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.

25 results for “depreciation”+ Section 224clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi368Mumbai273Bangalore113Raipur82Chennai75Ahmedabad57Kolkata43Jaipur39Cochin37Chandigarh27Surat25Hyderabad25Pune19Cuttack18Lucknow17Guwahati13Amritsar12SC7Nagpur7Ranchi5Visakhapatnam3Indore3Jodhpur2Karnataka2Rajkot2Kerala1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Allahabad1Telangana1Agra1

Key Topics

Section 14A39Section 143(3)24Section 26321Section 115J20Addition to Income16Section 80I14Depreciation11Disallowance9Section 153A8Section 56(2)(vii)

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

224 has clearly held that, the expenditure incurred for development of toll road on BOT basis is not an intangible asset and the assessee cannot claim depreciation as per Section

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: Disposed

Showing 1–20 of 25 · Page 1 of 2

5
Section 143(2)5
Deduction5
ITAT Hyderabad
03 Jul 2019
AY 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)

section Page 4 of 25 ITA Nos 1729 2145 and 2146 of 2018 Mokama Munger Highway Ltd Hyderabad. 32(1)(ii) of the Act and hence the assessee is eligible to claim depreciation on such asset at the specified rate. 6. The learned Counsel further placed reliance upon the following other decisions in support of its claim: i) Ashoka Infrastructure

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)

section Page 4 of 25 ITA Nos 1729 2145 and 2146 of 2018 Mokama Munger Highway Ltd Hyderabad. 32(1)(ii) of the Act and hence the assessee is eligible to claim depreciation on such asset at the specified rate. 6. The learned Counsel further placed reliance upon the following other decisions in support of its claim: i) Ashoka Infrastructure

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)

section Page 4 of 25 ITA Nos 1729 2145 and 2146 of 2018 Mokama Munger Highway Ltd Hyderabad. 32(1)(ii) of the Act and hence the assessee is eligible to claim depreciation on such asset at the specified rate. 6. The learned Counsel further placed reliance upon the following other decisions in support of its claim: i) Ashoka Infrastructure

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD vs. MYLAN LABORATORIES LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 12/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

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

For Respondent: Sh. YVST Sai, D.R
Section 251Section 28Section 32Section 32(1)Section 37(1)Section 43(1)Section 68

section 32 of the Act cannot be used to prescribe the value at which the asset is recorded for the purpose of claiming depreciation. He therefore, prayed that the depreciation claim by the assessee in ITR should be allowed in full. 13. The ld. DR, on the other hand, supported the orders of authorities below and submitted that the assessee

MYLAN LABORATORIES LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2335/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

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

For Respondent: Sh. YVST Sai, D.R
Section 251Section 28Section 32Section 32(1)Section 37(1)Section 43(1)Section 68

section 32 of the Act cannot be used to prescribe the value at which the asset is recorded for the purpose of claiming depreciation. He therefore, prayed that the depreciation claim by the assessee in ITR should be allowed in full. 13. The ld. DR, on the other hand, supported the orders of authorities below and submitted that the assessee

PATNA BAKHTIYARPUR TOLLWAY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee dismissed

ITA 182/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon’Bleassessment Year – 2017-18 Patna Bakhtiyarpur Tollway Vs. Acit Circle-16(2) Limited Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan : Aafcp9577K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri S.Rama Rao, Ar Revenue By: Ms.K.Haritha, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.12.2024 31.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement:

For Appellant: Shri S.Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Ms.K.Haritha, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32

section 263, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Depreciation - Allowability/Rates of (Toll road) - Assessment year 2005-06 - Where assessee, engaged in business of infrastructure development, in execution of an agreement with National Highway 5 Authority, constructed a road on Build, Operate and Transfer (BOT) basis on land owned by Government, could not claim depreciation on toll road so constructed

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD vs. NSL RENEWABLE POWER PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 165/HYD/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Aliasgar RampurwalaFor Respondent: Shri P. Chandra Sekhar
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 80I

depreciation. The Assessing Officer considered the revised claim of the Assessee under Section 80-IA and determined the amount eligible for deduction under Section 80-IA at Rs. 492,78,60,973/- against the NSL Renewable Power Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. Assessee’s claim of Rs. 546,26,01,224

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD vs. NSL RENEWABLE POWER PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 166/HYD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Aliasgar RampurwalaFor Respondent: Shri P. Chandra Sekhar
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 80I

depreciation. The Assessing Officer considered the revised claim of the Assessee under Section 80-IA and determined the amount eligible for deduction under Section 80-IA at Rs. 492,78,60,973/- against the NSL Renewable Power Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. Assessee’s claim of Rs. 546,26,01,224

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)

224 of the I.T. Act. According to him, since the Assessing Officer has passed the order without making any enquiry which should have been made or the order is passed allowing a relief without enquiry, the order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and therefore, he set aside the order

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)

224 of the I.T. Act. According to him, since the Assessing Officer has passed the order without making any enquiry which should have been made or the order is passed allowing a relief without enquiry, the order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and therefore, he set aside the order

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)

224 of the I.T. Act. According to him, since the Assessing Officer has passed the order without making any enquiry which should have been made or the order is passed allowing a relief without enquiry, the order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and therefore, he set aside the order

