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.

14 results for “depreciation”+ Section 207clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi336Mumbai330Chennai101Ahmedabad83Bangalore78Kolkata59Raipur34Jaipur33Chandigarh25Pune23Visakhapatnam17Indore14Hyderabad14Guwahati12Lucknow12Cuttack12Kerala11Cochin9Telangana8Agra5SC5Surat4Jodhpur3Ranchi3Amritsar3Karnataka3Rajasthan2MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1Nagpur1Orissa1D.K. JAIN H.L. DATTU JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1Rajkot1Allahabad1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)15Section 194H15Addition to Income13Disallowance11Section 4010TDS10Section 1479Section 1487Depreciation7Section 143(1)

VERMEIREN INDIA REHAB PRIVATE LIMITED,TIRUPATI vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), TIRUPATI

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

ITA 1315/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Sri Sandeep Bagmar R, AdvocateFor Respondent: MS. U. Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 32

depreciation on building under section 32 of the Act which has been put to use in the subject financial year/assessment year and all other conditions for such grant were satisfied. 2.1.2. That the Ld. AO/DRP erred in relying on extraneous material and came to conclusion on conjectures and surmises that the building was not put to use, when the fact

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, WARANGAL vs. SHIVA KUMAR THOTA, WARANGAL

5
Section 143(2)5
Section 684

In the result, the primary objection filed by the assessee vide his letter, dated 02/06/2025 is allowed while for the appeal filed by

ITA 996/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.996/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Income Tax Officer, Vs. Shiva Kumar Thota, Ward-1, Warangal. Warangal. Pan: Aaopt4519M (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Mrs. U. Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 18/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 10/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 06/08/2024 Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 26/05/2023 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. The Revenue Has Assailed The Impugned Order On The Following Grounds Of Appeal Before Us:

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. U. Mini Chandran
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 43BSection 68

207/-; (iii) addition of unsecured loan made under section 68 of the Act: Rs.16,19,208/-; (iv) disallowance towards TDS and VAT payable under section 43B of the Act: Rs. 6,08,694/-; and (v) addition of Rs.3,34,246/- on account of estimated profit on undisclosed sales: Rs.3,34,246/-, but at the same time declined the assessee

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD vs. COASTAL PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, the C.O. filed by the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 497/HYD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri H. SrinivasuluFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 153ASection 69

207 (Bom) (ii) sagar Enterprises-257 ITR 335 (Guj) (iii) Mumtaz Haji Mohammed Memon- 408 ITR 268 (Guj) , PB - 59 - 65 (caselaws) (iv) Misra Preserves (P) Ltd -350 ITR 222 (All) (v) Fair Investment Ltd- 357 ITR 146 (Del) Further, the AO has not adverted to the dates of payment by Safeco Project (I)) Ltd. A portion of RS.7.65

BIOGENEX LIFE SCIENCES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 68/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.AFor Respondent: : Smt. M. Narmada, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 92C

section 234B of the Act while passing the Final Assessment Order dated 27.01.2022 11. The Ld. AO/TPO/DRP erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 270(A) of the Income Tax Act. 12. The appellant may add, alter or modify any other point to the Grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal

DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. RA CHEM PHARMA LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 49/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Shri R. Mohan Reddy
Section 143(3)

section 35DD refers to amortization of expenses in case of amalgamation or demerger. Whereas in the instant case the amortised expenditure was incurred towards research and development therefore the same cannot be allowed either under Sec.350 or 3500. (b) The expenditure does not pertain to the previous year 2009-10, therefore the same cannot be allowed

RA CHEM PHARMA LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-3(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 65/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Shri R. Mohan Reddy
Section 143(3)

section 35DD refers to amortization of expenses in case of amalgamation or demerger. Whereas in the instant case the amortised expenditure was incurred towards research and development therefore the same cannot be allowed either under Sec.350 or 3500. (b) The expenditure does not pertain to the previous year 2009-10, therefore the same cannot be allowed

DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. RA CHEM PHARMA LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 48/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Shri R. Mohan Reddy
Section 143(3)

section 35DD refers to amortization of expenses in case of amalgamation or demerger. Whereas in the instant case the amortised expenditure was incurred towards research and development therefore the same cannot be allowed either under Sec.350 or 3500. (b) The expenditure does not pertain to the previous year 2009-10, therefore the same cannot be allowed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. MAGNA HOMES, HYDERABAD

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

ITA 327/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaassessment Year: 2018-19 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Magna Homes, Hyderabad. Income Tax, Central Circle 3(1), Pan : Aapfg5917K Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ravi Bharadwaj Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr.D.R. Date Of Hearing: 08.01.2025 11.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement:

For Appellant: Shri Ravi BharadwajFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr.D.R
Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148A

section 148A(b) was issued to the appellant on 16.03.2022 and in response, the appellant has 3 ITA 327/Hyd/2024 not furnished any information. Order u/s. 148A(d) was passed with the prior approval of the specified authority. Accordingly, notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued to the appellant on 30.03.2022. However, the appellant has not filed any return

M/S HIL LIMITED(FORMERLY KNOWN AS HYDERABAD INDUSTRIES LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs. ADDL.CIT, RANGE-2, , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the A

ITA 1701/HYD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Nov 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri A.V.Raghu Ram, ARFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 40

depreciation 13,57,000 4. The first issue in appeal for the A.Y.2009-10 is the disallowance of sales incentive to stockists on the ground that the assessee had not deducted the tax at source as required u/s.194H of the Act. The AO treated discounts given to stockists as commission and applied the provisions of Section

M/S HIL LIMITED(FORMERLY KNOWN AS HYDERABAD INDUSTRIES LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs. ADDL.CIT, RANGE-2, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the A

ITA 1702/HYD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri A.V.Raghu Ram, ARFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 40

depreciation 13,57,000 4. The first issue in appeal for the A.Y.2009-10 is the disallowance of sales incentive to stockists on the ground that the assessee had not deducted the tax at source as required u/s.194H of the Act. The AO treated discounts given to stockists as commission and applied the provisions of Section

M/S HIL LIMITED(FORMERLY KNOWN AS HYDERABAD INDUSTRIES LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs. ADDL.CIT, RANGE-2, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the A

ITA 1703/HYD/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Nov 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri A.V.Raghu Ram, ARFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 40

depreciation 13,57,000 4. The first issue in appeal for the A.Y.2009-10 is the disallowance of sales incentive to stockists on the ground that the assessee had not deducted the tax at source as required u/s.194H of the Act. The AO treated discounts given to stockists as commission and applied the provisions of Section

HIL LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the A

ITA 647/HYD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri A.V.Raghu Ram, ARFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 40

depreciation 13,57,000 4. The first issue in appeal for the A.Y.2009-10 is the disallowance of sales incentive to stockists on the ground that the assessee had not deducted the tax at source as required u/s.194H of the Act. The AO treated discounts given to stockists as commission and applied the provisions of Section

HIL LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the A

ITA 555/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri A.V.Raghu Ram, ARFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 40

depreciation 13,57,000 4. The first issue in appeal for the A.Y.2009-10 is the disallowance of sales incentive to stockists on the ground that the assessee had not deducted the tax at source as required u/s.194H of the Act. The AO treated discounts given to stockists as commission and applied the provisions of Section

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

depreciation of earlier assessment years. 9. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO is not justified in considering short credit of TDS to the tune of Rs. 30,211/- without assigning any reasons therefor. 10. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the grounds during the course of hearing.” 2. Brief