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.

115 results for “depreciation”+ Section 133clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai825Delhi632Bangalore308Chennai125Ahmedabad118Kolkata115Jaipur85Raipur48Pune37Indore34Chandigarh32Hyderabad27Lucknow22Surat18Visakhapatnam18Nagpur13Amritsar13Guwahati13Karnataka9SC7Rajkot5Ranchi5Agra4Jodhpur3Telangana3Varanasi3Panaji2Cochin2Calcutta2Cuttack2Patna2Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)101Addition to Income64Disallowance47Section 4036Section 26336Section 14729Section 14828Deduction28Section 133(6)26Depreciation

M/S TATA MEDICAL CENTRE TRUST,KOLKATA vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), KOLKAA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 287/KOL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 263

depreciation and amortization expense of INR 3.67 lakhs as application of income. 2 I.T.A. No. 287/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/s Tata Medical Centre Trust 2.3 That the Ld. CIT(E) erred in disallowing the application of income of INR 3933.05 lakhs towards addition to fixed assets and capital work-in progress solely on the assumption that there existed separate

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as cross-objection of the assessee are partly allowed

Showing 1–20 of 115 · Page 1 of 6

26
Section 25024
Section 115J22
ITA 1964/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: Disposed
ITAT Kolkata
16 Jan 2024
AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata…………….......................…...……………....Appellant Vs. M/S Birla Corporation Ltd…………...........…..........................…..…..... Respondent Birla Building, 9/1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata – 700001. [Pan: Aabcb2075J] C.O. 39/Kol/2019 (A/O I.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019) Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S Birla Corporation Ltd…………...........….....................…..…..... Cross-Objector Birla Building, 9/1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata – 700001. [Pan: Aabcb2075J] Vs Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata…………….......................…...……………....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Department. Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 18, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 16, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal By The Revenue & The Corresponding Cross Objections By The Assessee Have Been Preferred Against The Order Dated 30.05.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-22, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). First, We Take Up Revenue’S Appeal Ita No.1964/Kol/2019. I.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019 & C.O. 39/Kol/2019 M/S Birla Corporation Ltd

Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 80I

depreciation of Rs. 12,19,30,258/-. 7. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that compensation paid of Rs.69,61,595/- to obtain raw materials is Revenue Expenditure not Capital expenditure. 8. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case as well

BIRLA CORPORATION LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-6(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2011-12 &

ITA 495/KOL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37(1)Section 40Section 43B

depreciation (remaining portion). Thus ground no. 1 raised by the assessee is allowed.” 10.2. Since the issues raised before us are squarely covered by the decision of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for preceding assessment year i.e. for AY 2010-11 referred above and Revenue being unable to controvert this fact by placing any other binding precedence

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2011-12 &

ITA 2111/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37(1)Section 40Section 43B

depreciation (remaining portion). Thus ground no. 1 raised by the assessee is allowed.” 10.2. Since the issues raised before us are squarely covered by the decision of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for preceding assessment year i.e. for AY 2010-11 referred above and Revenue being unable to controvert this fact by placing any other binding precedence

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2011-12 &

ITA 2112/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37(1)Section 40Section 43B

depreciation (remaining portion). Thus ground no. 1 raised by the assessee is allowed.” 10.2. Since the issues raised before us are squarely covered by the decision of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for preceding assessment year i.e. for AY 2010-11 referred above and Revenue being unable to controvert this fact by placing any other binding precedence

BIRLA CORPORATION LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-6(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2011-12 &

ITA 494/KOL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37(1)Section 40Section 43B

depreciation (remaining portion). Thus ground no. 1 raised by the assessee is allowed.” 10.2. Since the issues raised before us are squarely covered by the decision of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for preceding assessment year i.e. for AY 2010-11 referred above and Revenue being unable to controvert this fact by placing any other binding precedence

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2013-14 &

ITA 2142/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 80I

depreciation raised by the Revenue are dismissed. Revenue’s common Ground no. 2 for AY 2013-14 & 2014-15 relating to the deduction u/s 80IA of the Act in respect of thermal power plants for generating electricity: Page 11 of 67 I.T.A. Nos.: 2142 & 2143/KOL/2018 & I.T.A. Nos.: 496 & 497/KOL/2020 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Birla Corporation Limited. 9. Revenue

BIRLA CORPORATION LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT CIR.-6(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2013-14 &

ITA 496/KOL/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 80I

depreciation raised by the Revenue are dismissed. Revenue’s common Ground no. 2 for AY 2013-14 & 2014-15 relating to the deduction u/s 80IA of the Act in respect of thermal power plants for generating electricity: Page 11 of 67 I.T.A. Nos.: 2142 & 2143/KOL/2018 & I.T.A. Nos.: 496 & 497/KOL/2020 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Birla Corporation Limited. 9. Revenue

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2013-14 &

ITA 2143/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 80I

depreciation raised by the Revenue are dismissed. Revenue’s common Ground no. 2 for AY 2013-14 & 2014-15 relating to the deduction u/s 80IA of the Act in respect of thermal power plants for generating electricity: Page 11 of 67 I.T.A. Nos.: 2142 & 2143/KOL/2018 & I.T.A. Nos.: 496 & 497/KOL/2020 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Birla Corporation Limited. 9. Revenue

BIRLA CORPORATION LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-6(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2013-14 &

ITA 497/KOL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 80I

depreciation raised by the Revenue are dismissed. Revenue’s common Ground no. 2 for AY 2013-14 & 2014-15 relating to the deduction u/s 80IA of the Act in respect of thermal power plants for generating electricity: Page 11 of 67 I.T.A. Nos.: 2142 & 2143/KOL/2018 & I.T.A. Nos.: 496 & 497/KOL/2020 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Birla Corporation Limited. 9. Revenue

