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.

62 results for “depreciation”+ Section 194Cclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai157Delhi104Bangalore64Kolkata62Chennai50Raipur24Ahmedabad20Indore15Hyderabad13Amritsar11Visakhapatnam8Rajkot8Nagpur7Jaipur7Kerala5Patna4Jodhpur3Ranchi2Lucknow2Surat2Dehradun2Karnataka1Chandigarh1Cochin1Guwahati1Agra1Pune1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 4074Section 143(3)67Disallowance38Deduction38Section 194C37Section 26333Section 80I32Depreciation31Addition to Income30Section 115J

I.T.O WD - 7(2),KOLKATA., KOLKATA vs. M/S WINSOME BREWERIES LIMITED, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 622/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: Shri Shital C. Das, JCIT, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 194JSection 40

194C of the Act is not applicable. Accordingly, no disallowance by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act can be made. The CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition and we confirm the same. This issue of revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 6. The next issue in this appeal of revenue is against the order

Showing 1–20 of 62 · Page 1 of 4

25
Section 153A20
TDS19

M/S VODAFONE EAST LTD.(FORMERLY KNOWN AS VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LIMITED),KOLKATA vs. A.D.I.T RANGE - 7,KOL., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 1864/KOL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Sept 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 143(3)Section 194ISection 40

194C / 194I or 194J of the Act and hence we have no hesitation in directing the Learned Assessing Officer to delete the addition made u/s 40(a)(ia) on this account. 4.21. Without prejudice to the aforesaid main ground with regard to the non-applicability of TDS provisions for roaming charges, the next argument of the Learned AR that

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 154 (subject to built in limitations) can be considered by appellant for suitable remedy. Considering all these I decline to adjudicate ground 7.0” Being aggrieved by this order of Ld. CIT(A) assessee came in second appeal before us on the following additional ground:- “1. For that on the facts of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was wrong

DCIT, CIR-36, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SRI RIKHAB CHAND JAIN, KOLKATA

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1129/KOL/2015[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Dec 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri A. T Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1129/Kol/2015 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit, Cir-36, Kolkata Vs. Sri Rikhab Chand Jain Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 8Th Floor, 110, C/O M/S T T Ltd., 2 Nd Floor, 10, Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. Ezzie Mansion, Pollock Street, 2 Nd Floor, Kolkata – 1. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aeypj 0493 A (Revenue) .. (Assessee) Co No.47/Kol/2015 (A/O Ita No.1129/Kol/2015) ("नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12) Sri Rikhab Chand Jain Vs. Dcit, Cir-36, Kolkata Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 8Th Floor, 110, C/O M/S T T Ltd., 2 N D Floor, 10, Ezzie Mansion, Pollock Street, 2 Nd Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. Floor, Kolkata – 1. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aeypj 0493 A (Assessee) .. (Revenue)

For Appellant: ShriSallongYaden, Addl. CITFor Respondent: ShriS.M. Surana, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40

194C warranting any disallowance u/s 40(a) (ia) of the Act. Thus, respectfully following the decision of the Coordinate Bench in assessee`s own case, (supra), in the immediately preceding assessment year 2009-10, whereby the issues were decided in favour of the assessee company, as set out above, we hold that no disallowance under section

M/S ADHUNIK INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. JCIT, RG-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1281/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 May 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No.1281 /Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D.Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT, Sr.Dr
Section 143(3)Section 80I

depreciation in respect of such machinery or plant has been allowed or is allowable under the provisions of this Act in computing the total income of any person for any period prior to the date of the installation of machinery or 9 10 Adhunik Infrastructure (P)Ltd. A.Yr.2010-11 plant by the assessee. Explanation 2.—Where in the case

A.C.I.T CIR - 30,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S BELLS ADVERTISING SYNDICATES, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 395/KOL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Feb 2016AY 2007-08

