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.

44 results for “depreciation”+ Section 14A(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,721Delhi1,077Chennai574Kolkata361Bangalore351Ahmedabad215Hyderabad57Pune46Karnataka44Amritsar40Ranchi39Raipur38Visakhapatnam28Jaipur22Cochin21Chandigarh20Lucknow16Indore13Jodhpur10Telangana9Surat8Guwahati7Rajkot6Calcutta6Cuttack4Varanasi4Panaji3Orissa2Nagpur1

Key Topics

Section 260110Section 14A22Section 115J19Depreciation19Addition to Income16Deduction13Disallowance13Section 260A11Section 5(1)8Section 10A

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

14A issue, issue was set aside to the record of AO to re-examine the same in the light of orders of ITAT in assessee’s own case for earlier assessment years. 2. Issue of set off of loss was allowed in favour of assessee. 3. Issue of depreciation of software was allowed in favour of assessee. 4. Issue

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SYNDICATE BANK

Showing 1–20 of 44 · Page 1 of 3

7
Section 14A(1)7
Section 36(1)(vii)5
ITA/97/2010
HC Karnataka
17 Jan 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 14ASection 260

3 TAX, CIRCLE-1, UDUPI, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY & ETC. THESE I.T.As. COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT These appeals under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) have been filed by the revenue. ITA No.97/2010 was admitted

HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

In the result, the order of the

ITA/404/2016HC Karnataka09 Dec 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 14ASection 260Section 260ASection 35

3 TAXMAN 69 (SC) and 'TAJ MAHAL HOTEL VS. COMMISSIONEROF INCOME-TAX', (1967) 66 ITR 303 (AP). 9 7. Alternatively it is submitted that alternatively if the expenses are held to be capital expenditure, then in terms of Section 35(1)(iv) of the Act, the same would be allowable as a deduction since, it is incurred on scientific research

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LTD

In the result, the order of the

ITA/468/2016HC Karnataka09 Dec 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 14ASection 260Section 260ASection 35

3 TAXMAN 69 (SC) and 'TAJ MAHAL HOTEL VS. COMMISSIONEROF INCOME-TAX', (1967) 66 ITR 303 (AP). 9 7. Alternatively it is submitted that alternatively if the expenses are held to be capital expenditure, then in terms of Section 35(1)(iv) of the Act, the same would be allowable as a deduction since, it is incurred on scientific research

THE PR. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

ITA/198/2021HC Karnataka29 Sept 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 260

depreciation on capitalization of expenditure incurred during the assessment year 2007-08 and 2008-09? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in law in restoring the file to assessing authority as for disallowance made by assessing authority in respect of Section 14A read with Rule

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

ITA/383/2018HC Karnataka29 Sept 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 260

depreciation on capitalization of expenditure incurred during the assessment year 2007-08 and 2008-09? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in law in restoring the file to assessing authority as for disallowance made by assessing authority in respect of Section 14A read with Rule

THE PR. COMMISIONER INCOME TAX vs. M/S. GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

ITA/197/2021HC Karnataka29 Sept 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 260

depreciation on capitalization of expenditure incurred during the assessment year 2007-08 and 2008-09? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in law in restoring the file to assessing authority as for disallowance made by assessing authority in respect of Section 14A read with Rule

THE PR. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

ITA/199/2021HC Karnataka29 Sept 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 260

depreciation on capitalization of expenditure incurred during the assessment year 2007-08 and 2008-09? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in law in restoring the file to assessing authority as for disallowance made by assessing authority in respect of Section 14A read with Rule

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

ITA/384/2018HC Karnataka29 Sept 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 260

depreciation on capitalization of expenditure incurred during the assessment year 2007-08 and 2008-09? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in law in restoring the file to assessing authority as for disallowance made by assessing authority in respect of Section 14A read with Rule

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

ITA/382/2018HC Karnataka29 Sept 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 260

depreciation on capitalization of expenditure incurred during the assessment year 2007-08 and 2008-09? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in law in restoring the file to assessing authority as for disallowance made by assessing authority in respect of Section 14A read with Rule

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

ITA/381/2018HC Karnataka29 Sept 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 260

depreciation on capitalization of expenditure incurred during the assessment year 2007-08 and 2008-09? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in law in restoring the file to assessing authority as for disallowance made by assessing authority in respect of Section 14A read with Rule

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

ITA/385/2018HC Karnataka29 Sept 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 260

depreciation on capitalization of expenditure incurred during the assessment year 2007-08 and 2008-09? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in law in restoring the file to assessing authority as for disallowance made by assessing authority in respect of Section 14A read with Rule

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) vs. M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PVT. LTD.,

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

ITA/324/2018HC Karnataka29 Sept 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 260

depreciation on capitalization of expenditure incurred during the assessment year 2007-08 and 2008-09? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in law in restoring the file to assessing authority as for disallowance made by assessing authority in respect of Section 14A read with Rule

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

ITA/380/2018HC Karnataka29 Sept 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 260

depreciation on capitalization of expenditure incurred during the assessment year 2007-08 and 2008-09? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in law in restoring the file to assessing authority as for disallowance made by assessing authority in respect of Section 14A read with Rule

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX LTU vs. M/S. CANARA BANK

The appeal stands disposed of as

ITA/270/2018HC Karnataka30 Jun 2021

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,R. NATARAJ

Section 14ASection 260

3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside in allowing depreciation on assets leased to M/s. Kedia Group of Companies by following earlier orders which has not reached finality even when the 5 assessee is not entitled for Depreciation on assets leased to others under the provisions

MANGALORE REFINERY AND PETROCHEMICALS LTD vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, I pass the following:-

WP/10523/2022HC Karnataka18 Nov 2022

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar

Section 5(1)

3,84,26,370 Assessment Year - 2009-10 Particulars AY 2009-10 Disallowance of freight charges under section 40(a)(i) of the IT Act 80,19,59,658 Disallowance of Depreciation 13,09,37,839 Disallowance under section 14A

MANGALORE REFINERY AND PETROCHEMICALS LTD vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, I pass the following:-

WP/10551/2022HC Karnataka18 Nov 2022

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar

Section 5(1)

3,84,26,370 Assessment Year - 2009-10 Particulars AY 2009-10 Disallowance of freight charges under section 40(a)(i) of the IT Act 80,19,59,658 Disallowance of Depreciation 13,09,37,839 Disallowance under section 14A

THE COMMISSIONER vs. M/S CANARA BANK

In the result, the appeal stands disposed of in terms of

ITA/33/2017HC Karnataka22 Sept 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 115Section 115JSection 14Section 14ASection 260Section 45(2)

14A of the Act. In view of aforesaid enunciation of law by the Supreme Court, the first substantial question of law framed by this Court is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue". 6. In view of the ruling of the co-ordinate bench as aforesaid, following the law enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex 8 Court

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5 vs. M/S NOVELL SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT (INDIA) PVT.LTD.

In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal

ITA/271/2017HC Karnataka16 Jan 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

Section 14ASection 260Section 260ASection 40Section 9

3. The assessee filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel, which vide direction dated 23.12.2014 reduced the transfer price adjustment made by the Transfer Pricing Officer by granting an adjustment towards depreciation as prayed by the assessee and the disallowance made under Section 40(a)(i)(a) of the Act was confirmed whereas disallowance under Section 14A

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S WIPRO LIMITED

In the result, the appeal is disposed of in terms

ITA/464/2017HC Karnataka09 Dec 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 10ASection 260Section 260ASection 32

depreciation relating to software? (3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside the exclusion of interest income, rental income and other income for the purpose of deduction under section 10A of the Act by placing reliance on the orders passed in the case of the assessee