ARSH IRON & STEEL LTD.,BURDWAN vs. ACIT, CIR-3, ASANSOL, ASANSOL

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 206/KOL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)

section 133(6)/ 131 of the Act. But the AO erred in doing and doubted the payment of the commission on several grounds. Indeed in the immediate preceding year the amount of commission payment was of meager amount and in the current year it has increased manifolds. In this regard we find that the fact that the turnover

DCIT, CIR-2, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S PROMPT INFOTECH (P) LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1485/KOL/2014[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 May 2017AY 2008-2009

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1485/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2008-09 D.C.I.T., Circle-2, -Vs.- M/S Prompt Infotech P.Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aabcp 5237 C] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. C.I.T., Sr.Dr For The Respondent : Shri B.K.Poddar, Fca Date Of Hearing : 25.05.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 25.05.2017. Order

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. C.I.T., Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri B.K.Poddar, FCA
Section 143(3)Section 194ISection 65(12)

depreciation amounting to Rs 34,37,133/- on computers given on lease and disallowed the same in the assessment. 5. The assessee submitted that it is dealing in computers and peripherals and it has also given computers on rental basis to different parties with the right to use at fixed charges along with installation and maintenance of the same

DCIT, CIRCLE - 1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. GLOSTER JUTE MILLS LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 95/KOL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Mar 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No.95/Kol/2011 Assessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sital Chandra Das, JCIT

depreciable asset exempt u/s 50 cannot be taxed as income under the provisions of section 115JA. The appellant has also placed reliance on the decision of Suraj Jewellary 21 SOT 79 (Mum.) wherein it was held that even where for computing MAT profit u/s 115JB of the Act, the business profit shown in the Profit and Loss Account

RAGHVENDRA PRATAP SINGH,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 28, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 612/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 40Section 69C

section 133(6) of the Act, he went ahead to estimate the expenditure. He considered the upward/downward variation by 3% and taking the base of the expenses of the preceding financial year and estimated the expenses on oil and fuel charges at Rs.11,11,12,298/- and accordingly disallowed Rs.2,79,78,302/-. The ld. CIT(Appeals) has also affirmed

WITZENMANN INDIA PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CIR. -2(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 222/KOL/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Sm. Pallavi Paul, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 92C

section 133(6) of the Act and to collate the information on capacity details of comparable companies, such as actual capacity in units, installed capacity, breakup of affixed and variable cost, product wise segmental profitability (if any) and provide the assessee opportunity by sharing the details so obtained on the comparable companies. The Tribunal also held that if there

XL ENTERPRISES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2105/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 133(6)Section 2(22)(e)

133(6) from P N Memorial Neurocentre & Research Institute Ltd. that assessee company was holding 17.94% equity shares and the said company had accumulated profit of Rs. 12,42,02,096/- as on 31.03.2012. Accordingly a show cause notice was issued to the assessee as to why the advance received from the P N Memorial Neurocentre & Research Institute Ltd. should

MANGI LAL SETHIA,UTTAR DINAJPUR vs. ITO, WD-1, RAIGANJ, UTTAR DINAJPUR, UTTAR DINAJPUR

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 1475/KOL/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Oct 2015AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2004-05

Section 133Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 44A

133 A of the Act at the business premises of the assessee and his father. The AO recorded the statement of the assessee and found that the assessee has taken unsecured loan of Rs. 5,90,800/- from his father proprietor, of M/s Satyam Enterprises, but the same had not been reflected in the balance sheet of the assessee

DCIT, CIR-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S CHLORIDE POWER SYSTEMS & SOLUTIONS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1326/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Apr 2019AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.) Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Cir-2(1), Kolkata Vs M/S. Chloride Power Systems & Solutions Ltd. Pan: Aabcc1825B Deptt (Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Anup Sinha, FCA, ld.AR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

133(6) of the Act to these parties. However, notices returned back unserved. The assessee submitted before the AO that the payments were made for sale of battery to M/s CGPL. Notices was issued to M/s CGPL. However, M/s CGPL submitted, vide letter dated 06.12.2012 that they have no transaction with any other party except the assessee company. AO noticed

M/S JALAN CEMENT WORKS LTD,KOLKATA vs. C.I.T KOLKATA - I, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 1112/KOL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year :2008-09 M/S. Jalan Cement Works V/S. Cit, Kolkata-1 Ltd 2Nd Floor, Room No Aayakar Bhawan, 202, 81, Netji Subhas Road, P-7, Chowringhee Kolkata-700 001 Square, Kolkata- [Pan No.: Aaacj6788R] 700 069 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 73

depreciation whichever is less is to be reduced. 11. The Ld CIT has raised this issue upon the assessee in his show cause letter and the appellant has duly replied to it. 12. It is pertinent to note that the assessee has, while arguing his appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal, on 10.8.2016 clearly stated that assessee is not pressing

PADMAVATI PROPERTIES & TRUST PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-11(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 612/KOL/2014[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Jul 2017AY 2004-2005

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी एम. बालगनेश, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(i)

section 32(1)(ii) - Held, yes [Para 29] [In favour of assessee] 7.5. In view of the aforesaid facts and findings and respectfully following the judicial precedents relied upon hereinabove, we hold that the assessee is entitled for claiming depreciation on intangible assets for payment of lump sum consideration of Rs 1,50,37,500/- and accordingly the claim