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.

31 results for “depreciation”+ Section 120(4)(b)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai537Delhi513Bangalore225Ahmedabad123Chandigarh101Chennai92Kolkata71Jaipur63Pune52Raipur44Hyderabad31Indore24Cuttack19Lucknow15Guwahati14Ranchi12Visakhapatnam12Amritsar9Rajkot8Karnataka7SC7Cochin5Allahabad5Surat4Patna3Jodhpur3Agra2Calcutta2Telangana2ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Panaji1Nagpur1Punjab & Haryana1Kerala1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)43Section 37(1)36Section 234A24Addition to Income22Section 13213Section 143(1)13Search & Seizure13Section 250(6)12Section 153A12

CELESTIAL AVENUES PVT LTD REP. BY CSK PROPERTIES PVT LTD ON MERGER-PAN-AADCC3990R,HYDERABAD. vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(2), HYDERABAD.

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 212/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad01 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha G, Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.212 To 214/Hyd/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09) M/S. Sabir, Sew & The Deputy Commissioner Of Prasad, Jv, Vs. Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle – 6(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Abcfs2425A अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri A. Srinivas, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 801ASection 801A(4)Section 80I

depreciation on the rent out premises. 11. The ld. AO has rejected the assessee’s claim of deduction u/s. 80IA(4)(iii) of the Act for the reason that his predecessors have disallowed the claim of the assessee for the earlier years and has extensively relied on the same. It is observed that the assessee

Showing 1–20 of 31 · Page 1 of 2

Section 14812
Depreciation9
Disallowance8

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)

B” , HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment 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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, NELLORE vs. VENKATA RAMANAMMA SAKAMURI, NELLORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue being devoid and bereft of any substance is dismissed

ITA 482/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Us:

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151

4,75,04,970/-. The assessee did not file a return of income for the relevant year, prompting concerns about income escaping assessment. Numerous notices were issued under Sections 5 ITO vs. Venkata Ramanamma Sakamuri 148 and 142(1), including show cause notices, all of which went unanswered, barring one adjournment request. Despite being granted multiple opportunities via email

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

B” Bench, Hyderabad श्री मंजूनाथ जी, माननीय लेखा सदस्य एवं श्री रवीश सूद, माननीय न्याययक सदस्य SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.612/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2018-19) BSCPL Aurang Tollway Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Limited, Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle – 1(1), Hyderabad. PAN : AAECB8221D (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी

DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the ground No

ITA 349/HYD/2017[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Jul 2022AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Years: 2001-02 Dr.Reddy’S Laboratories Vs. Dcit,Circle-1(2) Limited Hyderabad 8-2-337, Road No.3 Banjara Hills Hyderabad-500 034

For Appellant: Shri P.S.R.V.V.Surya Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai,CIT-DR
Section 28Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)Section 32(2)Section 37Section 80H

B’ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member AND Shri K.Narasimha Chary, Judicial Member Assessment Years: 2001-02 Dr.Reddy’s Laboratories Vs. DCIT,Circle-1(2) Limited Hyderabad 8-2-337, Road No.3 Banjara Hills Hyderabad-500 034 PAN : AAACD7999Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri P.S.R.V.V.Surya Rao, CA Revenue by: Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai,CIT-DR Date of hearing

M/S MIDWEST GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 620/HYD/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Feb 2020AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Sri Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Nivedita Biswas, DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 250(6)Section 37(1)

4,52,390/- is not justifiable. The ld. DR could not controvert to the submission of the ld. AR. After hearing both sides, we find it appropriate to remit the matter to the file of the Ld. AO for fresh consideration as the issue is neither verified by the Ld. AO nor addressed by the Ld. CIT (A). Needless

M/S MIDWEST GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 618/HYD/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Feb 2020AY 2005-06

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

For Appellant: Sri Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Nivedita Biswas, DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 250(6)Section 37(1)

4,52,390/- is not justifiable. The ld. DR could not controvert to the submission of the ld. AR. After hearing both sides, we find it appropriate to remit the matter to the file of the Ld. AO for fresh consideration as the issue is neither verified by the Ld. AO nor addressed by the Ld. CIT (A). Needless

M/S MIDWEST GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 621/HYD/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Sri Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Nivedita Biswas, DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 250(6)Section 37(1)

4,52,390/- is not justifiable. The ld. DR could not controvert to the submission of the ld. AR. After hearing both sides, we find it appropriate to remit the matter to the file of the Ld. AO for fresh consideration as the issue is neither verified by the Ld. AO nor addressed by the Ld. CIT (A). Needless

M/S MIDWEST GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 619/HYD/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Feb 2020AY 2006-07

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

For Appellant: Sri Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Nivedita Biswas, DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 250(6)Section 37(1)

4,52,390/- is not justifiable. The ld. DR could not controvert to the submission of the ld. AR. After hearing both sides, we find it appropriate to remit the matter to the file of the Ld. AO for fresh consideration as the issue is neither verified by the Ld. AO nor addressed by the Ld. CIT (A). Needless

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD vs. M/S MIDWEST GRANITE PRIVATE LIMITED., HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 957/HYD/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Feb 2020AY 2004-05

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

For Appellant: Sri Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Nivedita Biswas, DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 250(6)Section 37(1)

