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.

15 results for “depreciation”+ Section 36(1)(vii)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai542Delhi421Bangalore238Chennai159Ahmedabad82Chandigarh69Hyderabad51Jaipur50Raipur37Amritsar34Ranchi28Rajkot23Indore23Pune21Cochin18Guwahati16Surat15Kolkata15SC14Lucknow14Cuttack11Jodhpur7Dehradun6Nagpur5Patna2Visakhapatnam2ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Addition to Income12Section 143(3)10Disallowance10Section 2509Section 2636Section 80H6Depreciation5Section 143(2)4Section 36(1)(viia)4Section 14A

BINAYAK IMAGINE & DIAGNOSTIC PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 7(1), KOLKATA

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

ITA 519/KOL/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Aug 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(3)

vii) Vascular Angiography system including Digital subtraction Angiography viii) Ventilator used with annaesthesia apparatus ix) Magnetic Resonance Imaging System x) Surgical Laser xi) Ventilators other than those used with anesthesia xii) Gamma Knife xiii) Bone marrow transplant equipment including silasticlogn standing intravenous catheters for chemotherapy 4 I.T.A. No.519/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Binayak Imaging & Diagnostic Pvt. Ltd. xiv) Fibreoptic endoscopes

HARMUNY ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 9(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 161/KOL/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Jul 2023
4
Deduction4
Condonation of Delay4
AY 2012-2013

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 161/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Harmuny Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Circle-9(1), Kolkata 32A/28, Suren Sarkar Road Vs Kolkata - 700010 [Pan : Aacch5841H] अपीलाथ"/ (Assessee ) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manish Tiwary, A/R Revenue By : Shri G. Hukugha Sema, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13/04/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/07/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Ld. Cit(A)”], Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Dated 31/01/2023 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1.) That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Order U/S 250 Of The Act Dated 31.01.2023 Passed By Ld. Cit (A), Nfac Is Arbitrary, Unjustified & Bad In Law. 2.) That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Erred In Confirming The Addition Made By Ao Amounting To Rs. 6,85,53,691/- Towards Provision For Bad & Doubtful Debts Under Provisions Of Income Tax Act, 1961 Without Considering The Fact That The Same Was Actually Written Off From The Accounts Of The Appellant In Previous Year. 3.) That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 3,12,27,393/- U/S 41(1) Read With Section 28(Iv) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On The Presumption That Liability

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwary, A/RFor Respondent: Shri G. Hukugha Sema, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 148Section 234BSection 234DSection 250Section 28Section 32Section 41(1)

36(1)(vii) of the Act. In support of this contention, reliance was placed on the decision of the Special Bench in the case of DCIT vs. ShriShreyas S. Morakhia 40 SOT 432 (TBom) (Special Bench) and the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of TRF Limited vs. CIT reported

MEGA ENGINEERS & BUILDERS,PORT BLAIR vs. DCIT, CIR. 3(2) , PORT BLAIR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 312/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 194C

36,076/- thereby making the addition of Rs. 1,69,555/-. The Ld. CIT(A) simply dismissed the appeal of the assessee by holding that the assessee failed to furnish any record justifying the use of vehicle wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business and thus justified the addition. 5 I.T.A. No.312/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mega Engineers & Builders

ACIT, CIRCLE - 1(2), JALPAIGURI, JALPAIGURI vs. THE JALPAIGURI CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., JALPAIGURI

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

ITA 537/KOL/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Sept 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 36(1)(vi)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 80P

vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961? iii. That the Department reserves the right to add, delete, review, change or modify any ground in the course of hearing.” 2 AY: 2014-15 The Jalpaiguri Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is carrying on banking business as guided by the Banking Regulation

ACIT-6(2), KOLKATA vs. M/S NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 498/KOL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Apr 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

depreciated investments. We find that this issue has been dealt by this Tribunal for AY 2015-16 in ITA No. 1030/KOL/2018 dated 11.12.2019 and the finding of this Tribunal reads as follows: “4. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. As agreed by the learned representatives of both

BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-7(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 462/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35(1)(i)Section 43BSection 56(2)(x)Section 80J

vii) Shri Farid Gulmohammed vs. ITO (ITA No. 5136/Mum/2014) (ITAT Mum) (viii) ITO vs Yasin Moosa Godil (20 taxmann.com 424) (ITAT Ahmedabad) (ix) ACIT vs. Nadir Nazarali Dhanani (ITA No. 100/Mum/2013) (ITAT Mum); (x) Kumarpal Mohanlal Jain vs. ITO (ITA No. 7231/Mum/2010) (ITAT Mum); (xi) ITO vs. Hari Om Gupta (45 ITR 137); (xii) ITO -vs.- Pradeep Steel Re-rolling

M/S. BANKURA DISTRICT CENTRAL CO.OPETATIVE BANK LTD. ,BANKURA vs. DCIT, CIR-3, BANKURA. , BANKURA

In the result, ITA No. 1479/KOL/2023 is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1479/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Sri Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 250

depreciation on fixed assets. We find that the Central Board of Direct Taxes had issued instruction No. 17/ 2008 dated 26.11.2008 on the subject mentioned issue wherein it has been categorically mentioned that the investments held under HTM category need not be marked to market and are to be carried at acquisition cost unless these are more than face value

BANGIYA GRAMIN VIKASH BANK,MURSHIDABAD vs. ACIT, CIR.42, MURSHIDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2008-09 is partly allowed

ITA 2580/KOL/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Mar 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 2580 & 2581/Kol/2019 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09 Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Vs Tax, Circle - 42, Murshidabad Nh-34, Bmc House P.O. Chuanpur, Berhampore Murshidabad - 742101 [Pan : Aaalb0462D] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury & Shri Pranabesh Sarkar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02/03/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/03/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 12, Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Even Dated 26/09/2019, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), For Assessment Years 2007-08 & 2008-09. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal For The Assessment Year 2007-08:- “1. For That On The Facts Of The Case, The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-12, Kolkata Is Completely Arbitrary, Unjustified & Illegal & Without Any Jurisdiction. 2. For That On The Facts Of The Case, The Ld. C.I.T. (A) Was Wrong In Not Considering The Merit Of The Case, Therefore, The Order Passed By The Ld. C.I.T. (A) Is Completely Arbitrary, Unjustified & Illegal. 3. For That On The Facts Of The Case, The Ld. C.I.T. (A) Was Wrong In Not Considering The Facts That In Reopening The Assessment U/S. 148 (R.W.S. 147)

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury & Shri Pranabesh SarkarFor Respondent: Shri Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT D/R
Section 148Section 250Section 37

vii) "unabsorbed depreciation" means so much of the allowance for depreciation of the amalgamating banking company or companies or amalgamating corresponding new bank or banks or amalgamating Government company or companies which remains to be allowed and which would have been allowed to such banking company or companies or amalgamating corresponding new bank or banks or amalgamating Government company

BANGIYA GRAMIN VIKASH BANK,MURSHIDABAD vs. ACIT, CIR.42, MURSHIDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2008-09 is partly allowed

ITA 2581/KOL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Mar 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 2580 & 2581/Kol/2019 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09 Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Vs Tax, Circle - 42, Murshidabad Nh-34, Bmc House P.O. Chuanpur, Berhampore Murshidabad - 742101 [Pan : Aaalb0462D] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury & Shri Pranabesh Sarkar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02/03/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/03/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 12, Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Even Dated 26/09/2019, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), For Assessment Years 2007-08 & 2008-09. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal For The Assessment Year 2007-08:- “1. For That On The Facts Of The Case, The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-12, Kolkata Is Completely Arbitrary, Unjustified & Illegal & Without Any Jurisdiction. 2. For That On The Facts Of The Case, The Ld. C.I.T. (A) Was Wrong In Not Considering The Merit Of The Case, Therefore, The Order Passed By The Ld. C.I.T. (A) Is Completely Arbitrary, Unjustified & Illegal. 3. For That On The Facts Of The Case, The Ld. C.I.T. (A) Was Wrong In Not Considering The Facts That In Reopening The Assessment U/S. 148 (R.W.S. 147)

