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.

5 results for “depreciation”+ Section 80Gclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai192Delhi142Bangalore75Chennai71Kolkata39Ahmedabad37Lucknow17Jaipur16Pune11Rajkot10Indore9Chandigarh8Hyderabad5SC3Visakhapatnam2Cochin2Jodhpur2Raipur2Surat2Telangana1Guwahati1Cuttack1Agra1Nagpur1Karnataka1

Key Topics

Section 80G9Section 143(3)7Section 14A6Section 801A6Section 115Section 684Section 92C4Section 11(5)4Transfer Pricing3Deduction

ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. PENNA CEMENT INDUSTRIES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

ITA 1084/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jan 2026AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Sourabh Soparkar, Advocate Represented by Department : Dr. Narendra Kumar NFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR Date of Conclusion of Hearing : 11/11/2025
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 14ASection 68Section 80Section 801ASection 80GSection 92C

depreciation from an eligible unit were set off against other income in previous years, they should not be reopened or notionally carried forward again to reduce the Section 801A deduction in the chosen initial assessment year. We find that the “SLP” filed by the revenue against the aforesaid order of the Hon'ble High Court had been dismissed

3
Addition to Income3
Disallowance2

ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. PENNA CEMENT INDUSTRIES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

ITA 1083/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jan 2026AY 2017-18
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 14ASection 68Section 80Section 801ASection 80GSection 92C

depreciation from an eligible unit were\nset off against other income in previous years, they should not be\nreopened or notionally carried forward again to reduce the Section 801A\ndeduction in the chosen initial assessment year. We find that the “SLP”\nfiled by the revenue against the aforesaid order of the Hon'ble High\nCourt had been dismissed

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

80G or section 80GGA\n45[or section 80GGC] or section 80HH or section 80HHA or section 80HHB or\nsection 80HHC or section 80HHD or section 80-1 or section 80-IA 46[or section\n80-IB] 47[or section 80-IC] 49[or section 80-ID or section 80-IE] or section 80J or\nsection 80JJ50, no deduction under

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)

depreciation of INR 35,30,75,403 under section 32 of the Act in respect of goodwill arising on amalgamation and recognized in the books as per the Hon'ble NCLT order sanctioning the amalgamation. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in disallowing INR 42.97.430 under section

NATIONAL ACADEMY OF CONSTRUCTION,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD

Appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 445/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S.Godara

For Appellant: Shri C.S.Subramanyam, ARFor Respondent: Shri T.Sunil Goutam, DR
Section 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 80G

depreciation for assets acquired in earlier years since the capital expenditure was not allowed by Revenue during assessments completed. The learned Assessing Officer erred in granting lesser credit for TDS compared to the claim in the return of income. The Appellant craves leave to, add to, amend to or modify the above grounds of appeal either before or during