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.

408 results for “depreciation”+ Capital Gainsclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,188 Delhi1,571 Chennai744 Bangalore695 Kolkata408 Ahmedabad259 Hyderabad153 Jaipur152 Chandigarh132 Karnataka116 Pune93 Raipur65 Indore63 Surat42 Cochin40 Lucknow39 SC37 Visakhapatnam28 Nagpur25 Rajkot24 Telangana17 Guwahati13 Panaji13 Cuttack13 Kerala11 Amritsar9 Agra9 Calcutta8 Jodhpur8 Ranchi6 Patna5 Allahabad4 Dehradun4 Orissa3 Punjab & Haryana2 Rajasthan2 Varanasi2 MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1 ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1 Gauhati1 Himachal Pradesh1 Jabalpur1 A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)86 Section 14A82 Addition to Income50 Disallowance46 Section 25038 Section 115J34 Depreciation33 Section 26332 Section 80I28 Section 147

DCIT CIR - 6,KOLKATA., KOLKATA vs. M/S K.B. CAPITAL MARKETS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed, while the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1882/KOL/2012[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 May 2016AY 2008-2009

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 1882/Kol/2012 Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri D.S.Damle, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Subhra. Biswas, CIT(DR) &

Section 10Section 111ASection 14ASection 94(7)

CAPITAL GAINS 1089,05,015.00 DEPRECIATION (AS PER IT) 6,98,815.00 1140,79,607.00 211,43,027.00 ADD DEPRECIATION

KB CAPITAL MARKETS (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I,.T CIR - 6 , KOLKATA., KOLKATA

Showing 1–20 of 408 · Page 1 of 21

...

28

Capital Gains18

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed, while the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1726/KOL/2012[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 May 2016AY 2008-2009

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 1882/Kol/2012 Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri D.S.Damle, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Subhra. Biswas, CIT(DR) &

Section 10Section 111ASection 14ASection 94(7)

CAPITAL GAINS 1089,05,015.00 DEPRECIATION (AS PER IT) 6,98,815.00 1140,79,607.00 211,43,027.00 ADD DEPRECIATION

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. VEDA COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1064/KOL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Nov 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rabin Chaudhury, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 14A

capital gains offered by the assessee. 5.2. The assessee replied vide letter dated 20.10.2008 that every investor expects appreciation from the investment he puts his money into, be it investment in movable or immovable property. No investment is ever made with a motive of depreciation

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. VEDA COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1527/KOL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Nov 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rabin Chaudhury, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 14A

capital gains offered by the assessee. 5.2. The assessee replied vide letter dated 20.10.2008 that every investor expects appreciation from the investment he puts his money into, be it investment in movable or immovable property. No investment is ever made with a motive of depreciation

THE PEERLESS GEN. FIN. & INV. CO. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 892/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri A.T. Varkey

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263Section 50

gain and not to deem the asset as short-term capital asset. Section 50 did not convert a long-term capital asset into a short-term capital asset. Though section 50 was enacted with the object of denying multiple benefits to owners of depreciable

RAI BHAGWAN DAS BAGLA BAHADURS MARWARI HINDU HOSPITAL,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 49(3) NOW, I.T.O., WARD - 44(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1119/KOL/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Dec 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Rai Bhagwan Das Bagla Ito, Ward-49(3), Bahadurs Marwari Hindu 3, Govt. Place (West), Hospital Kolkata-700001, Vs. 1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Martin West Bengal Burn House, Kolkata-700001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aactr1297C Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhary, Ar Revenue By : Shri Prabhakar Prakash Ranjan, Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.12.2024

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhary, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Prakash Ranjan, DR

Section 142(1)Section 45Section 50Section 50C

depreciable capital assets. The appellant mistakenly regarded the gain on transfer of depreciable assets as a long-term capital gain

EIH LTD.,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIR-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 110/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 153/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Eih Limited [Pan: Aaace 6898 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 110/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S Eih Limited -Vs- Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaace 6898 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Kanchun Kaushal,Ar For The Department : Shri G.Mallikarjuna, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.01.2018 Order Per Bench:

For Appellant: Shri Kanchun Kaushal,ARFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT DR

Section 14ASection 14A(2)

capital gain arising on transfer of a depreciable asset shall be treated as capital gain arising on transfer of short

DCIT, CIR-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S EIH LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 153/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 153/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Eih Limited [Pan: Aaace 6898 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 110/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S Eih Limited -Vs- Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaace 6898 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Kanchun Kaushal,Ar For The Department : Shri G.Mallikarjuna, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.01.2018 Order Per Bench:

For Appellant: Shri Kanchun Kaushal,ARFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT DR

Section 14ASection 14A(2)

capital gain arising on transfer of a depreciable asset shall be treated as capital gain arising on transfer of short

INFINITY INFOTECH PARKS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-1, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 32/KOL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Apr 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am ]

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32Section 43(6)Section 50Section 72

capital gains income.” 21. And the assessee has replied as under (Page 41-42 of paper-book): “During the previous year 2014-15 we have derived gain from the transfer of depreciable

M/S PYNE PROPERTIES PVT LTD,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O WD - 5(2),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1791/KOL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri P.M.Jagtap & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 50Section 55A

capital gain of Rs. 21,23,5901-in the hand of the assessee. 2 (a) That both the Ld. A.O. and the CIT (A) erred in rejecting the assessee's contention that as no depreciation

