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.

10 results for “depreciation”+ Section 152clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi347Mumbai344Chennai140Bangalore118Jaipur63Kolkata39Ahmedabad35Raipur32Indore25Pune21Surat18Lucknow18Chandigarh15Cuttack14Hyderabad10SC6Visakhapatnam5Karnataka5Nagpur4Amritsar3Cochin3Telangana3Agra2Rajkot2Jodhpur1Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 56(2)(viib)12Section 80I10Section 1488Addition to Income8Section 1394Section 143(3)3Section 139(1)3Section 133A3Section 683

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

depreciation under section 32(1) (ii- a) of the Act. As per the settled position of law, an assessee claiming exemption has to strictly and literally comply with the exemption provisions. Therefore, the said decision shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand, while considering the exemption provisions. Even otherwise, Chapter III and Chapter

Exemption3
Survey u/s 133A3
Deduction2

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

depreciation under section 32(1) (ii- a) of the Act. As per the settled position of law, an assessee claiming exemption has to strictly and literally comply with the exemption provisions. Therefore, the said decision shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand, while considering the exemption provisions. Even otherwise, Chapter III and Chapter

DIABETOMICS MEDICAL PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 2147/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2026AY 2016-17
For Appellant: CA MV Prasad AndFor Respondent: MS U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 56(2)(viib)

152\n71,909\n73,061\n48,611\nSeries – A\nCCPS and 24,450\nSeries A1 CCPS\n2018-19\n22,500\n22,500\nSeries A1 CCPS\nTotal\n94,207\n1,36,074\n2,30,281\n10.1.\nThe CCPS issued by the assessee are Compulsorily\nConvertible into equity shares on or before the initial public\noffer in the ratio

DIABETOMICS MEDICAL PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals of the Assessee\nare partly allowed

ITA 2149/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19
For Appellant: \nCA MV Prasad AndFor Respondent: \nMS U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 56(2)(viib)

152\n71,909\n73,061 48,611 Series – A\nCCPS and 24,450\n2018-19\n22,500\n22,500\nSeries A1 CCPS\nTotal\n94,207\n1,36,074 2,30,281\nSeries A1 CCPS\n10.1.\nThe CCPS issued by the assessee are Compulsorily\nConvertible into equity shares on or before the initial public\noffer in the ratio

DIABETOMICS MEDICAL PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 2148/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2026AY 2017-18
For Appellant: \nCA MV Prasad AndFor Respondent: \nMS U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 56(2)(viib)

152\n71,909\n73,061\n48,611\nSeries – A\nCCPS and 24,450\nSeries A1 CCPS\n2018-19\n22,500\n22,500\nSeries A1 CCPS\nTotal\n94,207\n1,36,074\n2,30,281\n10.1.\nThe CCPS issued by the assessee are Compulsorily\nConvertible into equity shares on or before the initial public\noffer in the ratio

BRIJESH CHANDWANI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE -6(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 1527/HYD/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Nov 2025AY 2016-2017
For Appellant: CA Pawan Kumar ChakrapaniFor Respondent: Sri Ranjan Agrawala, Sr. AR
Section 133ASection 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 234A

152 writ petitions vide Judgment dated 19.10.2024 has held In Paras-7 and 8 as under : \"7. While examining the cases, the example as mentioned by the Apex Court in its judgment in Rajeev Bansal's case (supra) in paragraph No. 112 and observations made in paragraph Nos. 110 and 111, shall also be taken into consideration. Cases, which fall

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD vs. NEXT EDUCATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue and cross appeal filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1413/HYD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Sri S. Raghunathan, ARFor Respondent: Sri T. Sunil Goutam,DR
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

depreciation loss of Rs.13,69,49,466/-. The case was selected for manual scrutiny. Accordingly, notice u/s.143(2) of the Act dt.14-07-2017 was issued and duly served on the assessee-company. Later on, notice u/s.142(1) of the Act dt.03-11-2018, 14-11-2018 and 30-11-2018, 08-12-2018 and 15- 12-2018 were issued in e-proceedings

SKANDA BUILDERS,KURNOOL vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

ITA 530/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Sections 132(4A) and\n292C of the Income Tax Act create a rebuttable presumption that documents\nfound during a search belong to the assessee and are true. Courts have\nconsistently held that selective reliance on seized material is unjustified\nunless the contents are independently proved against the\n\nITA.Nos.514 to 539/Hyd./2025,\nAnd ITA.Nos.308 to 311/Hyd./2025

OPEN TEXT TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 2387/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 May 2025AY 2014-15
Section 143(3)Section 92B

Section 212 of the Companies Act, 1956 for the\nsummary financial performance of our subsidiaries. The audited financial statements\nand related information of subsidiaries will be available on our\nwebsite,www.infosys.com.\nExtraction from page 349 of PB-II\n2.10.1 Investment in Lodestone Holding AG\nOn October 22, 2012, Infosys acquired 100% of the outstanding share capital of\nLodestone Holding

ITO., WARD-16(1), HYDERABAD vs. PHOENIX INFRAVENTURES AND PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

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

ITA 867/HYD/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Feb 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2022-23 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Phoenix Infraventures & Projects Private Limited, Ward – 16(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan No.Aafcp5499L. (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri R. Mohan Kumar, Advocate Revenue By: Shri B. Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.02.2025

For Appellant: Shri R. Mohan Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 68

depreciation. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the current liability in terms of sundry creditors was increased to Rs.82,40,35,474/- when compared to previous year sundry creditors balance of Rs.37,646/-. Therefore, the Assessing Officer called upon the assessee to file relevant evidence and also to justify the increase in sundry creditors