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.

12 results for “depreciation”+ Section 250(6)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,208Delhi812Bangalore339Chennai292Kolkata251Ahmedabad200Jaipur169Amritsar108Hyderabad99Chandigarh82Pune69Cochin49Raipur46Surat42Indore40Lucknow33Rajkot33Guwahati32Visakhapatnam26Nagpur24Panaji14Patna13Karnataka12Ranchi10Jodhpur9Dehradun8SC7Cuttack5Jabalpur5Telangana5Allahabad4Agra4Varanasi3Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 26016Section 260A8Depreciation7Section 1486Section 244A5Addition to Income5Section 143(2)4Section 80J4Section 143(3)4Section 45

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

250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or section 264.  The said sections deal with giving effect to orders passed under the sections mentioned therein, either wholly or partly.  The said sections make exception to making of fresh assessment or reassessment.  Section 244A(1A) provides for interest for the period beginning from the date following the date

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. ASTRA ZENECA PHARMA

4
Deduction3
Disallowance3

In the result, the order passed by the

ITA/370/2011HC Karnataka12 Jun 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153(3)Section 154Section 260Section 260ASection 80I

depreciation 8 and notional interest, which would amount to setting aside the entire order of assessment. It was further held that since, there was no order to pass a fresh order of assessment, therefore, the order giving effect to the findings of the tribunal was not barred by limitation under Section 153(2A) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid order

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

In the result, appeal stands dismissed

ITA/568/2015HC Karnataka04 Oct 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 143Section 2(24)Section 220Section 220(2)Section 254Section 260Section 260ASection 45

6 - Rs.53.10 Crores as long term capital gain and brought the entire sum of Rs.33.21 Crores received towards non- competition fee and interest as income from other sources. The Tribunal erred in setting aside the addition made by the Assessing Authority with regard to non- competition fee of Rs.30 Crores as revenue receipt, though the same satisfies the ingredients

M/S NANDI STEELS LIMITED vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the findings

ITA/103/2012HC Karnataka23 Feb 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 260Section 260ASection 6

250(SC) dealt with the issue whether capital gains can be taxed in the hands of the successor company and the issue involved in aforesaid case was not in respect to whether the character of capital gains income was in fact business income. It is also pointed out that the subject matter in question in EXPRESS NEWSPAPERS supra was Section

M/S CHARISHMA HOTELS PVT LTD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP/12789/2018HC Karnataka27 Mar 2018

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice S.Sujatha

Section 32(1)Section 35A

6. It is the contention of the Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that in terms of Section 250 (6A) of the Act, appeal filed by the assessee before the Appellate Authority-CIT(A) requires to be disposed of within a period of one year from the end of the financial year in which the appeal has been filed

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX GULBARGA vs. M/S MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/2564/2005HC Karnataka13 Dec 2012

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,N.KUMAR

Section 260Section 260A

250/-. The assessee during the course of survey declared Rs.17,03,731/- as income representing cessation of liabilities towards creditors. In the 10 course of the assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to file confirmation letter in respect of the creditor M/s. Sri.Gururaghavendra Cotton Ginning Factory, Bellary against whom Rs.1,00,000/- credit balance was outstanding. The assessee was requested

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

6 4. Learned counsel for the revenue fairly submitted that the first substantial question of law does not arise for consideration in this appeal. However, with regard to the third substantial question of law, it is submitted that the Tribunal has not considered whether the depreciation policies of the assessee are similar to that of comparables and has not given

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S ING VYSYA BANK LTD

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/221/2015HC Karnataka08 Jul 2022

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,C.M. POONACHA

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 260Section 263

Section 250 read with 254 of the IT Act, the CIT(Appeals) partly allowed the appeal. The assessee challenged the same in ITA No.1143/Bang/2010 for the A.Y.2004-05, before the ITAT and the same has been allowed in part by the impugned order. 4. Revenue has framed following questions in this appeal: 1 ' IT Act ' for short 2 Commissioner of Income

LANGDON & SEAH CONSULTING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

The appeal is dismissed

COP/221/2015HC Karnataka29 Jan 2016

Bench: VINEET KOTHARI

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 260Section 263

Section 250 read with 254 of the IT Act, the CIT(Appeals) partly allowed the appeal. The assessee challenged the same in ITA No.1143/Bang/2010 for the A.Y.2004-05, before the ITAT and the same has been allowed in part by the impugned order. 4. Revenue has framed following questions in this appeal: 1 ' IT Act ' for short 2 Commissioner of Income

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, vs. M/S CORPORATION BANK

In the result, the third substantial question of law is also answered

ITA/427/2015HC Karnataka23 Nov 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 143(1)Section 14A(1)Section 194HSection 260Section 260ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 40a

250/- was declared. The revised return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act o 15.06.2012 and a refund of 4 Rs.133,39,33,970/- was granted. Subsequently, the assessee filed a second revised return on 11.01.2013 in which income of Rs.1367,59,11,162/- was admitted. The Assessing Officer vide order dated 19.02.2013 made an addition on account

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S. ONMOBILE GLOBAL LTD

In the result, the matter is remitted to the Tribunal to

ITA/340/2014HC Karnataka18 Jan 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 260Section 35DSection 80J

6. Learned counsel for the revenue, with regard to claim of the assessee for deduction under Section 10A of the Act has submitted that the assessee is not engaged in export and is neither engaged in computer software and the sale proceeds of such exports have not been brought into India in convertible foreign exchange. Therefore, the provisions of Section

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS vs. ISKCON CHARITIES

In the result, we do not find any merit in these appeals

ITA/415/2011HC Karnataka15 Sept 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 11Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 260Section 260A

250/- being a provision for bad and doubtful debts. The assessment was re-opened under Section 147 of the Act by issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 31.01.2007, which was served on the assessee on 02.02.2007. The assessee by a communication dated 28.02.2007, requested return of income filed on 31.03.2006 as response to notice under Section