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.

33 results for “depreciation”+ Section 355clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi306Mumbai292Bangalore109Chennai80Ahmedabad57Kolkata33Surat19Hyderabad19Lucknow14Indore13Jaipur12Pune7Guwahati5Chandigarh5Nagpur5Rajkot4SC4Raipur3Cochin3Telangana2Calcutta2Panaji2Patna2Agra1Jodhpur1Jabalpur1Dehradun1Cuttack1Karnataka1Amritsar1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)30Section 36(1)(viia)22Addition to Income20Section 26318Section 14717Section 4017Disallowance17Section 115J14Deduction14Section 80I

DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S VISHNU TEA & INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 1829/KOL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble Am & Sri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble Jm] I.T.A. No. 1749/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2008-09 C.O. No. 64/Kol/2016 A/O. I.T.A. No. 1749/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2008-09

depreciation. Hence both the parts of the Ground of Cross-objection and Ground No. 3 of the revenue are dismissed. 9.3. Ground No. 4, is on the issue as to whether the so-called interest subsidy received, is a capital receipt or revenue received. The facts leading to this issue is that the assessee had acquired “Dullabcherra Tea Estate

DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S VISHNU TEA & INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 1750/KOL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble Am & Sri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble Jm] I.T.A. No. 1749/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2008-09 C.O. No. 64/Kol/2016 A/O. I.T.A. No. 1749/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2008-09

Showing 1–20 of 33 · Page 1 of 2

13
Section 14A11
Depreciation9

depreciation. Hence both the parts of the Ground of Cross-objection and Ground No. 3 of the revenue are dismissed. 9.3. Ground No. 4, is on the issue as to whether the so-called interest subsidy received, is a capital receipt or revenue received. The facts leading to this issue is that the assessee had acquired “Dullabcherra Tea Estate

DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S VISHNU TEA & INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 1749/KOL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble Am & Sri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble Jm] I.T.A. No. 1749/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2008-09 C.O. No. 64/Kol/2016 A/O. I.T.A. No. 1749/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2008-09

depreciation. Hence both the parts of the Ground of Cross-objection and Ground No. 3 of the revenue are dismissed. 9.3. Ground No. 4, is on the issue as to whether the so-called interest subsidy received, is a capital receipt or revenue received. The facts leading to this issue is that the assessee had acquired “Dullabcherra Tea Estate

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S LABORATORIES GRIFFON PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1918/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

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

355/- was paid by the assessee to it. In order to boost the sales of “Sorbiline”, the assessee decided to give physician sample of this product. Realising that its factory did not had the capacity to produce the physician sample and for water shortage in its plant, the assessee got into an agreement with M/s. STP Pharmaceuticals

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. GAURAV ROSE REAL ESTATE PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross objection of the different assessees are also dismissed

ITA 2407/KOL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar] "ी संजय गग" "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सद"य के सम"

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

depreciation allowance or any other allowance as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year); A bare reading of the foregoing provision suggests that if the assessing officer has the reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S G.K.ISPAT PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross objection of the different assessees are also dismissed

ITA 2408/KOL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar] "ी संजय गग" "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सद"य के सम"

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

depreciation allowance or any other allowance as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year); A bare reading of the foregoing provision suggests that if the assessing officer has the reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment

EPCOS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NADIA vs. A.C.I.T CIR - 11,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the assesee is allowed

ITA 1921/KOL/2013[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jul 2016AY 1998-99

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 1921/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 1998-99 Epcos India Pvt. Ltd. -Vs.- A.C.I.T., Circle-11, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aaaci 6950 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Anup Sinha, Ar For The Respondent : Shri Debashis Lahiri, Jcit, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Anup Sinha, ARFor Respondent: Shri Debashis Lahiri, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year; concerned . Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall be taken under this section after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment

M/S. UJJAL TRANSPORT AGENCY,ASANSOL vs. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE-XVI, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee's CO is partly allowed”

ITA 1601/KOL/2014[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Jul 2017AY 2007-2008

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1601/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2007-08 M/S Ujjal Transport Agency, -Vs- Dcit, Central, Circle-Xvi, Kolkata G.T.Road(East), Murgasole Asansol Pan : Aaafu 6732 H] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : A. K. Tibrewal, Fca Amit Agarwal, Adv. For The Respondent : None Date Of Hearing : 11.07.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.07.2014 Order

