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.

18 results for “depreciation”+ Section 234Cclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai379Delhi360Bangalore170Ahmedabad72Kolkata53Chennai44Jaipur41Hyderabad18Raipur18Lucknow13Indore10Pune8Dehradun7Visakhapatnam5Chandigarh4Agra3Nagpur3Surat3Jodhpur2Rajkot2SC2Karnataka2Telangana2Amritsar1Panaji1Cochin1Punjab & Haryana1Calcutta1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)17Section 14A15Section 80I9Section 1488Disallowance8Transfer Pricing8Comparables/TP8Deduction7Section 194A6TP Method

ACIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. USHODAYA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

ITA 1782/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Mar 2026AY 2018-19
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)

depreciation and financial expenses.\n11. 9. In both the assessment orders, the Assessing Officer held that the respondent-assessee had not commenced business activities as they had not undertaken any manufacturing activity or made downstream investments. It was observed that the respondent- assessee, after receiving approval of Foreign Investment Promotion Soard (FIPS) dated 20.12.2000 acquired shares capital of Ambuja Cement

ACIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. USHODAYA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

ITA 1781/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad
5
Section 144C(13)4
Section 143(2)3
13 Mar 2026
AY 2017-18
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

depreciation and financial expenses.\n11. 9. In both the assessment orders, the Assessing Officer held that the\nrespondent-assessee had not commenced business activities as they had not\nundertaken any manufacturing activity or made downstream investments. It\nwas observed that the respondent- assessee, after receiving approval of\nForeign Investment Promotion Soard (FIPS) dated 20.12.2000 acquired shares\ncapital of Ambuja Cement

GAINSIGHT SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERSABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our observations given hereinabove

ITA 796/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 92D

234C On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in levying interest under section 234B/234C of the Act. 11. Penalty Proceedings On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. TPO / Ld. AO / Ld. DRP have erred in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 270A and 271AA, without considering

ZUARI CEMENT LIMITED,KADAPA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), KADAPA

Accordingly, this issue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 182/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra and Shri Nitin Narang, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

section 43A of the Income Tax Act. The assessee is directed to provide all the information required by the Assessing Officer and after considering all the documents / evidence, the Assessing Officer shall decide the issue in accordance with the law after following due process of law. Accordingly, these grounds are allowed for statistical purposes. GROUND NOS.15

ZUARI CEMENT LIMITED, KADAPA,KADAPA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, KADAPA, KADAPA

Accordingly, this issue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 616/HYD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra and Shri Nitin Narang, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

section 43A of the Income Tax Act. The assessee is directed to provide all the information required by the Assessing Officer and after considering all the documents / evidence, the Assessing Officer shall decide the issue in accordance with the law after following due process of law. Accordingly, these grounds are allowed for statistical purposes. GROUND NOS.15

ZUARI CEMENT LIMITED,KADAPA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KADAPA

Accordingly, this issue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 66/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra and Shri Nitin Narang, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

section 43A of the Income Tax Act. The assessee is directed to provide all the information required by the Assessing Officer and after considering all the documents / evidence, the Assessing Officer shall decide the issue in accordance with the law after following due process of law. Accordingly, these grounds are allowed for statistical purposes. GROUND NOS.15

ZUARI CEMENT LIMITED ,KADAPA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KADAPA

Accordingly, this issue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2169/HYD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra and Shri Nitin Narang, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

section 43A of the Income Tax Act. The assessee is directed to provide all the information required by the Assessing Officer and after considering all the documents / evidence, the Assessing Officer shall decide the issue in accordance with the law after following due process of law. Accordingly, these grounds are allowed for statistical purposes. GROUND NOS.15

ZUARI CEMENT LIMITED, KADAPA,KADAPA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, KADAPA, KADAPA

Accordingly, this issue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 254/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra and Shri Nitin Narang, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

section 43A of the Income Tax Act. The assessee is directed to provide all the information required by the Assessing Officer and after considering all the documents / evidence, the Assessing Officer shall decide the issue in accordance with the law after following due process of law. Accordingly, these grounds are allowed for statistical purposes. GROUND NOS.15

FUSION LASTEK TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE 8(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 1094/HYD/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 May 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Us:

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234CSection 48

234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 under the facts and circumstance of the case. 6. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or substitute any of the grounds urged above. 7. In view of the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of the hearing of the appeal, the appellant prays that the appeal

TEK SYSTEMS GLOBAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERBAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERBAD

