records of the assessee company for the Assessment Year

DCIT, CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. SPANDANA SPHOORTHY FINANCIAL LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

ITA 1474/HYD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Laxmi Prasao Sahuassessment Year: 2011-12 Spandana Sphoorty Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Financials Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-3(2), Hyderabao. Hyderabao. Pan – Aaics 6213N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs Spandana Sphoorty Income Tax, Circle-3(2), Financials Ltd., Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan – Aaics 6213N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri G.V.N. Hari Revenue By: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai Date Of Hearing: 10/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 04/10/2021 O R D E R Per L.P. Sahu, A.M.:

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. HariFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

Depreciation Spandana Spoorty Financial Ltd., Hyd. on website 1,152 Disallowance u/s 14A 6,77,46,792 Loss assessed 27,23,29,304 ========== 4. By virtue of powers vested under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Pr. CIT – 3, Hyderabad called for the assessment records of the assessee company for the Assessment Year

BHAGWANRAM CHIMNARAMJI PRAJAPAT ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 494/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. (Accountant Member), Shri K. Narasimha Chary (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao, ARFor Respondent: : Shri K.Meghnath Chowhan
Section 143(3)Section 263

revised is erroneous; and (ii) it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. If one of them is absent – if the order of the ITO is erroneous but is not prejudicial to the revenue or if it is not erroneous but is prejudicial to the revenue- recourse cannot be had to section 263(1). There can be no doubt

M/S N.A.M. EXPRESSWAY LIMITED,DELHI vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 580/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.580/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19) N.A.M.Expressway Ltd. Vs. Acit, Circle-5(1) Delhi Hyderabad [Pan : Aadcn3131D] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Salil Kapoor, Ms Ananya Kapoor & Shri Tarun Chanana, Ar (Through Virtual Mode) रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Shiva Sewak, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 30/10/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 28/01/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.03.2019 Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax [Ld.Pcit], Hyderabad-4 Pertaining To A.Y.2018-19 On The Following Grounds :

For Appellant: Shri Salil KapoorFor Respondent: Shri Shiva Sewak, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)Section 43B

263 of the Act dated 04.01.2024 was issued to the assessee, to show cause as to how the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) dated 21.04.2021 should not be revised or set aside. In the show cause notice, the Ld.PCIT observed that from the Profit & Loss account, an amount of Rs.10,07,13,291/- was reduced from taxable income towards

VITP PRIVATE LIMITED (IN THE CASE OF FLAGSHIP DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 572/HYD/2024[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 Jan 2025

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.572/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Vitp Private Ltd (In The Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Case Of Flagship Income Tax, Circle 8(1) Developers (P) (Ltd) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaccv2672G (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate Tanmayee Rajkumar राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Kumar Pranav, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 20/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 02/01/2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Advocate Tanmayee RajkumarFor Respondent: : Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263

u/s 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961. Further, we note that the P&L Account placed at page 548 of the paper book also reflects the claim of depreciation of Rs.24.04 crores. The claim of depreciation was revised

YERRAM VENKATA SUBBA REDDY ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-14(1), HYDERABAD

In the result assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1119/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Nov 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Sri S. Rama Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rajendra Kumar, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32(1)Section 43(6)Section 50C

u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. ITA No.1119/Hyd./2018 A.Y.: 2013-14 Sh. Yerram Venkata Subba Reddy This case was heard through Video Conference on 15.09.2020. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:- “1. The Order of revision passed u/s.263 by the Pr.CIT- 6, Hyderabad, in so far as it is prejudicial

N JAIDEEP REDDY ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 623/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Dr. M. Narmada, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 224Section 263Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

revise the assessment order Page 11 of 26 ITA Nos 619, 621, 623 and 624 of 2019 K Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy & Other Hyd. merely because he does not agree with the view taken by the Assessing Officer. 16. The learned Counsel for the assessee referring to the seized material found during the course of search drew the attention

K VIJAYA BHASKAR REDDY ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 619/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Dr. M. Narmada, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 224Section 263Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

revise the assessment order Page 11 of 26 ITA Nos 619, 621, 623 and 624 of 2019 K Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy & Other Hyd. merely because he does not agree with the view taken by the Assessing Officer. 16. The learned Counsel for the assessee referring to the seized material found during the course of search drew the attention

K LAXMA REDDY ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 621/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Dr. M. Narmada, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 224Section 263Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

revise the assessment order Page 11 of 26 ITA Nos 619, 621, 623 and 624 of 2019 K Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy & Other Hyd. merely because he does not agree with the view taken by the Assessing Officer. 16. The learned Counsel for the assessee referring to the seized material found during the course of search drew the attention

N JAIVEER REDDY ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 622/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Dr. M. Narmada, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 224Section 263Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

revise the assessment order Page 11 of 26 ITA Nos 619, 621, 623 and 624 of 2019 K Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy & Other Hyd. merely because he does not agree with the view taken by the Assessing Officer. 16. The learned Counsel for the assessee referring to the seized material found during the course of search drew the attention

MYLAN LABORATORIES LTD,(BEING THE AMALGAMATED COMPANY OF ASTRIX LABORATORIES LIMITED), HYD HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(2), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Assessee is allowed and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 625/HYD/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Smt. T.H. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 92C

revised u/s 263 of the Act by treating it as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. In this context, we rely upon the decision of Hon'ble AP High Court in case of Spectra Scrips and Shares Pvt. Ltd., Vs. CIT, 354 ITR 35(AP). In the aforesaid view of the matter, the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 263