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.

9 results for “depreciation”+ Section 80G(5)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai180Delhi131Bangalore72Chennai70Ahmedabad56Pune34Kolkata33Jaipur15Lucknow15Chandigarh10Hyderabad9Indore8Cuttack7Ranchi6Amritsar5Rajkot4Visakhapatnam4SC3Cochin3Jodhpur2Raipur2Surat2Karnataka1Agra1Guwahati1Telangana1Nagpur1

Key Topics

Section 80I22Section 80G15Section 3212Depreciation8Section 143(3)7Disallowance6Section 115Section 11(5)4Section 2634Section 40A(3)

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

ITA 573/HYD/2024[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.573 & 574/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Vitp Private Limited Vs. Dy. Cit Hyderabad Circle 8 (1) Pan:Aaccv2672G Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वारा / Assessee By: Advocates Percy Perdiwala & Mahima Goud राजस्व द्वारा / Revenue By:: Shri Shahnawaz-Ul-Rahman, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 23/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Pronouncement: 08/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: These Two Appeals Are Filed By Vitp Private Limited (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-2, Hyderabad, (“Ld.Pcit”), Dated 30/03/2024 For The A.Y.2017-18. As Both The Appeals Are Interrelated & Belongs To The Same, Both Are Heard Together & One Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Brevity.

For Appellant: Advocates Percy Perdiwala andFor Respondent: : Shri Shahnawaz-ul-Rahman
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(3)Section 263Section 80Section 801A
4
Deduction3
Reassessment2

depreciation under Section 32 of the Act and consequently under-statement of taxable income by the Company for the subject AY as contested by your goodself in the aforesaid notice issued under Section 263 of the Act for the subject AY. Accordingly, the revision proceedings initiated by your goodself due to the aforesaid issue

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

5) in earlier year. The learned Assessing Officer erred in concluding that the assessee was not pursuing the main object of education u/ s 2(15). The learned Assessing Officer ought to have considered that the assessee does not fall under last limb of Section 2(15), viz., any other object of general public utility, since all the education activities

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

DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(3),, HYDERABAD vs. M/S VISAKA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,, SECUNDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 860/HYD/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Jul 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2006-07 Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Vs. M/S Visaka Industries Ltd., Tax, Circle – 3(3), Hyderabad. Secunderabad. Pan – Aaacv 7263 K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S Visaka Industries Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Secunderabad. Tax, Circle – 3(3), Hyderabad. Pan – Aaacv 7263 K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri M.V, AnilkumarFor Respondent: Shri M. Naveen
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80GSection 80ISection 80l

80G 2,08,094 Eligible profits for deduction u/s 80IB 5,79,10,397 Accordingly, he noted that the deduction allowable is 30% of eligible profits which is worked out at Rs. 1,73,73,119/- (30% of 5,79,10,397), hence, the excess claim of deduction u/s 80IB of Rs. 85,79,135/- was disallowed

M/S VISAKA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,SECUNDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(3),, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 811/HYD/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Jul 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2006-07 Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Vs. M/S Visaka Industries Ltd., Tax, Circle – 3(3), Hyderabad. Secunderabad. Pan – Aaacv 7263 K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S Visaka Industries Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Secunderabad. Tax, Circle – 3(3), Hyderabad. Pan – Aaacv 7263 K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri M.V, AnilkumarFor Respondent: Shri M. Naveen
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80GSection 80ISection 80l

80G 2,08,094 Eligible profits for deduction u/s 80IB 5,79,10,397 Accordingly, he noted that the deduction allowable is 30% of eligible profits which is worked out at Rs. 1,73,73,119/- (30% of 5,79,10,397), hence, the excess claim of deduction u/s 80IB of Rs. 85,79,135/- was disallowed

RITHWIK PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed and both the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 637/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Nilanjan Dey, DR
Section 32Section 35Section 37Section 40A(3)Section 80G

80G of the Act. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance of Rs. 10,12,460/- made u/s 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that payments were made to the workers / coolies at the venue of Koteswar site where no bank facility is available and where

DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. RITHWIK PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed and both the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 658/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Nilanjan Dey, DR
Section 32Section 35Section 37Section 40A(3)Section 80G

80G of the Act. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance of Rs. 10,12,460/- made u/s 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that payments were made to the workers / coolies at the venue of Koteswar site where no bank facility is available and where

DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. RITHWIK PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed and both the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 660/HYD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jan 2019AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Nilanjan Dey, DR
Section 32Section 35Section 37Section 40A(3)Section 80G

80G of the Act. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance of Rs. 10,12,460/- made u/s 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that payments were made to the workers / coolies at the venue of Koteswar site where no bank facility is available and where

RITHWIK PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed and both the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 544/HYD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jan 2019AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Nilanjan Dey, DR
Section 32Section 35Section 37Section 40A(3)Section 80G

80G of the Act. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance of Rs. 10,12,460/- made u/s 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that payments were made to the workers / coolies at the venue of Koteswar site where no bank facility is available and where