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.

6 results for “depreciation”+ Section 72clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,694Delhi1,465Bangalore578Chennai444Kolkata290Ahmedabad204Jaipur139Hyderabad135Chandigarh93Pune67Raipur66Amritsar49Indore46Visakhapatnam44Karnataka36Lucknow33Ranchi31Rajkot25Surat24Cochin23SC19Nagpur18Jodhpur18Telangana11Patna10Cuttack7Calcutta6Kerala6Guwahati6Varanasi5Dehradun4Agra4Jabalpur2Panaji1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1

Key Topics

Section 2634Section 115B3Disallowance3Addition to Income3Section 92C2Section 143(3)2Section 682

BHIMA JEWELLERS vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

ITA/15/2021HC Kerala25 Aug 2022

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

For Appellant: M/S BHIMA JEWELLERSFor Respondent: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
Section 115Section 115BSection 263Section 68Section 69Section 69ASection 69BSection 69CSection 69D

section 72 of the Act against the unabsorbed portion of depreciation which will fall within the category of section 32(2) of the Act. It is further

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. APOLLO TYRES LTD

Appeal is allowed in part as indicated

ITA/44/2017HC Kerala22 Sept 2021

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM

For Appellant: M/S. APOLLO TYRES LTDFor Respondent: THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 35Section 43ASection 92C

depreciation; the question is whether the claim of the assessee conforms the deduction permissible under Section 37(1) of the Act. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the view that the preoperative expenses amounting to Rs.26,97,79,538/- incurred by the assessee are revenue expenses, and are correctly so held by the Tribunal

M/S.ESCAPADE RESORTS PVT.LTD. vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed in part as indicated above

ITA/28/2017HC Kerala18 May 2022

Bench: The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Ii (For Short, ‘Cit(Appeals)’) & Through Annexure-C Order Dated 02.12.2013, The Appeal Was Allowed In Part. The Assessee Carried The Matter In Appeal Before The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (For Short, 'The Tribunal') & Through The Order Impugned In The Appeal

Section 260ASection 37

depreciation @15% is granted on it. The resultant disallowance comes to Rs. 2,72,05,544 [3,20,06,522- 48,00,978)” The CIT (Appeals) and the Tribunal confirmed the said finding. 5. Mr. Joseph Markose referring to the principle laid down by this Court in Joy Alukkas India vs. ACIT1, Indus Motos Co. P.Ltd v. Deputy Commissioner

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PREMIER TYRES LTD.

ITA/758/2009HC Kerala19 Jul 2021

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

For Appellant: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXFor Respondent: M/S.PREMIER TYRES LTD

72 in CIT v Forainer France. 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and also for the factual reasons highlighted in paragraph 5(a) to (f) of the statement of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding that the assessee “is existing”, “it continues to exist” and the leave

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. PTL ENTERPRISES LIMITED,

ITA/483/2009HC Kerala19 Jul 2021

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

For Appellant: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXFor Respondent: M/S.PREMIER TYRES LTD

72 in CIT v Forainer France. 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and also for the factual reasons highlighted in paragraph 5(a) to (f) of the statement of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding that the assessee “is existing”, “it continues to exist” and the leave

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PREMIER TYRES LTD.

ITA/929/2009HC Kerala19 Jul 2021

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

For Appellant: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXFor Respondent: M/S.PREMIER TYRES LTD

72 in CIT v Forainer France. 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and also for the factual reasons highlighted in paragraph 5(a) to (f) of the statement of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding that the assessee “is existing”, “it continues to exist” and the leave