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

Section 194CSection 40

194C of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, the appellant strongly contended for deletion of such unwarranted addition. 5.12. The action of the A.O. in disallowing the sum of Rs.5,000/- for non-deduction of tax at source for payment made to the labour contractor is wholly unwarranted and devoid of any legal sanction and as such the same is deleted

D.C.I.T CIR - 8,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ABCI INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 990/KOL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jan 2018AY 2006-07

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

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 801ASection 80I

depreciation. Thus, it is not the case where the assessee had misled the AO in any manner while making the claim u/s. 80IA of the Act. All the statutory requirements as per law for claiming deduction like tax audit report, etc. were filed before the AO and the AO had applied his mind and then had granted the deduction

DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHRY,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 33, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1220/KOL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Oct 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: Md. Ghayas Uddin, JCIT, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Dr. Bishnu Sankar Kundu, FCA
Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 194CSection 40

194C, the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) are clearly attracted. The judicial decision relied upon by the appellant is clearly distinguishable on facts. For, in that case, the assessee was clearing and forwarding agent; but, in the present case, the appellant is an importer and payments were made to clearing and forwarding agent. Secondly, in that case

SHRI ARPAN KUMAR GHOSH,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD-48(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1536/KOL/2014[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Oct 2016AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap

Section 194CSection 40

194C. I am of the view that the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under section 40(a)(ia) and confirmed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) is fully sustainable. I, therefore, find no merit in Ground No. 1 raised by the assessee and dismiss the same. 5. The issue raised in Ground No. 2 relates to the disallowance of Rs.7

DCIT, CIR-12(2),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. SELVEL MEDIA SERVICES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue ( Ground No

ITA 2205/KOL/2014[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Aug 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2205/Kol/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 D.C.I.T, Cirle-12(2), Vs. M/S Selvel Media Services Pvt. Ltd. Kolkata 10/1B, Diamond Harbour Road, Kolkata – 700 027. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcs 7951 G (Revenue/Department) .. (Assessee) Assessee By :Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate Revenue/Department By :Shri G. Mallikarjuna, Cit Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 13/07/2017 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/08/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2011-12, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–Xii, Kolkata, In Appeal No.237/Xii/Cir-12/14-15 Dated 17.09.2014, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 20.03.2014. 2. Revenue Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. “That In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In The Law The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Disallowance Of Rs. 1,42,76,824/- Made By The A.O. On Depreciation On Hoarding Structures.” 2. “That In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In The Law The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Disallowance Of Rs. 1,66,53,847/- Made By The A.O. On Account Of Deduction U/S. 80-Ia.”

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 80

depreciation at 10%. 8. We have given a very careful consideration to the rival submissions. We are of the view that the Tribunal has already taken a view in favour of the assessee in the past assessment referred to in the earlier part of this order. It cannot be argued by the ld. DR at this stage that in none

D.C I.T CIR - 2,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S WEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION CO LTD., KOLKATA

In the result the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 874/KOL/2013[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 May 2017AY 2008-2009

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 874/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2008-09 D.C.I.T., Circle-2, -Vs.- M/S. West Bengal State Kolkata Electricity Transmission Co.Ltd. Kolkata [Pan : Aaacw 6952 C] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri Goulen Hangshing, Cit(Dr) For The Respondent : Shri Sanjay Bhattacharya, Fca Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 12.05.2017. Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Goulen Hangshing, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Bhattacharya, FCA
Section 12Section 39(1)

section 194C is not applicable to such annual carrying charges as per tariff order dated 26.07.2007 of WBERC and accordingly addition made u/s 40(a)(ia) is deleted. Therefore ground no.4 and 5 are allowed.” 17. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A) revenue has raised ground nos. 2 and 3 before the Tribunal. We have heard the submissions

ITO,WARD-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. SHAHI ROADWAYS(P)LTD, HOWRAH

