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.

58 results for “depreciation”+ Section 139(5)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,040Delhi855Bangalore375Chennai319Kolkata239Jaipur166Raipur117Hyderabad111Ahmedabad95Pune75Indore74Chandigarh72Karnataka58Surat41Amritsar36Cochin35Visakhapatnam32Lucknow32Guwahati26Nagpur23Cuttack20SC20Jodhpur16Telangana10Patna9Rajkot7Allahabad7Dehradun4Panaji3Punjab & Haryana3Calcutta2Varanasi2Agra2D.K. JAIN H.L. DATTU JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1Tripura1

Key Topics

Section 260105Section 260A73Section 14851Section 14729Section 143(3)25Addition to Income13Section 45(2)12Disallowance12Depreciation12Section 143(1)

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI N LEELA KUMAR

ITA/384/2007HC Karnataka25 Nov 2013

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 158Section 260A

5. The substantial question of law which arises for our consideration in these two appeals is as under: Whether the Income entered in the books of accounts, which was detected in search, which were disclosed in the return filed under Section 139(4) after search, would constitute undisclosed income? 6. Section 132 of the Act empowers the appropriate Authority under

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S WIPRO LTD

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

ITA/211/2009HC Karnataka

Showing 1–20 of 58 · Page 1 of 3

10
Section 143(2)9
Deduction7
25 Mar 2015

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 260

Section 145A of the Income- tax Act which was inserted with effect from assessment year 1999-2000. The said provision states that the valuation of stock should include the amount of any tax duty, cess or fee - 94 - actually paid or incurred to bring the goods to its present location and condition. The Department has followed a consistent stand

M/S WIPRO LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

ITA/881/2008HC Karnataka25 Mar 2015

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 260

Section 145A of the Income- tax Act which was inserted with effect from assessment year 1999-2000. The said provision states that the valuation of stock should include the amount of any tax duty, cess or fee - 94 - actually paid or incurred to bring the goods to its present location and condition. The Department has followed a consistent stand

WIPRO LIMITED vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP/20040/2019HC Karnataka25 Aug 2021

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Krishna S.Dixit Writ Petition No.20040/2019 (T-It) Between:

Section 1Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 244ASection 254Section 92C

139(1)/(4)/(5); in Parashuram Pottery Works Col Ltd. v. ITO [1977] 106 ITR 1 at p.10, it is stated: “At the same time, we have to bear in mind that the policy of law is that there must be a point of finality in all legal proceedings, that stale issues should not be reactivated beyond a particular stage

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S NIRANI SUGARS LTD.,

In the result, the impugned orders passed by

ITA/100099/2015HC Karnataka15 Oct 2019

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,P.G.M.PATIL

Section 115JSection 260ASection 32Section 32(1)

5(1A) of the Rules and it has 7 been submitted that the claim for depreciation has to be filed along with the return of income filed under sub- section (1) of Section 139

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S NIRANI SUGARS LTD.,

In the result, the impugned orders passed by

ITA/100098/2015HC Karnataka15 Oct 2019

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,P.G.M.PATIL

Section 115JSection 260ASection 32Section 32(1)

5(1A) of the Rules and it has 7 been submitted that the claim for depreciation has to be filed along with the return of income filed under sub- section (1) of Section 139

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CISCO SYSTEMS

The appeals are allowed; the impugned

ITA/27/2019HC Karnataka18 Jun 2021

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,R. NATARAJ

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 260ASection 263Section 32

5 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949) with a banking institution as referred to in sub-section (15) of section 45 of the said Act, sanctioned and brought into force by the Central Government under sub-section (7) of section 45 of that Act, of any asset by the banking company to the banking institution

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. M/S TALLY SOLUTIONS PVT LTD

In the result, the appeals fail and are hereby

ITA/951/2017HC Karnataka16 Dec 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 195Section 260Section 40

5. Thereupon the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who by an order dated 20.08.2014 allowed the claim of the assessee and held that there being an irrevocable and unconditional sale of Intellectual Property and transfer being absolute, it was an outright purchase of capital asset and therefore, Section

PR. COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S TALLY SOLUTIONS PVT LTD.,

In the result, the appeals fail and are hereby

ITA/199/2017HC Karnataka16 Dec 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 195Section 260Section 40

5. Thereupon the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who by an order dated 20.08.2014 allowed the claim of the assessee and held that there being an irrevocable and unconditional sale of Intellectual Property and transfer being absolute, it was an outright purchase of capital asset and therefore, Section

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. M/S TALLY SOLUTIONS PVT LTD

In the result, the appeals fail and are hereby

ITA/952/2017HC Karnataka16 Dec 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 195Section 260Section 40

