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.

245 results for “depreciation”+ Section 38clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,140Delhi2,040Bangalore829Chennai599Ahmedabad570Kolkata433Jaipur254Hyderabad245Pune203Chandigarh156Raipur143Indore110Cochin98Visakhapatnam98Surat93Cuttack80Karnataka78Amritsar72Ranchi47Lucknow47Rajkot45Nagpur41Jodhpur30SC26Guwahati24Telangana23Dehradun17Allahabad16Kerala16Patna15Agra14Panaji9Calcutta7Varanasi7Jabalpur6Rajasthan2D.K. JAIN H.L. DATTU JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1Orissa1Gauhati1Tripura1

Key Topics

Addition to Income84Section 143(3)65Section 10A53Deduction50Depreciation39Search & Seizure39Section 13237Section 37(1)36Disallowance36

REPAL GREEN POWER PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE -3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 474/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.125/Hyd/2022 Assessment Year 2017-2018 Repal Green Power Private Limited, The Dcit, Circle-8(1), Vs. Hyderabad. Hyderabad – 500 081 Pan Aahcr2187F (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.474/Hyd/2022 Assessment Year 2018-2019 Repal Green Power Private Limited, The Dcit, Circle-3(1), Vs. Hyderabad. Hyderabad – 500 081 Pan Aahcr2187F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Sri Harsh R Shah, Advocate & Ca Karan Jain राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri Harsh R Shah, Advocate &For Respondent: MS U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 234Section 234DSection 270ASection 32Section 32A

depreciation disallowed in the previous year. 7 ITA.Nos.125 & 474/Hyd./2022 Investment allowance under Section 32AD 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. AO, under the direction of the Hon'ble DRP, erred in not appreciating that the Appellant ought to be granted investment allowance as per Section 32AD of the Act. Initiation

Showing 1–20 of 245 · Page 1 of 13

...
Section 153A27
Section 8025
Section 234A24

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. HINDUJA NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is allowed

ITA 235/HYD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.235/Hyd/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) The Assistant M/S. Hinduja National Power Commissioner Of Income Vs. Corporation Ltd. Tax, Circle 2(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aabch2426D अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri K. A. Sai Prasad, C.A. रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri B. Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr.

For Appellant: Shri K. A. Sai Prasad, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 32ASection 92C

depreciation at the enhanced rate of 35% under the proviso to Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. 36 Hinduja National Power Corporation Ltd. 21. The next issue came for our consideration is deduction claimed u/s 32AC and 32AD. The bare reading of the provisions reproduced herein above make it abundantly clear that the language used in Section 32AC

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

Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Accordingly, the assessee has claimed depreciation on the said intangible asset. The A.O., after considering the relevant facts, has rightly accepted the explanation of the assessee and completed the assessment, and therefore, the assessment order passed by the A.O. cannot be 15 BSCPL Aurang Tollway Limited considered as erroneous insofar

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

38) of the General Clauses Act also includes an offence under the law of another country beyond India. In that ease, the Supreme Court has considered the difference between the expressions "an existing law" and "a law in force" as used in Section 94(3) of the Government of India Act, 1935 and Article 372 of the Constitution respectively

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

38) of the General Clauses Act also includes an offence under the law of another country beyond India. In that ease, the Supreme Court has considered the difference between the expressions "an existing law" and "a law in force" as used in Section 94(3) of the Government of India Act, 1935 and Article 372 of the Constitution respectively

MANJU DUDALA,HYDERABAD. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(3), HYDERABAD.

In the result, appeal ITA

ITA 665/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri V. Siva Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer disallowed the entire revenue expenditure debited in the P & L A/c and has allowed 25% of depreciation on the said expenditure and balance amount of Rs.106,95,46,203/- has been disallowed and added back to the total income of the appellant company. 15. On appeal, the learned

DCIT., CIRCLE 8(1), HYDERABAD vs. EAST INDIA PETROLEUM LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1087/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narsimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1087/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. East India Petroleum Income Tax Limited Circle-8(1)(Incharge) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aaace4494K] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri H.Srinivasulu, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Ms.M.Narmada, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/01/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 06/02/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against Order Dated 19.08.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [“Ld.Cit(A)”], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Pertaining To A.Y.2018-19. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, Engaged In The Business Of Providing Terminalling Services To Oil Marketing Companies For Storage Of Bulk Liquid Products Including Fuels Like High Speed Diesel, Motor Spirit, Petroleum

For Appellant: Shri H.Srinivasulu, ARFor Respondent: Ms.M.Narmada, CIT-DR
Section 32

38,15,690/-. The company, by name, M/s Rushikonda Petroleum Projects Private Limited (“M/s RPPPL”), having similar objects had been amalgamated with the assessee company w.e.f.01.04.2017, by virtue of an order of National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Hyderabad, vide order dated 11.01.2019 and as per the said order, the appointed date was from 01.04.2017 and by which, all the assets

