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.

121 results for “depreciation”+ Section 21(5)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai3,066Delhi2,967Bangalore1,256Chennai1,027Kolkata612Ahmedabad481Hyderabad290Jaipur265Chandigarh180Pune174Raipur152Karnataka121Surat120Indore112Amritsar83Visakhapatnam73Cuttack70Lucknow55SC54Rajkot50Cochin46Nagpur36Telangana32Guwahati32Jodhpur30Ranchi26Kerala18Dehradun18Agra16Panaji16Allahabad11Calcutta9Varanasi8Patna5Punjab & Haryana4Rajasthan3Gauhati2Jabalpur1Orissa1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1D.K. JAIN H.L. DATTU JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1Tripura1

Key Topics

Section 260184Section 260A76Section 14849Section 143(3)28Depreciation27Section 14722Section 80H18Section 10A17Addition to Income17Deduction

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

21 months from the date of authorization - for search has been issued – whichever is earlier. Further, Explanation 1 below section 153 provides that in computing the period of limitation, time taken for specified processes, as listed therein, should be excluded. Section 153 lays down the time limit to make assessment, reassessment & recomputation under various scenarios; section 153 is substituted

HEWLETT PACKARD FINANCIAL SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Showing 1–20 of 121 · Page 1 of 7

17
Section 26316
Exemption15
STRP/412/2015HC Karnataka19 Feb 2016

Bench: S.SUJATHA,JAYANT PATEL

Section 23(1)Section 39(1)Section 5(2)Section 65(1)

depreciation not being claimed by the appellant on the leased equipments. Per contra, the appellant has submitted that it is an integrated transaction and not two independent transactions to fasten the tax liability and as the integrated transaction is in 13 the course of import falls under the purview of Section 5(2) of the CST Act and has given

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

ITA/211/2009HC 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

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

M/S SWABHIMANI SOUHARDA CREDIT CO OPERATIVE LTD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (ITO) WARD-5(2)(3)

In the result, Writ appeals stand dismissed

ITA/832/2018HC Karnataka20 Dec 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S RACHAIAH

Section 143(3)Section 260Section 4

5(cci). RBI cannot go by any other meaning given to the term "co-operative bank" for purposes of licencing under the Banking Regulation Act. The RBI has to go by the meaning given to this term in the Banking Regulation Act.” 13. In the case of Commissioner of Income-tax V/s. Mother India Refrigeration Industris

M/S UDAYA SOUHARDA CREDIT CO-OP SOCIETY LTD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

In the result, Writ appeals stand dismissed

ITA/869/2018HC Karnataka20 Dec 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S RACHAIAH

Section 143(3)Section 260Section 4

5(cci). RBI cannot go by any other meaning given to the term "co-operative bank" for purposes of licencing under the Banking Regulation Act. The RBI has to go by the meaning given to this term in the Banking Regulation Act.” 13. In the case of Commissioner of Income-tax V/s. Mother India Refrigeration Industris

M/S UDAYA SOUHARDA CREDIT CO OP SOCIETY LTD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

In the result, Writ appeals stand dismissed

ITA/330/2019HC Karnataka20 Dec 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S RACHAIAH

Section 143(3)Section 260Section 4

5(cci). RBI cannot go by any other meaning given to the term "co-operative bank" for purposes of licencing under the Banking Regulation Act. The RBI has to go by the meaning given to this term in the Banking Regulation Act.” 13. In the case of Commissioner of Income-tax V/s. Mother India Refrigeration Industris

M/S SRI VARUN SOUHARDA CREDIT CO OP LTD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

In the result, Writ appeals stand dismissed

ITA/295/2019HC Karnataka20 Dec 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S RACHAIAH

Section 143(3)Section 260Section 4

5(cci). RBI cannot go by any other meaning given to the term "co-operative bank" for purposes of licencing under the Banking Regulation Act. The RBI has to go by the meaning given to this term in the Banking Regulation Act.” 13. In the case of Commissioner of Income-tax V/s. Mother India Refrigeration Industris

M/S SWABHIMANI SOUHARDA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE LTD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (ITO) WARD-5(2)(3

In the result, Writ appeals stand dismissed

ITA/833/2018HC Karnataka20 Dec 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S RACHAIAH

Section 143(3)Section 260Section 4

5(cci). RBI cannot go by any other meaning given to the term "co-operative bank" for purposes of licencing under the Banking Regulation Act. The RBI has to go by the meaning given to this term in the Banking Regulation Act.” 13. In the case of Commissioner of Income-tax V/s. Mother India Refrigeration Industris

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 260

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 260

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 260

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. SRI ADICHUNCHANAGIRI

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/1/2013HC Karnataka22 Feb 2016

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

Section 260

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 260

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 260

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 260

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

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

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

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: “There is an apparent plausibility about these arguments, particularly in the context of the alleged departure in the language used by S.10(2)(xiv) from that employed in S.20 of the U.K. Finance

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) vs. M/S CHALASSANI EDUCATION TRUST

Appeal is dismissed

ITA/852/2017HC Karnataka21 Aug 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 260Section 32

21-08-2018 I.T.A.No.852/2017 Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) & Anr. Vs. M/s.Chalassani Education Trust 5/27 taxmann.com 127 [SC] with regard to allowability and Depreciation in the hands of Religious and Charitable Trust held as under: “5. Learned Counsel at the Bar submitted that so far as the issue regarding claim of Depreciation under Section

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)

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the revenue submitted that as per Section 45 of the Act, transfer of entire business of firm to company amounts 10 to transfer of capital asset. It is further submitted that Section 47(xiii) only takes out succession of transfer of capital asset or intangible asset within the ambit of Section

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