For Appellant: A. K. Tibrewal, FCAFor Respondent: None
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 263Section 32(1)(iia)

section 147/143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the ‘Act’) dated 21.01.2014 for the Asst Year 2007-08. 2. Though the assessee has raised several grounds of appeal, we find that the central issue revolves on the point of admissibility of additional depreciation on plant & machinery used in the business of mining of coal. The brief facts

ACIT, CIRCLE - 7(1) , KOLKATA vs. M/S. BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 2644/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri N.S. Saini, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, D/R and Shri G
Section 115Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 250Section 92C

355 (three hundred fifty five) days in filing the cross-objection by the assessee. Petition for condonation of delay is placed on record by assessee explaining the reasons. On perusing the same, we are convinced that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing this appeal in time. Accordingly, we condone the delay and proceed to admit the cross

M/S PHILIPS ELECTRONICS INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I,.T CIR - 11,KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1894/KOL/2012[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Feb 2018AY 2008-2009

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 857/Kol/2011 Assessment Year : 2007-08 M/S Philips India Limited -Vs.- A.C.I.T., Circle-12(2), (Formerly Philips Electronics India Ltd.) Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aabcp 9487 A] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1894/Kol/2012 Assessment Year : 2007-08 M/S Philips India Limited -Vs.- A.C.I.T., Circle-12(2), (Formerly Philips Electronics India Ltd.) Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aabcp 9487 A] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri Arvind Sonde, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri G.Mallikarjuna, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 10.01.2018. Date Of Pronouncement : 02.02.208. Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Sonde, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 92Section 92C

depreciation charge; etc.” 7. At the time of hearing the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted before us that if two of the comparable ultimately chosen by the TPO are excluded and if proper working capital adjustment is given to the profit margins of the Assesssee and the comparable companies ultimately chosen as comparable companies, then the price charged

PHILIPS ELECTRONIS INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 857/KOL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 857/Kol/2011 Assessment Year : 2007-08 M/S Philips India Limited -Vs.- A.C.I.T., Circle-12(2), (Formerly Philips Electronics India Ltd.) Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aabcp 9487 A] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1894/Kol/2012 Assessment Year : 2007-08 M/S Philips India Limited -Vs.- A.C.I.T., Circle-12(2), (Formerly Philips Electronics India Ltd.) Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aabcp 9487 A] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri Arvind Sonde, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri G.Mallikarjuna, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 10.01.2018. Date Of Pronouncement : 02.02.208. Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Sonde, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 92Section 92C

depreciation charge; etc.” 7. At the time of hearing the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted before us that if two of the comparable ultimately chosen by the TPO are excluded and if proper working capital adjustment is given to the profit margins of the Assesssee and the comparable companies ultimately chosen as comparable companies, then the price charged

AMIT GHOSE,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR-22, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1412/KOL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1412/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Amit Ghose -Vs- Dcit, Circle-22, Kolkata [Pan: Adxpg 4852 G] (Formerly Jcit, Range-22, Kolkata) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

355 (Mum) – ITAT Mumbai B Bench dated 21.1.2009. The head notes are reproduced below:- Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961- Business expenditure –Allowability of – Assessment Years 2002-03 & 2003-04 Fine paid by assessee stock broker who was a member of NSE, on account of unfair trade practice and un-business like conduct is not for violation

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

355 (Mum) – ITAT Mumbai B Bench dated 21.1.2009. The head notes are reproduced below:- “Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961- Business expenditure –Allowability of – Assessment Years 2002-03 & 2003-04 Fine paid by assessee stock broker who was a member of NSE, on account of unfair trade practice and un-business like conduct is not for violation

THE SCOTTISH ASSAM (INDIA) LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1896/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] I.T.A. No. 1896/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Scottish Assam (India) Limited Vs. Dcit, Circle – 4(2), Kolkata [Pan: Aaact 9788 P] Appellant Respondent

Section 144Section 145(3)Section 14A

355/- made by the AO under Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (‘the Rules’) read with section 14A of the Act. 6. Brief facts of the case is that the AO while perusing the balance sheet noted that the assessee has made an investment of Rs. 1,36,06,041/- in securities. The AO noted that

