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.

344 results for “depreciation”+ Section 10(23)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,877Delhi2,712Bangalore1,120Chennai861Ahmedabad728Kolkata566Pune355Hyderabad344Jaipur324Chandigarh239Raipur161Visakhapatnam147Indore146Surat129Karnataka106Amritsar100Cuttack98Cochin97Lucknow64Rajkot59Ranchi53SC49Guwahati46Jodhpur40Nagpur40Telangana33Agra22Dehradun18Kerala16Allahabad15Panaji9Varanasi8Patna7Jabalpur6Calcutta4Rajasthan2Gauhati2ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1D.K. JAIN H.L. DATTU JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1Tripura1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)78Addition to Income74Depreciation42Deduction40Section 37(1)37Disallowance34Section 80I32Search & Seizure30Section 13228

SANGHI INDUSTRIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -3 (1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 104/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Choksi, ARFor Respondent: Ms. K. Haritha, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 80ISection 92CSection 92E

10) of section 80-IA are applicable; or (va) any business transacted between the persons referred to in sub- section (6) of section 115BAB; 22[(vb) any business transacted between the assessee and other person as referred to in sub-section (4) of section 115BAE;] (vi) any other transaction as may be prescribed, and where the aggregate of such transactions

Showing 1–20 of 344 · Page 1 of 18

...
Section 153A28
Section 234A24
Section 8022

DCIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD vs. DBS TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 151/HYD/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Dbs Technology Income Tax, Services India Private Circle – 8(1), Limited, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aafcd5584N (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No.2/Hyd/2023 Assessment Year 2019-20 Dbs Technology Services India Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, Circle – 8(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aafcd5584N (Cross Objector / (Appellant/Revenue) Respondent) Assessee By: Sri M. P. Lohia, C.A. Revenue By: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.07.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, Jm: The Appeal & Cross-Objection Filed By The Revenue For A.Y. 2019-20 Arise From The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi

For Appellant: Sri M. P. Lohia, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)

10, section 10A[, section 10AA], clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 12A, section 44AB [, section 44DA, section 50B], section 80-IA, section 80-IB, section 80-IC, section 80-ID, section 80JJAA, section 80LA, section 92E, [section 115JB, 5[section 115JC] or section 115VW] [or to give a notice under clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. HINDUJA NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is allowed

ITA 235/HYD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.235/Hyd/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) The Assistant M/S. Hinduja National Power Commissioner Of Income Vs. Corporation Ltd. Tax, Circle 2(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aabch2426D अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri K. A. Sai Prasad, C.A. रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri B. Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr.

For Appellant: Shri K. A. Sai Prasad, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 32ASection 92C

depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia) has, therefore, been rightly granted to the assessee by the concurrent judgments of the CIT(A) and the Tribunal. 11. We also note that, w.e.f. from 01.04.2013, the provision has been amended by the Finance Act, 2012 and assessees engaged in the generation of power have expressly been included in the ambit thereof

ANNAPURNA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result appeals of the revenue are partly allowed and the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 836/HYD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhappellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S.Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 132

23 I.T.A. Nos.831/H/2015 to 836/H/2015 and 298/Viz/2016 I.T.A.Nos.864/H/2015 to 869/H/2015 and 334/Viz/2016. M/s Annapurna Business Solutions, Hyderabad comparable cases in this line of business. In the assessee’s case, the Ld.CIT(A) observed that in the initial year, the expenditure was very low and it has increased to 32% in 2008-09 and again dipped subsequently. Therefore, the Ld.CIT

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. ANNAPURNA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result appeals of the revenue are partly allowed and the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 868/HYD/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhappellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S.Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 132

23 I.T.A. Nos.831/H/2015 to 836/H/2015 and 298/Viz/2016 I.T.A.Nos.864/H/2015 to 869/H/2015 and 334/Viz/2016. M/s Annapurna Business Solutions, Hyderabad comparable cases in this line of business. In the assessee’s case, the Ld.CIT(A) observed that in the initial year, the expenditure was very low and it has increased to 32% in 2008-09 and again dipped subsequently. Therefore, the Ld.CIT

ANNAPURNA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result appeals of the revenue are partly allowed and the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 834/HYD/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Dec 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhappellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S.Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 132

