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.

504 results for “depreciation”+ Section 37clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,739Delhi2,544Bangalore1,020Chennai897Kolkata504Ahmedabad414Hyderabad235Jaipur211Chandigarh153Raipur150Pune114Surat99Indore97Karnataka83Amritsar75Visakhapatnam68Cochin55Cuttack51Lucknow41Ranchi40Rajkot39SC35Nagpur26Telangana24Guwahati24Jodhpur24Kerala20Patna16Dehradun15Allahabad13Panaji13Calcutta10Agra9Punjab & Haryana3Varanasi3Jabalpur2Rajasthan2MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1D.K. JAIN H.L. DATTU JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1Tripura1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)89Disallowance60Section 14A52Addition to Income52Section 80I41Depreciation41Section 115J37Section 26336Deduction31Section 250

M/S. PEERLESS HOSPITEX HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTRE LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee( in ITA No

ITA 738/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.737 & 738/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years:2009-10 & 2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate, Shri S. Dey, CA & Ms. Puja Somani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT
Section 115JSection 154Section 72

depreciation arose to the assessee company in the financial years 1996 assessee company in the financial years 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998 98 and 1998-99. However, there was no General Reserve in these years as evident from the audited accounts there was no General Reserve in these years as evident from the audited accounts there was no General

Showing 1–20 of 504 · Page 1 of 26

...
30
Section 92C17
Section 143(1)16

M/S. PEERLESS HOSPITEX HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTRE LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee( in ITA No

ITA 737/KOL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.737 & 738/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years:2009-10 & 2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate, Shri S. Dey, CA & Ms. Puja Somani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT
Section 115JSection 154Section 72

depreciation arose to the assessee company in the financial years 1996 assessee company in the financial years 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998 98 and 1998-99. However, there was no General Reserve in these years as evident from the audited accounts there was no General Reserve in these years as evident from the audited accounts there was no General

MC NALLY SAYAJI ENGINEERING LIMITED,NORTH 24 PARGANAS vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 1,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 927/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

For Appellant: Smt. Shreya Loyalka, CAFor Respondent: Md. Ghayas Uddin, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

section 37 of the Act.” 5.1. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We have gone through the bills for repairs and maintenance incurred by the assessee. From the perusal of the same, we find that the expenditures were incurred only on account of current repairs which would definitely fall only under the ambit

DCIT, CIRCLE - 1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. MCNALLY SAYAJI ENGINEERING LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1575/KOL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Mar 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

For Appellant: Smt. Shreya Loyalka, CAFor Respondent: Md. Ghayas Uddin, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

section 37 of the Act.” 5.1. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We have gone through the bills for repairs and maintenance incurred by the assessee. From the perusal of the same, we find that the expenditures were incurred only on account of current repairs which would definitely fall only under the ambit

ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), , KOLKATA vs. TCG URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE HOLDINGS PVT LTD.,, KOLKATA

Accordingly, the same is dismissed

ITA 2584/KOL/2019[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Oct 2021AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. M.L.Meenaआयकर अपील सं.य/

Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

section 37. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the order of Assessing Officer on ground that date of incorporation cannot ipso facto be treated as date of setting up of operation as incorporation results in registration of the company but does not necessarily enable it to commence business, On appeal, the Tribunal allowed the claim from date of setting

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

37(1) of the Act and accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee in this regard are allowed. 11. Disallowance of provision for Asset Restoration Obligation (ARO) written back – Rs.6,52,00,000/- I.T.A. No. 1864/KOL./2012 Assessment year: 2009-2010 & Assessment Year : 2010-2011 & Assessment Year : 2010-2011 Page 46 of 56 The next issue to be decided

JCIT (OSD), CIR- 11(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. GOBIND SUGAR MILLS LTD. , KOLKATA

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

ITA 235/KOL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Jul 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Goel, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT D/R
Section 115BSection 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 32(1)(iia)

37[Chapter VI-A other than the provisions of section 80JJAA or section 80M]; (ii) without set off of any loss carried forward or depreciation

DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S NATIONAL ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2109/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No.2109/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata………………………………………….……Appellant Vs. M/S National Engineering Industrial Ltd…..……..........……...…..…..Respondent 11Th Floor, Birla Building, 9/1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Bbd Bagh, Kolkata-1. [Pan: Aaacn9969L] Appearances By: Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, Fca & Shri Rakesh Jhunjhunwala, Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Amitava Bhattacharya, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 13, 2021 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 16, 2021 Hearing Through Video Conferencing Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 17.06.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Revenue In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law In Allowing The Claim Of Balance Additional Depreciation On The Assets Which Were Put To Use In Earlier Year. 2. That The Appellant Craves For Leave To Add To Delete, Modify Any Of The Grounds Of Appeal Before Or At The Time Of Hearing..” 2. At The Outset, It Is Noticed That The Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Time-Barred By 18 Days. A Separate Application For Condonation Of The Said Delay Has Been Filed, Wherein Reasons For The Delay In Filing This Appeal Have Been Mentioned. Considering The Above Reasons, We Condone The Delay.