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury & Shri Pranabesh SarkarFor Respondent: Shri Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT D/R
Section 148Section 250Section 37

vii) "unabsorbed depreciation" means so much of the allowance for depreciation of the amalgamating banking company or companies or amalgamating corresponding new bank or banks or amalgamating Government company or companies which remains to be allowed and which would have been allowed to such banking company or companies or amalgamating corresponding new bank or banks or amalgamating Government company

M/S. MATERIALS CHEMICALS AND PERFORMANCE INTERMEDIARIES PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY, MCC PTA INDIA CORP. PRIVATE LTD.),KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 388/KOL/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Feb 2024AY 2004-05

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Anikesh Banerjee]

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 80H

Depreciation and business loss will be NIL. Therefore, the claim of the assessee company for reduction from amount of Book Profit of Rs, 2,03,75,401/- u/s. 80HHC is disallowed. Further, it is seen that the assessee company has not added back provision of Wealth Tax u/s40(a)(ia) amounting to Rs. 12,36,043/-. To arrive at book

NORMURA RESEARCH INSTITURE FINANCIAL TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-2(2), KOL, KOLKATA

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

ITA 204/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Amal Kamat, CIT, DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)

depreciation has been incorrectly adopted for preparation of profit and loss account. 39. In view of aforesaid, we hold that the AO erred in adding back the transfer pricing adjustment of the book profits under Section 115JB of the Act. Accordingly, this ground of the appeal raised by the assessee is allowed and the AO is directed to exclude

RAJYADHARPARA CHANDPUR SAMABAY KRISHI UNNAYAN SAMITY LIMITED,PURBA BARDHAMAN vs. ITO, WARD - 2(4), BURDWAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2671/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shyamadas Bandyopadhyay, FCAFor Respondent: Smt. Madhumita Das, Sr. DR
Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

36 1) P.P. 24,636 00 2) Provision for Bad & Doubtful Debts 1,50,847 00 1,75,483 00 Add : Disallowable Expenditure u/s 37 1 ) Sine Board Writing Expenditure 3000 00 Add : Disallowable Expenditure u/s 40A 1) Provision for Gratuity 1,99,720 00 Gross Total Income 21,46,280 00 Less : Deduction u/s.80P 21,46,280 00 Total

BIJAN BEHARI BISWAS,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WARD-10(3),KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

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

ITA 851/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleita Nos. 851/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Bijan Behari Biswas Ito, Ward-10(3), Kolkata 34, Manton Super Market, Kolkata- Vs. 700034. Pan: Adrpb 4871 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri G. Banerjee, Ar Respondent By : Shri Bivekananda Madhu, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 10.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.10.2023 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Appeal Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22.06.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeals, Nfac, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’]. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri G. Banerjee, ARFor Respondent: Shri Bivekananda Madhu, JCIT
Section 143(2)Section 361Section 56(2)(vii)

1) of the Act. In response to notices, the ld. AR of the assessee appeared before the AO from time to time after considering the submission of the assessee and following additions were made which are as under: “i. Variation of purchase consideration of building as compared to stamp duty valuation without considering first proviso of section 56(2)(vii

DCIT, CIR. 4(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S ANDREW YULE & CO. LTD, KOLKATA

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

ITA 191/KOL/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Aug 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Bandyopahdyay, A/RFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 250

depreciated investments 2. On the issue of amortization of premium paid on investments 3.&4. On the issue of disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D 5. On the issue of reserved created for unexpired risk 6. On the issue of addition of disallowance made u/s 14A 7. On the issue of provision for bad debts” 5. The ld. D/R, vehemently

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

vii) It is important for a manufacturing firm that uses significant plant and equipment in its operation to calculate Fixed Asset Turnover Ratio. It was cited that if Fixed Turnover Ratio is low, it means that sale is low or investment in plant & machinery is too high. The firm having high Fixed Asset Turnover Ratio are likely operating in over