23 I.T.A. Nos.831/H/2015 to 836/H/2015 and 298/Viz/2016 I.T.A.Nos.864/H/2015 to 869/H/2015 and 334/Viz/2016. M/s Annapurna Business Solutions, Hyderabad comparable cases in this line of business. In the assessee’s case, the Ld.CIT(A) observed that in the initial year, the expenditure was very low and it has increased to 32% in 2008-09 and again dipped subsequently. Therefore, the Ld.CIT

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. ANNAPURNA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result appeals of the revenue are partly allowed and the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 866/HYD/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Dec 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhappellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S.Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 132

23 I.T.A. Nos.831/H/2015 to 836/H/2015 and 298/Viz/2016 I.T.A.Nos.864/H/2015 to 869/H/2015 and 334/Viz/2016. M/s Annapurna Business Solutions, Hyderabad comparable cases in this line of business. In the assessee’s case, the Ld.CIT(A) observed that in the initial year, the expenditure was very low and it has increased to 32% in 2008-09 and again dipped subsequently. Therefore, the Ld.CIT

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. ANNAPURNA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result appeals of the revenue are partly allowed and the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 869/HYD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhappellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S.Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 132

23 I.T.A. Nos.831/H/2015 to 836/H/2015 and 298/Viz/2016 I.T.A.Nos.864/H/2015 to 869/H/2015 and 334/Viz/2016. M/s Annapurna Business Solutions, Hyderabad comparable cases in this line of business. In the assessee’s case, the Ld.CIT(A) observed that in the initial year, the expenditure was very low and it has increased to 32% in 2008-09 and again dipped subsequently. Therefore, the Ld.CIT

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. ANNAPURNA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result appeals of the revenue are partly allowed and the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 867/HYD/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Dec 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhappellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S.Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 132

23 I.T.A. Nos.831/H/2015 to 836/H/2015 and 298/Viz/2016 I.T.A.Nos.864/H/2015 to 869/H/2015 and 334/Viz/2016. M/s Annapurna Business Solutions, Hyderabad comparable cases in this line of business. In the assessee’s case, the Ld.CIT(A) observed that in the initial year, the expenditure was very low and it has increased to 32% in 2008-09 and again dipped subsequently. Therefore, the Ld.CIT

ANNAPURNA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result appeals of the revenue are partly allowed and the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 835/HYD/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhappellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S.Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 132

23 I.T.A. Nos.831/H/2015 to 836/H/2015 and 298/Viz/2016 I.T.A.Nos.864/H/2015 to 869/H/2015 and 334/Viz/2016. M/s Annapurna Business Solutions, Hyderabad comparable cases in this line of business. In the assessee’s case, the Ld.CIT(A) observed that in the initial year, the expenditure was very low and it has increased to 32% in 2008-09 and again dipped subsequently. Therefore, the Ld.CIT

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. ANNAPURNA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result appeals of the revenue are partly allowed and the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 864/HYD/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Dec 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhappellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S.Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 132

23 I.T.A. Nos.831/H/2015 to 836/H/2015 and 298/Viz/2016 I.T.A.Nos.864/H/2015 to 869/H/2015 and 334/Viz/2016. M/s Annapurna Business Solutions, Hyderabad comparable cases in this line of business. In the assessee’s case, the Ld.CIT(A) observed that in the initial year, the expenditure was very low and it has increased to 32% in 2008-09 and again dipped subsequently. Therefore, the Ld.CIT

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. ANNAPURNA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result appeals of the revenue are partly allowed and the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 865/HYD/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Dec 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhappellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S.Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 132

23 I.T.A. Nos.831/H/2015 to 836/H/2015 and 298/Viz/2016 I.T.A.Nos.864/H/2015 to 869/H/2015 and 334/Viz/2016. M/s Annapurna Business Solutions, Hyderabad comparable cases in this line of business. In the assessee’s case, the Ld.CIT(A) observed that in the initial year, the expenditure was very low and it has increased to 32% in 2008-09 and again dipped subsequently. Therefore, the Ld.CIT

ANNAPURNA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result appeals of the revenue are partly allowed and the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 831/HYD/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Dec 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhappellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S.Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 132