INVESCO(INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -2 (1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 111/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA, Sriram SeshadriFor Respondent: Shri B Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. In this regard he relied upon decision of ITAT, Hyderabad Bench in the case of S & P Capital IQ (India) (P.) Ltd., vs., ACIT [2024] 205 ITD 217 (Hyderabad-Trib.) and decision of ITAT, Mumbai Bench, Mumbai in the case of Disney Broadcasting (India) (P.) Ltd., vs., PCIT [2024] 163 taxment.com 40 (Mumbai

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. KMC CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 692/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, CIT-DR
Section 80

depreciation as all other Page 4 of 19 M/s. KMC Constructions Ltd., batch deductions deemed to have been allowed under section 30 to 38

KMC CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 636/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, CIT-DR
Section 80

depreciation as all other Page 4 of 19 M/s. KMC Constructions Ltd., batch deductions deemed to have been allowed under section 30 to 38

KMC CONSTRUCTIONAL LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 635/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, CIT-DR
Section 80

depreciation as all other Page 4 of 19 M/s. KMC Constructions Ltd., batch deductions deemed to have been allowed under section 30 to 38

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. KMC CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1075/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, CIT-DR
Section 80

depreciation as all other Page 4 of 19 M/s. KMC Constructions Ltd., batch deductions deemed to have been allowed under section 30 to 38

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. KMC CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 693/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, CIT-DR
Section 80

depreciation as all other Page 4 of 19 M/s. KMC Constructions Ltd., batch deductions deemed to have been allowed under section 30 to 38

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. KMC CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 33/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, CIT-DR
Section 80

depreciation as all other Page 4 of 19 M/s. KMC Constructions Ltd., batch deductions deemed to have been allowed under section 30 to 38

SHAIK SHAKEER AHAMED. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2 (1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. KMC CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 735/HYD/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, CIT-DR
Section 80

depreciation as all other Page 4 of 19 M/s. KMC Constructions Ltd., batch deductions deemed to have been allowed under section 30 to 38

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)

38) of section 10 or] section 10A or section 10B or section 10BA86[or section 54 or section 54B or section 54D or section 54EC or section 54F or section 54G or section 54GA or section 54GB] or Chapter VI-A exceeded the maximum amount which is not chargeable to income-tax, shall, on or before the due date, furnish

DCIT., CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. SARVEJANA HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No 1511/Hyd/2025 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1511/HYD/2025[2020]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Apr 2026

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1406 & 1511/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 & 2020-21) Dy. Cit Vs. Sarvejana Healthcare Circle 3(1) Private Limited, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aamcs6700Q राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Smt.U.Mini Chandran,Cit(Dr) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: C.A. Satya Dinakar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 24/03/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 08/04/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

For Appellant: C.A. Satya DinakarFor Respondent: Smt.U.Mini Chandran,CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69A

depreciation on goodwill, Rs.50,38,59,200/- as income from other sources under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act and Rs.65

DCIT., CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. SARVEJANA HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD., HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No 1511/Hyd/2025 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1406/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Apr 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1406 & 1511/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 & 2020-21) Dy. Cit Vs. Sarvejana Healthcare Circle 3(1) Private Limited, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aamcs6700Q राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Smt.U.Mini Chandran,Cit(Dr) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: C.A. Satya Dinakar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 24/03/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 08/04/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

For Appellant: C.A. Satya DinakarFor Respondent: Smt.U.Mini Chandran,CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69A

depreciation on goodwill, Rs.50,38,59,200/- as income from other sources under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act and Rs.65

SHAKTI HORMANN PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SHAKTI MET DOR LTD), HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ADDL.CIT, RANGE-3, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 892/HYD/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Aug 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year:2006-07

For Appellant: Sri P. Murali Mohana RaoFor Respondent: Smt Amisha S. Gupt, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 32

depreciation of Rs. 17,38,711/-. On appeal, the Ld. CIT (A) confirmed the order of the Ld. AO by agreeing with his view. 11. At the outset, we do not find any merit in the orders of the Ld. Revenue Authorities on this issue as well. The provisions of section

SINGARENI COLLIERIES COMPANY LIMITED,KOTHAGUDEM vs. ACIT., CIRCLE- 1, KHAMMAM

In the result, assessee’s appeals for the A

ITA 283/HYD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.283, 284 & 286/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21) Singareni Collieries Vs. Acit, Circle – 1 Company Limited Khammam & Kothagudem Acit, Circle 13(1) Pan:Aaact8873F Hyderabad & आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.300, 301 & 308/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21) Vs. Singareni Collieries Dy. Cit, Circle 13(1) Company Limited Hyderabad Kothagudem Pan:Aaact8873F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V.Anil Kumar, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B Balakrishna, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 10/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/06/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench: These 3 Sets Of Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Are Directed Against The 3 Separate Orders All Dated 30/01/2024 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, For The A.Ys 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21 Respectively. The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Have Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeals For 3 A.Ys:

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Anil Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri B Balakrishna, CIT (DR)
Section 40A(9)

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