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.

140 results for “depreciation”+ Section 63clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,654Delhi1,423Bangalore519Chennai478Ahmedabad292Kolkata289Jaipur146Hyderabad140Chandigarh90Pune86Raipur67Indore64Surat47Karnataka42Ranchi39Lucknow39Cuttack38Visakhapatnam35SC28Cochin25Rajkot24Amritsar16Nagpur15Telangana12Dehradun11Guwahati11Allahabad9Agra6Patna6Jodhpur6Panaji4Calcutta3Punjab & Haryana2Rajasthan1Orissa1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1Kerala1Jabalpur1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)87Addition to Income72Section 14A53Deduction44Disallowance43Section 80I35Depreciation33Section 14826Section 36(1)(vii)25

VITP PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE8(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 573/HYD/2024[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Oct 2025
For Appellant: Advocates Percy Perdiwala andFor Respondent: : Shri Shahnawaz-ul-Rahman
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(3)Section 263Section 80Section 801A

63,187/- under\nsection 115JB of the Act. Subsequently, the assessee filed a revised\nreturn of income on 30.11.2018 declaring total income under the\nnormal provisions at Rs.Nil and book profit of Rs.53,48,03,873/-\nunder section 115JB of the Act. The case of the assessee was\nselected for scrutiny, and the assessment order under section\n143(3) r.w.s

Showing 1–20 of 140 · Page 1 of 7

Section 143(1)23
Section 14721
Transfer Pricing21

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?" 3. "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) was right and justified in following the directions of the ITAT in allowing the claim of cost of production of TV serials and programmes as revenue expenditure as against depreciation granted by AO treating

VITP PRIVATE LIMITED (IN THE CASE OF FLAGSHIP DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 572/HYD/2024[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 Jan 2025

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.572/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Vitp Private Ltd (In The Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Case Of Flagship Income Tax, Circle 8(1) Developers (P) (Ltd) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaccv2672G (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate Tanmayee Rajkumar राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Kumar Pranav, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 20/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 02/01/2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Advocate Tanmayee RajkumarFor Respondent: : Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263

63,39,415/- and hence, there was no discrepancy in the claim of the assessee on account of depreciation while computing the book profit. 13. We further note that in the return of income in case of VITP (P) Ltd, the depreciation and amortization as per entry No.44 of the return of income is shown at Rs.17

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD vs. EENADU TELEVISION PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

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

ITA 2244/HYD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri V. Siva KumarFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 251(1)

section 251(1) of the Act. 2. The ld.CIT(A) erred in treating the cost of production of TV serials and programmes as revenue expenditure. 3. The ld.CIT(A) erred in allowing depreciation @ 25% on ‘Film Software Library’ instead of 15% allowable on ‘Plant and Machinery’.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that assessee is a company engaged

VITP PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 574/HYD/2024[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood (Judicial Member), Shri Madhusudan Sawdia (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Advocates Percy Perdiwala and Mahima GoudFor Respondent: : Shri Shahnawaz-ul-Rahman
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 43(6)Section 80I

63,187/- under section 115JB of the Act. Subsequently, the assessee filed a revised return of income on 30.11.2018 declaring total income under the normal provisions at Rs.Nil and book profit of Rs.53,48,03,873/- under section 115JB of the Act. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny, and the assessment order under section 143(3) r.w.s

TELANGANA STATE POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1424/HYD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Jun 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2016-17 Telangana State Power Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Generation Corporation Income-Tax, Ltd., Hyderabad. Circle – 2(2), Hyderabad. Pan – Aafct 0257Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri M. Chandramouleswara Rao Revenue By: Shri Yvst Sai Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 17/03/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 14 /06/2021 O R D E R Per L.P. Sahu, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee For Ay 2016-17 Is Directed Against The Cit(A) - 2, Hyderabad’S Order, Dated 21/08/2019 Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ; In Short “The Act”.

For Appellant: Shri M. Chandramouleswara RaoFor Respondent: Shri YVST Sai CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32A

depreciation. It is referring to this position and provisions of section 32(l)(ii) only, the Courts in Damodar Valley Corporation and NTPC cases decided in the issue in favour of the assessee. 4.8 Now coming to section 32AC, as per Memorandum to Finance Act, 2013, this section was introduced as a measure to promote socio-economic growth. «Incentive

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)

section IOAA could not be denied for non-filing of the audit report in Form 56F along with the return of income even in the era of filing audit report in electronic format • GM. Knitting Industries (P) Ltd. (2015) (376 TTR 456), wherein the Apex court has allowed deduction u/s.80-1B and additional depreciation u/s 32 even though the taxpayer claiming

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1897/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri P.V.S.S. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 32

63, 26, 317/-under section 115 JB of the Act. Since the assessee entered into international transactions with Associated Enterprises (AEs), reference was made to the Learned Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) and pursuant to his order dated 30/10/2018, a draft assessment order was passed on 31/12/2018 making several adjustments/additions including the addition on account of disallowance of depreciation

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

63,34,479/-. Later a revised return was filed on 21.01.2019, admitting the loss of Rs.197,66,10,848/-. The case 4 was selected for scrutiny and the Assessing Officer issued notices u/s 142(1) and 143(2) of the Act, calling for certain details. In response, the assessee filed the details and the Assessing Officer completed the assessment

