Search: depreciation | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

128 results for “depreciation”+ Section 20clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai3,534 Delhi3,225 Bangalore1,362 Chennai1,179 Kolkata726 Ahmedabad488 Jaipur280 Hyderabad278 Pune171 Chandigarh155 Raipur149 Karnataka128 Indore110 Cochin88 Visakhapatnam75 Amritsar69 Lucknow62 SC57 Rajkot52 Surat45 Ranchi40 Jodhpur40 Telangana39 Nagpur27 Guwahati26 Cuttack26 Kerala21 Patna15 Dehradun10 Panaji10 Calcutta10 Agra8 Rajasthan5 Punjab & Haryana5 Allahabad5 Varanasi5 Jabalpur2 Gauhati2 ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1 D.K. JAIN H.L. DATTU JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1 Tripura1 MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1 A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1

Key Topics

Section 260172 Section 260A76 Section 14854 Section 14727 Section 143(3)26 Depreciation26 Deduction22 Section 10A19 Section 80H18 Addition to Income

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S RITTAL INDIA PVT LTD.,

ITA/268/2014HC Karnataka24 Nov 2015

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

Section 260ASection 32Section 32(1)Section 32(1)(iia)

20% depreciation (i.e. 10% additional depreciation) under Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act in the corresponding assessment year 2007-08. This

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI SRI ADICHUNCHUNAGIRI SHIKSHANA TRUST

In the result, all the appeals are

ITA/384/2016HC Karnataka28 Jun 2016

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Showing 1–20 of 128 · Page 1 of 7

15

Section 10Section 10(23)Section 11Section 12ASection 144Section 260Section 263

20. It is also to be noticed that while in the year of acquiring the capital asset, what is allowed as exemption is the income out of which such acquisition of asset is made and when depreciation deduction is allowed in the subsequent years, it is for the losses or expenses representing the wear and tear of such capital asset

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. SRI ADICHUNCHANAGIRI

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/1/2013HC Karnataka22 Feb 2016

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

Section 35(2)(iv) of 19 the 1965 Act. It was the case of the assessee claiming a specified percentage of the written down value of the asset as depreciation besides claiming deduction in 5 consecutive years of the expenditure incurred on the acquisition of the capital asset used for scientific research. In such circumstances, the Apex Court held thus

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI ADICHUNCHUNGIRI

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/233/2013HC Karnataka22 Feb 2016

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

Section 35(2)(iv) of 19 the 1965 Act. It was the case of the assessee claiming a specified percentage of the written down value of the asset as depreciation besides claiming deduction in 5 consecutive years of the expenditure incurred on the acquisition of the capital asset used for scientific research. In such circumstances, the Apex Court held thus

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S GOKULA EDUCATION FOUNDATION (MEDICAL)

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/430/2013HC Karnataka22 Feb 2016

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

Section 35(2)(iv) of 19 the 1965 Act. It was the case of the assessee claiming a specified percentage of the written down value of the asset as depreciation besides claiming deduction in 5 consecutive years of the expenditure incurred on the acquisition of the capital asset used for scientific research. In such circumstances, the Apex Court held thus

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S KARNATAKA REDDY JANASANGHA

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/56/2013HC Karnataka22 Feb 2016

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

Section 35(2)(iv) of 19 the 1965 Act. It was the case of the assessee claiming a specified percentage of the written down value of the asset as depreciation besides claiming deduction in 5 consecutive years of the expenditure incurred on the acquisition of the capital asset used for scientific research. In such circumstances, the Apex Court held thus

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/414/2010HC Karnataka22 Feb 2016

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

Section 35(2)(iv) of 19 the 1965 Act. It was the case of the assessee claiming a specified percentage of the written down value of the asset as depreciation besides claiming deduction in 5 consecutive years of the expenditure incurred on the acquisition of the capital asset used for scientific research. In such circumstances, the Apex Court held thus

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S GOKULA EDUCATION FOUNDATION

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/431/2013HC Karnataka22 Feb 2016

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

Section 35(2)(iv) of 19 the 1965 Act. It was the case of the assessee claiming a specified percentage of the written down value of the asset as depreciation besides claiming deduction in 5 consecutive years of the expenditure incurred on the acquisition of the capital asset used for scientific research. In such circumstances, the Apex Court held thus

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS vs. AL-AMEEN CHARITABLE FUND TRUST

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/62/2010HC Karnataka22 Feb 2016