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)

224 of the I.T. Act. According to him, since the Assessing Officer has passed the order without making any enquiry which should have been made or the order is passed allowing a relief without enquiry, the order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and therefore, he set aside the order

CLONZ BIOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-1(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 636/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaassessment Year: 2017-18 Clonz Biotech Private Limited, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 1(4), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aadcc7742B. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri Srikanth Reddy, Y. Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing: 06.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.11.2024

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Srikanth Reddy, Y. Sr.AR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

depreciation, thus demonstrating a heedless manner of assessment and appeal. 5. The Assessing Officer misguided himself in calculating fair value due to a non-constructive reading of the provisions of Section 56(2)(viib) along with Rule 11UA.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of manufacturing of Bio-Pharmaceuticals

PATHFINDER PUBLISHING PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE -16(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 39/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Ms. TH Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)

depreciation; (iv) any amount representing provision for taxation, other than amount of tax paid as deduction or collection at source or as advance tax payment as reduced by the amount of tax claimed as refund under the Income tax Act, to the extent of the excess over the tax payable with reference to the books profits in accordance with

M/S. SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF ANDHRA PRADESH LTD.,,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, HYDERABAD

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

ITA 1460/HYD/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanm/S. Southern Power Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Distribution Company Of Tax, Circle 2(1) Andhra Pradesh Ltd Tirupati Tirupati 517 503 Pan: Aahcs 4056 Q Dy. Commissioner Of Vs M/S. Southern Power Distribution Income Tax, Company Of Andhra Pradesh Ltd Circle 2(1) Tirupati 517 503 Tirupati Pan: Aahcs 4056 Q

For Appellant: Shri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Smt. U. Mini Chandran, DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)

224/- were the amounts of depreciation claimed on assets generated out of the capital contributions/subsidy and had been credited to the P&L account since the P&L account had been debited by gross depreciation and not depreciation as per actual cost. Subsequently, while computing the income, gross depreciation was added back M/s Southern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), TIRUPATHI vs. M/S. SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF ANDHRA PRADESH LIMITED,, TIRUPATHI

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

ITA 1533/HYD/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Apr 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanm/S. Southern Power Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Distribution Company Of Tax, Circle 2(1) Andhra Pradesh Ltd Tirupati Tirupati 517 503 Pan: Aahcs 4056 Q Dy. Commissioner Of Vs M/S. Southern Power Distribution Income Tax, Company Of Andhra Pradesh Ltd Circle 2(1) Tirupati 517 503 Tirupati Pan: Aahcs 4056 Q

For Appellant: Shri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Smt. U. Mini Chandran, DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)

224/- were the amounts of depreciation claimed on assets generated out of the capital contributions/subsidy and had been credited to the P&L account since the P&L account had been debited by gross depreciation and not depreciation as per actual cost. Subsequently, while computing the income, gross depreciation was added back M/s Southern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh

ACIT., CIRCLE-1(1), TIRUPATI vs. SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF ANDHRA PRADESH LIMITED, TIRUPATI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 244/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.244/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 ) Acit Vs. Southern Power Circle 1(1) Distribution Company Of Tirupati Andhra Pradesh, Tirupati Pan:Aahcs4056Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: C.A Mohan Acharya राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Kumar Pranav, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 10/07/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 16/07/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: C.A Mohan AcharyaFor Respondent: : Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT(DR)
Section 43(1)

section (43), where a portion of the cost of asset acquired by the assessee has been met directly or indirectly by the central/state govts, in the form of subsidy or grant shall not be included in the actual cost of the asset to the assessee. Since the appellant has acquired the assets out of contribution received from consumers and subsidies

ITO, WARD-2(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. GOLD CHICK HATCHERIES AND FOOD LTD, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 668/HYD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Nov 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2011-12 Income-Tax Officer, Vs. M/S Gold Chick Hatcheries & Ward – 2(2), Hyderabad Foods Ltd., Hyderabad. Pan – Aabcg4056E Appellant Respondent Revenue By: Smt. Alka Rajavanshi Jain Assessee By: Shri Ramesh Babu Kilaru Date Of Hearing: 26/09/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: /11/2018 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh Babu KilaruFor Respondent: Smt. Alka Rajavanshi Jain
Section 115JSection 28Section 3(1)Section 4Section 41

depreciation loss of Rs. 5.19 crores (being lower than b/fd. Business loss) Later, the assessee has realized that its case falls under Clause (vii)" of Explanation (1) of Sec.115JB. Accordingly, it has filed revised return of income on 25-03- 2013 by deducting the above interest waived of Rs. 8,52,58,224/- for arriving at the book profit u/s.115JB

BIJJALA ESWARA RAO,KHAMMAM vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KHAMMAM

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 628/HYD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Sept 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. P.Madhavi Devi & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri T.Chaitanya Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.J.Prabhakar Anand, DR
Section 44A

section 44AD of the Act, 1961, which incorporates 8% being presumptive rate as the legislative intent, against income determined at 15% of gross receipts by the Assessing Officer. c) In the case of Commissioner of Income-tax II, Amritsar v. Earth Tech Engineers [2014] 224 TAXMAN 358/46 taxmann.com 287 (Punjab & Haryana) the Hon'ble High Court held that the gross