4,52,390/- is not justifiable. The ld. DR could not controvert to the submission of the ld. AR. After hearing both sides, we find it appropriate to remit the matter to the file of the Ld. AO for fresh consideration as the issue is neither verified by the Ld. AO nor addressed by the Ld. CIT (A). Needless

M/S MIDWEST GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 617/HYD/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Feb 2020AY 2004-05

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

For Appellant: Sri Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Nivedita Biswas, DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 250(6)Section 37(1)

4,52,390/- is not justifiable. The ld. DR could not controvert to the submission of the ld. AR. After hearing both sides, we find it appropriate to remit the matter to the file of the Ld. AO for fresh consideration as the issue is neither verified by the Ld. AO nor addressed by the Ld. CIT (A). Needless

M/S MIDWEST GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 622/HYD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Sri Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Nivedita Biswas, DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 250(6)Section 37(1)

4,52,390/- is not justifiable. The ld. DR could not controvert to the submission of the ld. AR. After hearing both sides, we find it appropriate to remit the matter to the file of the Ld. AO for fresh consideration as the issue is neither verified by the Ld. AO nor addressed by the Ld. CIT (A). Needless

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD vs. M/S MIDWEST GRANITE PRIVATE LIMITED., HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 958/HYD/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Feb 2020AY 2005-06

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

For Appellant: Sri Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Nivedita Biswas, DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 250(6)Section 37(1)

4,52,390/- is not justifiable. The ld. DR could not controvert to the submission of the ld. AR. After hearing both sides, we find it appropriate to remit the matter to the file of the Ld. AO for fresh consideration as the issue is neither verified by the Ld. AO nor addressed by the Ld. CIT (A). Needless

M/S MIDWEST GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 616/HYD/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Feb 2020AY 2003-04

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

For Appellant: Sri Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Nivedita Biswas, DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 250(6)Section 37(1)

4,52,390/- is not justifiable. The ld. DR could not controvert to the submission of the ld. AR. After hearing both sides, we find it appropriate to remit the matter to the file of the Ld. AO for fresh consideration as the issue is neither verified by the Ld. AO nor addressed by the Ld. CIT (A). Needless

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD vs. M/S MIDWEST GRANITE PRIVATE LIMITED., HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 961/HYD/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Sri Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Nivedita Biswas, DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 250(6)Section 37(1)

4,52,390/- is not justifiable. The ld. DR could not controvert to the submission of the ld. AR. After hearing both sides, we find it appropriate to remit the matter to the file of the Ld. AO for fresh consideration as the issue is neither verified by the Ld. AO nor addressed by the Ld. CIT (A). Needless

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD vs. M/S MIDWEST GRANITE PRIVATE LIMITED., HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 959/HYD/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Feb 2020AY 2006-07

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

For Appellant: Sri Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Nivedita Biswas, DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 250(6)Section 37(1)

4,52,390/- is not justifiable. The ld. DR could not controvert to the submission of the ld. AR. After hearing both sides, we find it appropriate to remit the matter to the file of the Ld. AO for fresh consideration as the issue is neither verified by the Ld. AO nor addressed by the Ld. CIT (A). Needless

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD vs. M/S MIDWEST GRANITE PRIVATE LIMITED., HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 962/HYD/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Sri Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Nivedita Biswas, DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 250(6)Section 37(1)

4,52,390/- is not justifiable. The ld. DR could not controvert to the submission of the ld. AR. After hearing both sides, we find it appropriate to remit the matter to the file of the Ld. AO for fresh consideration as the issue is neither verified by the Ld. AO nor addressed by the Ld. CIT (A). Needless

NUNHEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,,HYDERABAD vs. ASST.CIT,CIRCLE 16(1),,

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the A

ITA 1775/HYD/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 194JSection 195Section 40Section 43B

120/-. The same was initially processed u/s 143(1) of the IT Act and resultant refund of Rs.1,33,08,189/- was made on 09.10.2007. 2.1 The assessee, thereafter, filed a revised return of income on 06.12.2010 admitting taxable income of Rs. 9,67,39,768/-, which was selected for scrutiny. During the assessment proceedings

NUNHEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,R.R.DIST vs. JCIT, RANGE 16, HYDERABAD

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the A

ITA 327/HYD/2012[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Jul 2018AY 2008-2009

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

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 194JSection 195Section 40Section 43B

120/-. The same was initially processed u/s 143(1) of the IT Act and resultant refund of Rs.1,33,08,189/- was made on 09.10.2007. 2.1 The assessee, thereafter, filed a revised return of income on 06.12.2010 admitting taxable income of Rs. 9,67,39,768/-, which was selected for scrutiny. During the assessment proceedings

NUNHEMS INDIA PVT.LTD.,,R.R.DIST vs. ADDL.CIT, RANGE-16, HYDERABAD

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the A

ITA 290/HYD/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Jul 2018AY 2006-07

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

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 194JSection 195Section 40Section 43B

120/-. The same was initially processed u/s 143(1) of the IT Act and resultant refund of Rs.1,33,08,189/- was made on 09.10.2007. 2.1 The assessee, thereafter, filed a revised return of income on 06.12.2010 admitting taxable income of Rs. 9,67,39,768/-, which was selected for scrutiny. During the assessment proceedings