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

63,50,570/- was created and depreciation of Rs. 33,46,509/- was claimed on it. As per detailed discussions made in the assessment order, the Assessing Officer held that such an agreement was a colourable device to avoid the payment of taxes. As such the depreciation of Rs. 33,46,509/- claimed it on such intangible assets was disallowed

LANCO ENTERPRISE PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD (ERSTWHILE DCIT, CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA Nos. 236 & 237/Hyd/2023 are allowed for statistical purposes and ITA No

ITA 236/HYD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Smt. T.H Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 14A

section 14A r.w. rule 8D, the Assessing Officer made disallowance of Rs.1,29,522/-. 4. Similarly, on account of non-furnishing of details for addition to fixed assets, the Assessing Officer disallowed depreciation on Car claimed at Rs.4,63

LANCO ENTERPRISE PRIVATE LIMITED ,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD (ERSTWHILE DCIT, CIRCLE-16(1)), HYDERABAD ,, HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA Nos. 236 & 237/Hyd/2023 are allowed for statistical purposes and ITA No

ITA 238/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Smt. T.H Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 14A

section 14A r.w. rule 8D, the Assessing Officer made disallowance of Rs.1,29,522/-. 4. Similarly, on account of non-furnishing of details for addition to fixed assets, the Assessing Officer disallowed depreciation on Car claimed at Rs.4,63

LANCO ENTERPRISE PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD (ERSTWHILE DCIT, CIRCLE-16(1)), HYDERABAD ,, HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA Nos. 236 & 237/Hyd/2023 are allowed for statistical purposes and ITA No

ITA 237/HYD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Smt. T.H Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 14A

section 14A r.w. rule 8D, the Assessing Officer made disallowance of Rs.1,29,522/-. 4. Similarly, on account of non-furnishing of details for addition to fixed assets, the Assessing Officer disallowed depreciation on Car claimed at Rs.4,63

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. BHAGYANAGAR INDIA LTD., SEC-BAD, SECUNDERABAD

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

ITA 1080/HYD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Dec 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Sri S.S. Godaraa.Y. 2010-11 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Bhagyanagar India Circle-1(2), Ltd., Hyderabad. Secunderabad. Pan: Aaacb 8963 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sri K.C. Devdas Revenue By Sri Rohit Mujumdar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 20/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 16/12/2021 Order

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35DSection 35D(2)(c)Section 37

63,32,210/- is deductible under section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and accordingly, additional ground in ITA No. 1435/Hyd/2012 is allowed.” 7. However, on perusing the provisions of section 35D of the Act it is crystal clear that the assessee will not be entitled to claim deduction U/s. 35D of the Act because provisions of section

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee company is partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 457/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Us:

For Appellant: Sri PVSS Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Sri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 3Section 80Section 80I

63,125/- comprises of, viz. (i). interest on electricity deposit: Rs. 1,44,736/-; and (ii). interest on sales tax deposit: Rs. 18,389/-. It is stated that as the subject deposits were indispensably required to be made for obtaining GST license and electricity supply, therefore, the same being related to its business activity was eligible for deduction u/s 80IC

THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the S.As. filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1796/HYD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Jul 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Anil Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Ms. K. Haritha, CIT-DR
Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37

63 of 1951); (v) "State industrial investment corporation" means a Government company within the meaning of section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), engaged in the business of providing long-term finance for industrial projects and [eligible for deduction under clause (viii) of this sub-section];] [( vi) "co-operative bank", "primary agricultural credit society" and "primary

THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the S.As. filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 464/HYD/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Anil Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Ms. K. Haritha, CIT-DR
Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37

63 of 1951); (v) "State industrial investment corporation" means a Government company within the meaning of section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), engaged in the business of providing long-term finance for industrial projects and [eligible for deduction under clause (viii) of this sub-section];] [( vi) "co-operative bank", "primary agricultural credit society" and "primary

THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the S.As. filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 461/HYD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Anil Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Ms. K. Haritha, CIT-DR
Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37

63 of 1951); (v) "State industrial investment corporation" means a Government company within the meaning of section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), engaged in the business of providing long-term finance for industrial projects and [eligible for deduction under clause (viii) of this sub-section];] [( vi) "co-operative bank", "primary agricultural credit society" and "primary

THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the S.As. filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 463/HYD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Anil Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Ms. K. Haritha, CIT-DR
Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37

63 of 1951); (v) "State industrial investment corporation" means a Government company within the meaning of section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), engaged in the business of providing long-term finance for industrial projects and [eligible for deduction under clause (viii) of this sub-section];] [( vi) "co-operative bank", "primary agricultural credit society" and "primary

THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the S.As. filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 462/HYD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Anil Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Ms. K. Haritha, CIT-DR
Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37

63 of 1951); (v) "State industrial investment corporation" means a Government company within the meaning of section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), engaged in the business of providing long-term finance for industrial projects and [eligible for deduction under clause (viii) of this sub-section];] [( vi) "co-operative bank", "primary agricultural credit society" and "primary