ACIT, LTU - 2, KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. UCO BANK, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 585/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jun 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Vs. M/S Uco Bank Acit, Ltu-2, Kolkata 10, Btm, Sarani, Kolkata – 700001. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacu3561B .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Shankar, CITFor Respondent: Shri D. S. Damle, FCA
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 211Section 40

355(SC) (1999) 156 CTR 380(SC)] has held that balance sheet in accordance with statutory provision would not disentitle assessee in submitting income tax return on real taxable income in accordance with method of accounting adopted by assessee consistently and regularly 14. When this appeal was called out for hearing, learned counsel for the assessee invited our attention

WINDOW TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL) - 2, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1060/KOL/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Sept 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Akkal Dudhewala, A.RFor Respondent: Subhendu Datta, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 32

section 263 of the Act. The Ld. PCIT observed as under: 4. I have considered the facts of the case and the submissions made by the A/R of the assessee company. In this case, assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 26.09.2021. It was observed from the assessment records and computation of income

GAUTAM CHAND KANKARIA,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-9, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 284/KOL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 263

355 ITR 172 (Guj.) and Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Infinity Infotech, ITA No. 60 of 2014 has examined the scope of section 147 of the Income Tax Act and all the Hon’ble four High Courts are unanimous in their conclusions to propound that expression “AND ALSO” employed in section 147 of the Income

BOTHRA SHIPPING SERVICES(CURRENTLY KNOWN AS BOTHRA SHIPPING SERVICES (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT,CENTAL CIRCLE-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result ground no. 11 & 12 are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 178/KOL/2017[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jul 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Bothra Shipping Services ......…..…….……………………..…………………………………..……….……..Appellant (Currently Known As Bothra Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd.) Room No. 10 2Nd Floor “Sagar Estate 2 Clive Ghat Street Kolkata – 700 107 [Pan : Aadfb 8479 P] Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Kolkata.…….......….......Respondent Appearances By: Shri Naresh Jain & Mrs. Arati Debnath, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri G. Mallikarjuna, Cit, D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 26Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 31St , 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- All These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed U/S 144C R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The ‘Act’). As The Issues Arising In All These Appeals Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience They Are Heard Together & Disposed Off By Way Of This Common Order. 2. Brief Facts Of This Case Are Brought Out By The Ld. Drp At Page 1 Of His Order Which Is Extracted For Ready Reference:- Bothra India Is Engaged In The Business Of Handling Bulk Cargoes. Its Activities Include Vessel Handling, Stevedoring & Cargo Handling, Clearing & Forwarding & Other Port Related Activities. Jaldhi Overseas Pte Ltd ('Jaldhi Overseas') Engages Bothra India For Vessel Handling At The Port, To Provide Various Vessel Related Services Until The Vessel

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 153ASection 153BSection 92CSection 92C(3)

depreciation on Tata & JB Loaders at the rate of 30% as claimed in the return of income. 16. On the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld. Panel erred in confirming the action of the Ld. AO in applying interest under section 234B of the Act. The Appellant therefore prays that the Ld. AO be directed to delete

WEST BENGAL STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -2, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, ITA No. 1761& 1762/Kol/2011 are allowed and ITA No

ITA 1761/KOL/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 May 2016AY 2003-04

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

For Appellant: Shri T. P. Kar, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 254Section 35D

depreciation and fixed amount of expenditure for the cost of boundary wall was equally spread over for the period of lease. We find that the AO has taken the cost of boundary wall as cost improvement and the assessee has claimed the same as amortization of such expenditure but section 35D of the Act does not provide amortization of expenses

MCLEOD RUSSEL INDIA LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 682/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jul 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 682/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Mcleod Russel India Ltd. -Vs.- D. C.I.T., Circle-4 (1), Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aaace 6918 J] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri D.S.Damle, Ar For The Respondent : Shri Goulen Hangshing, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 25.07.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 28.07.2017. Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri D.S.Damle, ARFor Respondent: Shri Goulen Hangshing, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80I

depreciation has already been claimed u/s 80IE. Looking into the details, it was found that the assessee is not eligible to claim deduction u/s 80IE for the following eleven tea estates : Name of the Estate Amount claimed Amount considered for (Rs.) disallowance in current year (Rs.) Paneery 1,04,53,251 1,04,53,251 Mijcajan