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

Section 35(2)(iv) of 19 the 1965 Act. It was the case of the assessee claiming a specified percentage of the written down value of the asset as depreciation besides claiming deduction in 5 consecutive years of the expenditure incurred on the acquisition of the capital asset used for scientific research. In such circumstances, the Apex Court held thus

M/S PADMINI PRODUCTS (P) LTD., vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the aforesaid

ITA/154/2014HC Karnataka05 Oct 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 147Section 148Section 260Section 260ASection 32(1)Section 43(1)

depreciation in the year of succession. Accordingly, the third substantial question of law is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 10. The prerequisite for invoking Explanation 3 to Section 43(1) of the Act is that the Assessing Officer 20

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

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA/133/2007HC Karnataka23 Aug 2013

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

depreciation? A-8. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the donations made to Khandesh Education Society do not attract the provisions of Section 40A(9) of the Act? 7 5. In ITA 133/07, the following two substantial questions of law arise for our consideration: A-9. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the stock transfers made

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

depreciation for the following previous year and deemed to be part of that allowance, or if there is no such allowance for that previous year, be deemed to be the allowance for that previous year, and so on for the succeeding previous years.” 13.2 Section 143(3) of the Act of 1961 reads as under; “(3) [On the day specified

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

depreciation under sub-section (2) of section 32 shall not be set off against the undisclosed income determined in the block assessment under this Chapter, but may be carried forward for being set off in the regular assessments. 7. This chapter was introduced for the assessment of undisclosed income determined as a result of carrying out search under Section

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 claimed on software, which was treated as royalty under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act on the ground that decision of this court in WIPRO LTD. supra in I.T.A.No.507/2002 dated 25.08.2010 does not deal with the issue of royalty. From perusal of the aforesaid decision, the tribunal has decided the aforesaid issue in favour of the assessee

M/S J K INDUSTRIES LTD vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA/1105/2006HC Karnataka19 Feb 2013

Bench: D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 260Section 80ASection 80H

20 under section 80HHC of the Act. It is only for such exercise all the provisions of section 80HHC [1], [2] and [3] exist. On the basis of the Judgment of the Supreme Court referred to above, the provisions of section 32 has no direct bearing on the provisions of section 80HHC of the Act. The effect in claiming benefit

M/S J K INDUSTRIES LTD vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, all questions are answered against the

ITA/1360/2006HC Karnataka26 Feb 2013

Bench: D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 260ASection 28Section 80H

20% of the profits and gains attributable to the nature of income referred to 16 in section 80-I[1] of the Act when such income is part of the gross total income of the assessee in terms of section 80-I[6] of the Act and such computation of the eligible deduction under section

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S AMCO POWER SYSTEMS LTD

ITA/1046/2008HC Karnataka07 Oct 2015

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

20. Question No.2: This question relates to the entitlement of the assessee for grant of deduction under Section 35AB of the Act, in respect of payment of Rs.5 Crores for transfer of technical know-how, which was transferred on 01.03.1998, and as per the agreement, the amount was payable between 31.5.1998 and 31.05.2006; and had actually been paid within time

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S AMCO POWER SYSTEMS LTD.,

ITA/767/2009HC Karnataka07 Oct 2015

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

20. Question No.2: This question relates to the entitlement of the assessee for grant of deduction under Section 35AB of the Act, in respect of payment of Rs.5 Crores for transfer of technical know-how, which was transferred on 01.03.1998, and as per the agreement, the amount was payable between 31.5.1998 and 31.05.2006; and had actually been paid within time

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S AMCO POWER SYSTEMS LTD.,

ITA/769/2009HC Karnataka07 Oct 2015

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

20. Question No.2: This question relates to the entitlement of the assessee for grant of deduction under Section 35AB of the Act, in respect of payment of Rs.5 Crores for transfer of technical know-how, which was transferred on 01.03.1998, and as per the agreement, the amount was payable between 31.5.1998 and 31.05.2006; and had actually been paid within time

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S AMCO POWER SYSTEMS LTD.,

ITA/765/2009HC Karnataka07 Oct 2015

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

20. Question No.2: This question relates to the entitlement of the assessee for grant of deduction under Section 35AB of the Act, in respect of payment of Rs.5 Crores for transfer of technical know-how, which was transferred on 01.03.1998, and as per the agreement, the amount was payable between 31.5.1998 and 31.05.2006; and had actually been paid within time