5. Thereupon the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who by an order dated 20.08.2014 allowed the claim of the assessee and held that there being an irrevocable and unconditional sale of Intellectual Property and transfer being absolute, it was an outright purchase of capital asset and therefore, Section

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT. LTD.,

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

ITA/402/2009HC Karnataka28 Apr 2016

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

Section 260

5) years, commencing from the date provided in Clause 1 (b) below, at a monthly rent at the rate of Rs. 22/- (Rupees Twenty Two only) per sq. ft. (of which 18% shall be towards Electro Mechanical charges throughout the tenure of the lease) calculated for the first 3 years, and Rs. 25.30 per sq., ft. calculated

THE COMMISIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT LTD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

ITA/402/2014HC Karnataka28 Apr 2016

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

Section 260

5) years, commencing from the date provided in Clause 1 (b) below, at a monthly rent at the rate of Rs. 22/- (Rupees Twenty Two only) per sq. ft. (of which 18% shall be towards Electro Mechanical charges throughout the tenure of the lease) calculated for the first 3 years, and Rs. 25.30 per sq., ft. calculated

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT. LTD.,

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

ITA/403/2009HC Karnataka28 Apr 2016

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

Section 260

5) years, commencing from the date provided in Clause 1 (b) below, at a monthly rent at the rate of Rs. 22/- (Rupees Twenty Two only) per sq. ft. (of which 18% shall be towards Electro Mechanical charges throughout the tenure of the lease) calculated for the first 3 years, and Rs. 25.30 per sq., ft. calculated

M/S. MARMON FOOD AND BEVERAGE TECHNOLOGIES INDIA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

ITA/727/2017HC Karnataka09 Apr 2021

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

Section 260A

5) The deduction under sub-section (1) shall not be admissible for any assessment year beginning on or after the 1st day of April 2001, unless the assessee furnishes in the prescribed form, along with the return of income, the report of an accountant, as defined in the Explanation below sub- section (2) of section 288, certifying that the deduction

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S.GE INDIA TECHNOLOGY

ITA/12/2014HC Karnataka09 Apr 2021

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

Section 260A

5) The deduction under sub-section (1) shall not be admissible for any assessment year beginning on or after the 1st day of April 2001, unless the assessee furnishes in the prescribed form, along with the return of income, the report of an accountant, as defined in the Explanation below sub- section (2) of section 288, certifying that the deduction

M/S. MARMON FOOD AND BEVERAGE TECHNOLOGIES INDIA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

ITA/728/2017HC Karnataka09 Apr 2021

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

Section 260A

5) The deduction under sub-section (1) shall not be admissible for any assessment year beginning on or after the 1st day of April 2001, unless the assessee furnishes in the prescribed form, along with the return of income, the report of an accountant, as defined in the Explanation below sub- section (2) of section 288, certifying that the deduction

M/S. MARMON FOOD AND BEVERAGE TECHNOLOGIES INDIA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

ITA/206/2018HC Karnataka09 Apr 2021

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

Section 260A

5) The deduction under sub-section (1) shall not be admissible for any assessment year beginning on or after the 1st day of April 2001, unless the assessee furnishes in the prescribed form, along with the return of income, the report of an accountant, as defined in the Explanation below sub- section (2) of section 288, certifying that the deduction

M/S. MARMON FOOD AND BEVERAGE TECHNOLOGIES INDIA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

ITA/725/2017HC Karnataka09 Apr 2021

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

Section 260A

5) The deduction under sub-section (1) shall not be admissible for any assessment year beginning on or after the 1st day of April 2001, unless the assessee furnishes in the prescribed form, along with the return of income, the report of an accountant, as defined in the Explanation below sub- section (2) of section 288, certifying that the deduction

M/S. MARMON FOOD AND BEVERAGE TECHNOLOGIES INDIA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

ITA/726/2017HC Karnataka09 Apr 2021

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

Section 260A

5) The deduction under sub-section (1) shall not be admissible for any assessment year beginning on or after the 1st day of April 2001, unless the assessee furnishes in the prescribed form, along with the return of income, the report of an accountant, as defined in the Explanation below sub- section (2) of section 288, certifying that the deduction

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S.GE INDIA TECHNOLOGY

ITA/11/2014HC Karnataka09 Apr 2021

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

Section 260A

5) The deduction under sub-section (1) shall not be admissible for any assessment year beginning on or after the 1st day of April 2001, unless the assessee furnishes in the prescribed form, along with the return of income, the report of an accountant, as defined in the Explanation below sub- section (2) of section 288, certifying that the deduction