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

ITA 487/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.487/Hyd/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Tek Systems Global Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Services (P) Ltd, Circle 2(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aabcf1518Q (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Ms. K. Amulya, Ca रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 29/05/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 05/07/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Ms. K. Amulya, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 270A

234C of the Act instead of INR 469,720. 14. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in levying penalty under section 270A of the Act by wrongly alleging that there is under reporting of income by the Appellant. 15. The appellant prays that directions be given to grant

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

234C of the Act, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 11. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or substitute any of the grounds urged above. 12. In the view of the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of the hearing of the appeal, the Appellant prays that the appeal

THE SINGARENI COLLIERIES COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals under consideration are allowed in above terms

ITA 2189/HYD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 May 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Anil KumarFor Respondent: Shri R. Dipak
Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 200Section 201Section 276BSection 40

section and Circulars, it is clear that the assessee is not responsible for deducting tax deduction at source and assessee is also not sure that when the amount shall be paid to the actual recipients/pattadars. In our considered opinion, the addition made in this regard is not sustainable in the eyes of law and, therefore, the addition is deleted. Accordingly

THE SINGARENI COLLIERIES COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KHAMMAM

In the result, both the appeals under consideration are allowed in above terms

ITA 2188/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 May 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Anil KumarFor Respondent: Shri R. Dipak
Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 200Section 201Section 276BSection 40

section and Circulars, it is clear that the assessee is not responsible for deducting tax deduction at source and assessee is also not sure that when the amount shall be paid to the actual recipients/pattadars. In our considered opinion, the addition made in this regard is not sustainable in the eyes of law and, therefore, the addition is deleted. Accordingly

MADHUCON PROJECTS LTD, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYD, HYDERABAD

ITA 1326/HYD/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 Mar 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya
Section 132Section 153ASection 254(2)Section 801ASection 80I

depreciation once the income is estimated and also held in earlier paras of this Madhucon Projects Limited, Hyderabad. order that the orders passed by the Assessing Officer/CIT(A) consequent to orders of the CIT u/s. 263 have become infructuous, these orders passed by the CIT(A) rectifying the orders passed u/s. 250 of the Act also no more survive. Accordingly

MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

ITA 1938/HYD/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 Mar 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya
Section 132Section 153ASection 254(2)Section 801ASection 80I

depreciation once the income is estimated and also held in earlier paras of this Madhucon Projects Limited, Hyderabad. order that the orders passed by the Assessing Officer/CIT(A) consequent to orders of the CIT u/s. 263 have become infructuous, these orders passed by the CIT(A) rectifying the orders passed u/s. 250 of the Act also no more survive. Accordingly

MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

ITA 1937/HYD/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 Mar 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya
Section 132Section 153ASection 254(2)Section 801ASection 80I

depreciation once the income is estimated and also held in earlier paras of this Madhucon Projects Limited, Hyderabad. order that the orders passed by the Assessing Officer/CIT(A) consequent to orders of the CIT u/s. 263 have become infructuous, these orders passed by the CIT(A) rectifying the orders passed u/s. 250 of the Act also no more survive. Accordingly

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

234C of\nthe Act amounting to Rs.3,82,808 and the same is consequential to the\nabove grounds.\n16. Levy of penalty under section 271AA and 271BA of the Act\nInitiating penalty proceedings under section 271AA and 271BA of the\nAct.\"\n3. The assessee has raised the additional grounds as under :\n“10(c)(a). Choice

CDK GLOBAL (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 1405/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godara(Through Video Conference) M/S. Cdk Global (India) Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad. Pan Aagcr 9879K …..Appellant. Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1(2), Hyderabad. …..Respondent. Appellant By : Shri H. Srinivasulu. (A.R.) Respondent By : Shri Ashok Kardam. (D.R.) Date Of Hearing : 30.09.2021. Date Of Pronouncement : 28.10.2021. O R D E R Per Shri S.S. Godara, J.M. : This Assessee’S Appeal For Asst. Year 2015-16 Arises From The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Hyderabad’S Order Dt.12.07.2019 Passed In Case No.10072/2018-19/Dcit 1(2)/Cit(A)-1/Hyd / 2019-20 In 2 Proceedings Under Section 143(3) Of Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’).

For Appellant: Shri H. Srinivasulu. (A.R.)For Respondent: Shri Ashok Kardam. (D.R.)
Section 143(3)Section 234CSection 92C

Section 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. Coming to the assessee's first and foremost six substantive grounds seeking to challenge correctness of both the lower authorities’ action disallowance depreciation on goodwill involving an amount of Rs.202,51,54,355 being in the nature of an internally generated asset