EIH LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-8(1)KOL., KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 117/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2012-13 Eih Ltd V/S. Dcit, Circle-8(1), 4, Mangoe Lane, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Kolkata-700 001 Chowringhee Square, [Pan No.Aaace 6898 B] Kolkata-69 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Ravi Sharma, Ar अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri P.K. Srihari, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 27-02-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 16-05-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Dispute Resolution Panel-2, (Drp For Short) Dated 17.10.2016. Assessment Was Framed By Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata U/S 144C(13)/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 29.11.2016 For Assessment Year 2012-13 & Grounds Raised By Assessee Read As Under:- “1.0 Determination Of Arm'S Length Price For Corporate Guarantee Fees 1.1 On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Transfer Pricing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld, Tpo") & Accordingly Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld. Ao") Erred In Treating The Corporate Guarantee Extended By The Appellant To Its Associated Enterprise (Ae) As International Transaction & Dispute Resolution Panel (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld, Panel") Erred In Confirming The Same As An International Transaction Without Appreciating The Fact That It Does Not Fall Within The Ambit Of "International Transaction" U/S 92B Of The Act. 1.2 The Ld.Ao/Tpo & The Ld. Panel Failed To Appreciate The Fact That Corporate Guarantee Has Been Advanced By The Appellant As A Matter Of Commercial Prudence To Protect The Business Interest Of The Group By Fulfilling

Section 14Section 144C(13)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 92B

capital gain arising on transfer of a depreciable asset shall be treated as capital gain arising on transfer of short

I.T.O WD - 12(3),KOLKATA., KOLKATA vs. M/S FIESTA SALES & SERVICES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 289/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Arindam Bhattacharya, JCITFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Tulsiyan. FCA

Section 143(3)Section 50

Gains' on the sole pretext that since the purchaser, M/s Magma Fincorp Ltd, had claimed depreciation on right to carry on business, the said right is a depreciable capital

AMBO AGRO PRODUCTS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. THE PCIT, KOLKATA-1, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 676/KOL/2016[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 May 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 50Section 50B

capital gains in the case of a ‘slump sale’, though sale of business undertaking as a going concern involves sale of assets forming block of assets on which depreciation

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. JCT LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 84/KOL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jul 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S. Godara]

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32(2)

capital gain of Rs. 107,98,39,652/-. However, post amalgamation with the appellant company the entire gain on sale of above land was set off against the brought forward unabsorbed depreciation

JCT LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2389/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jul 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S. Godara]

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32(2)

capital gain of Rs. 107,98,39,652/-. However, post amalgamation with the appellant company the entire gain on sale of above land was set off against the brought forward unabsorbed depreciation

SPML INFRA LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. PCIT-1 , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 510/KOL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Apr 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Manish Borad)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 80I

capital gain and the same was wrongly set off against loss of earlier assessment year 2015-16. The assessee derived the gain at Rs.27.32 (Rs.1216.12 - Rs.1188.80) lakh by taking into account the building cost (WDV) for Rs.1188.80 lakh. However, the actual cost of building shown under disposal as per Gross Block value of the building account was Rs.322.45 lakh

STEWARTS & LLOYDS OF INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOL - I, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 372/KOL/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Mar 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] Assessment Year : 2004-05 Stewarts & Lloyds Of India Ltd. -Versus- C.I.T., Circle-1, Kolkata Kolkata (Pan:Aaecs 0445G) (Appellant ) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Soumen Adak, ACA & Shri Prakash Singh,ACAFor Respondent: Shri Radhey Shyam, CIT.DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

gain, absolute ownership is not relevant. He again placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Madras HC in Madathil Brothers -vs.-DCIT (2008) 301 ITR 345 (Mad) wherein it was held that the definition of 'capital asset' u/ s 2(14) refers to property of any kind "held" by an assessee as distinguished from the word' owner

ITO, WD-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S COMMAND CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed”

ITA 571/KOL/2015[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Oct 2018AY 2006-2007

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A T Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 571/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2006-07 Ito, Ward-1(4), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Command Constructions Private Ltd. [Pan: Aaccc5075A ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Md.Usman, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 45(3)

depreciation in respect of any asset of the developed project. The firm let out the developed project to different parties and did not sell any part thereof. In the event of sale, in computing the capital gains

ITO, WD-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ORCHID GRIHA NIRMAN PRIVATE LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed”

ITA 569/KOL/2015[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Sept 2018AY 2006-2007

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 569/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2006-07 Ito, Ward-1(4), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Orchid Griha Nirman Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aaaco 7148 L ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Goulean Hangshing, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 45(3)

depreciation in respect of any asset of the developed project. The firm let out the developed project to different parties and did not sell any part thereof. In the event of sale, in computing the capital gains

ITO, WD-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S BLUE HEAVEN GRIHA NIRMAN PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed”

ITA 570/KOL/2015[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Aug 2018AY 2006-2007

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 570/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2006-07 Ito, Ward-1(4), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Blue Heaven Griha Nirman Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aaccb 3287 F ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Goulean Hangshing, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 45(3)

depreciation in respect of any asset of the developed project. The firm let out the developed project to different parties and did not sell any part thereof. In the event of sale, in computing the capital gains