23 I.T.A. Nos.831/H/2015 to 836/H/2015 and 298/Viz/2016 I.T.A.Nos.864/H/2015 to 869/H/2015 and 334/Viz/2016. M/s Annapurna Business Solutions, Hyderabad comparable cases in this line of business. In the assessee’s case, the Ld.CIT(A) observed that in the initial year, the expenditure was very low and it has increased to 32% in 2008-09 and again dipped subsequently. Therefore, the Ld.CIT

ANNAPURNA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result appeals of the revenue are partly allowed and the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 832/HYD/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Dec 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhappellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S.Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 132

23 I.T.A. Nos.831/H/2015 to 836/H/2015 and 298/Viz/2016 I.T.A.Nos.864/H/2015 to 869/H/2015 and 334/Viz/2016. M/s Annapurna Business Solutions, Hyderabad comparable cases in this line of business. In the assessee’s case, the Ld.CIT(A) observed that in the initial year, the expenditure was very low and it has increased to 32% in 2008-09 and again dipped subsequently. Therefore, the Ld.CIT

ANNAPURNA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result appeals of the revenue are partly allowed and the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 833/HYD/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Dec 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhappellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S.Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 132

23 I.T.A. Nos.831/H/2015 to 836/H/2015 and 298/Viz/2016 I.T.A.Nos.864/H/2015 to 869/H/2015 and 334/Viz/2016. M/s Annapurna Business Solutions, Hyderabad comparable cases in this line of business. In the assessee’s case, the Ld.CIT(A) observed that in the initial year, the expenditure was very low and it has increased to 32% in 2008-09 and again dipped subsequently. Therefore, the Ld.CIT

MOKAMA MUNGER HIGHWAY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-16(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2145/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri D.V. AnjaneyuluFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai, (CIT) DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

10%. The right to claim higher depreciation is reserved. The Appellant relied upon the standard concession document of the National Highway Authority of India and the clause therein that 'for the purpose of claiming tax depreciation, the property representing the capital investment made by the concessionaire shall be deemed to be acquired and owned by the concessionaire'." (emphasis supplied

MOKAMA MUNGER HIGHWAY LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1729/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri D.V. AnjaneyuluFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai, (CIT) DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

10%. The right to claim higher depreciation is reserved. The Appellant relied upon the standard concession document of the National Highway Authority of India and the clause therein that 'for the purpose of claiming tax depreciation, the property representing the capital investment made by the concessionaire shall be deemed to be acquired and owned by the concessionaire'." (emphasis supplied

MOKAMA MUNGER HIGHWAY LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2146/HYD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jul 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri D.V. AnjaneyuluFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai, (CIT) DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

10%. The right to claim higher depreciation is reserved. The Appellant relied upon the standard concession document of the National Highway Authority of India and the clause therein that 'for the purpose of claiming tax depreciation, the property representing the capital investment made by the concessionaire shall be deemed to be acquired and owned by the concessionaire'." (emphasis supplied

BSCPL AURANG TOLLWAY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 612/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: the Tribunal. The assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay, wherein it was submitted that the appeal for the relevant assessment year was required to be filed within 60 days from the date of receipt of the order passed under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. However, the

Section 143(3)Section 263

Section 143(3B) on 15.04.2021 in allowing the excessive depreciation on cost incurred for development of toll road as intangible asset is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, and thus, opined that, the assessment order passed by the A.O. is erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of 10 BSCPL Aurang Tollway Limited the Revenue, and thus

REPAL GREEN POWER PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE -3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 474/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.125/Hyd/2022 Assessment Year 2017-2018 Repal Green Power Private Limited, The Dcit, Circle-8(1), Vs. Hyderabad. Hyderabad – 500 081 Pan Aahcr2187F (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.474/Hyd/2022 Assessment Year 2018-2019 Repal Green Power Private Limited, The Dcit, Circle-3(1), Vs. Hyderabad. Hyderabad – 500 081 Pan Aahcr2187F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Sri Harsh R Shah, Advocate & Ca Karan Jain राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri Harsh R Shah, Advocate &For Respondent: MS U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 234Section 234DSection 270ASection 32Section 32A

depreciation disallowed in the previous year. 7 ITA.Nos.125 & 474/Hyd./2022 Investment allowance under Section 32AD 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. AO, under the direction of the Hon'ble DRP, erred in not appreciating that the Appellant ought to be granted investment allowance as per Section 32AD of the Act. Initiation