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

ITA 1184/KOL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Dinabandhu Naskar, JCIT, ld.Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate, ld.AR
Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 2Section 40

section 194C( total of single payment in excess of Rs. 20,000/- is Rs. 3,13,259/- and aggregate payment to one single party in excess of Rs. 50,000/- is Rs.83,629/-) 3.2. The Learned DR vehemently supported the order of the Learned AO and argued that the details of bills were submitted before the Learned CITA

ACIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA vs. HUTCHISON TELECOM EAST LIMITED, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

ITA 343/KOL/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80I

section 80HHC, the Courts have held that deduction u/s. 80-HHC of the Act is available in respect of amount taxes u/s. section 41(1) of the Act: o Alfa Laval India Limited (266 ITR 418) (Bom) affirmed by the Supreme Court in 295 ITR 451 o Extrusion Process (P) Ltd. V. ITO (106 ITD 336) (TBom) (PB II – page

M/S. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

ITA 485/KOL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80I

section 80HHC, the Courts have held that deduction u/s. 80-HHC of the Act is available in respect of amount taxes u/s. section 41(1) of the Act: o Alfa Laval India Limited (266 ITR 418) (Bom) affirmed by the Supreme Court in 295 ITR 451 o Extrusion Process (P) Ltd. V. ITO (106 ITD 336) (TBom) (PB II – page

M/S. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

ITA 673/KOL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80I

section 80HHC, the Courts have held that deduction u/s. 80-HHC of the Act is available in respect of amount taxes u/s. section 41(1) of the Act: o Alfa Laval India Limited (266 ITR 418) (Bom) affirmed by the Supreme Court in 295 ITR 451 o Extrusion Process (P) Ltd. V. ITO (106 ITD 336) (TBom) (PB II – page

DCIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LIMITED, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

ITA 482/KOL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80I

section 80HHC, the Courts have held that deduction u/s. 80-HHC of the Act is available in respect of amount taxes u/s. section 41(1) of the Act: o Alfa Laval India Limited (266 ITR 418) (Bom) affirmed by the Supreme Court in 295 ITR 451 o Extrusion Process (P) Ltd. V. ITO (106 ITD 336) (TBom) (PB II – page

M/S. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE - 7, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

ITA 357/KOL/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80I

section 80HHC, the Courts have held that deduction u/s. 80-HHC of the Act is available in respect of amount taxes u/s. section 41(1) of the Act: o Alfa Laval India Limited (266 ITR 418) (Bom) affirmed by the Supreme Court in 295 ITR 451 o Extrusion Process (P) Ltd. V. ITO (106 ITD 336) (TBom) (PB II – page

M/S VODAFONE EAST LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LIMITED),KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

ITA 431/KOL/2012[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2017AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80I

section 80HHC, the Courts have held that deduction u/s. 80-HHC of the Act is available in respect of amount taxes u/s. section 41(1) of the Act: o Alfa Laval India Limited (266 ITR 418) (Bom) affirmed by the Supreme Court in 295 ITR 451 o Extrusion Process (P) Ltd. V. ITO (106 ITD 336) (TBom) (PB II – page

M/S. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LTD.,KOLKATA vs. JCIT, RANGE - 7, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

ITA 356/KOL/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80I

section 80HHC, the Courts have held that deduction u/s. 80-HHC of the Act is available in respect of amount taxes u/s. section 41(1) of the Act: o Alfa Laval India Limited (266 ITR 418) (Bom) affirmed by the Supreme Court in 295 ITR 451 o Extrusion Process (P) Ltd. V. ITO (106 ITD 336) (TBom) (PB II – page

ACIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA vs. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LTD., KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

ITA 377/KOL/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80I

section 80HHC, the Courts have held that deduction u/s. 80-HHC of the Act is available in respect of amount taxes u/s. section 41(1) of the Act: o Alfa Laval India Limited (266 ITR 418) (Bom) affirmed by the Supreme Court in 295 ITR 451 o Extrusion Process (P) Ltd. V. ITO (106 ITD 336) (TBom) (PB II – page