Section 143(3)Section 32(1)Section 32(1)(iia)

37 ITR (Trib) 644 (Kolkata ITAT) c. Universal Cables Ltd. vs DCIT (2015) 57 taxmann.com 95 (Kolkata ITAT) Thus, following the aforesaid decisions, the said ground of appeal is allowed and decided in favour of the appellant. The Ld. AO is directed to allow additional depreciation of Rs. 6,36,83,752/-. However, as a consequence of allowing the said

DCIT, CIRCLE - 12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. AMRI HOSPITALS LTD., KOLKATA

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

ITA 977/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37Section 37(1)

depreciation of Rs. 38,98,013/-, disallowance of advance written off of Rs. 4,41,000/-, treating of house property income as income from other sources and minor other additions. Loss assessed at Rs. 54,49,56,416/-. Page 2 of 22 I.T.A. No.: 977/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 AMRI Hospitals Ltd. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before

DCIT, CIR-10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. LUCKY GOLD STAR COMPANY LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1381/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37

Depreciation etc (Note 23) and Administrative & Selling & Distribution expenses (Note 24) which aggregates to ₹2,06,51,871/-. As such, the disallowance of indirect expenses aggregating to ₹2,06,51,871/- as per Note 21 to 24 is not sustainable being unfounded. As regards the application of the provisions of section 37

DCIT, CIR-10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. LUCKY GOLD STAR COMPANY LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1382/KOL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Apr 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37

Depreciation etc (Note 23) and Administrative & Selling & Distribution expenses (Note 24) which aggregates to ₹2,06,51,871/-. As such, the disallowance of indirect expenses aggregating to ₹2,06,51,871/- as per Note 21 to 24 is not sustainable being unfounded. As regards the application of the provisions of section 37

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

depreciation of Rs. 37,35,12,000.00 while computing the book profit under section 115JB of the Act. ITA No.356

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

depreciation of Rs. 37,35,12,000.00 while computing the book profit under section 115JB of the Act. ITA No.356

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

depreciation of Rs. 37,35,12,000.00 while computing the book profit under section 115JB of the Act. ITA No.356

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

depreciation of Rs. 37,35,12,000.00 while computing the book profit under section 115JB of the Act. ITA No.356

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

depreciation of Rs. 37,35,12,000.00 while computing the book profit under section 115JB of the Act. ITA No.356

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

depreciation of Rs. 37,35,12,000.00 while computing the book profit under section 115JB of the Act. ITA No.356

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

depreciation of Rs. 37,35,12,000.00 while computing the book profit under section 115JB of the Act. ITA No.356

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

depreciation of Rs. 37,35,12,000.00 while computing the book profit under section 115JB of the Act. ITA No.356

ACIT, LTU-1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S HINDUSTAN COPPER LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1616/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2012-13 Acit, Ltu-1, V/S. M/S Hindustan Copper 6Th Floor, Large Tax Ltd., Tamra Bhawan, Payer Unit, 180, Ashutosh Chowdhury Shantipally, Kolkata-107 Avenue, Kolkata-19 [Pan No.Aaach 7409 R] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Md. Usman Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Sanjay Bhattacharya, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 16-01-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 04-04-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-23, Kolkata Dated 11.05.2016. Assessment Was Framed By Acit, Ltu-1, Kolkata U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 12.03.2015 For Assessment Year 2012-13. The Grounds Raised By Revenue Reads As Under:- “1(A) That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit Erred In Law & On Facts While Holding That Club Subscription Fees Were Annual Subscriptions Including Renewal Of Corporate Club Member Fees Whereas The Club Subscription Fees Were Actually Capital Expenditure Amounting To Rs.18,75,767/- & Were Never Claimed By Assessee In Earlier Years As Revenue Expenditure. (B) That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Law & On Facts While Holding That The Club Subscription Fees Were Revenue In Nature & Not Capital Expenditure Relying On The Decision Of Dcit Vs. Makers Development Services Ltd. [1994] 75 Taxman 125 (Bom).

Section 143(3)

section 37(1) during years of vesting on basis of percentage of vesting during such period, subject to upward or downward adjustment at time of exercise of option - Held, yes [Para 11.1.6] [In favour of assessee]” In view of the above proposition, we hold that the provision created by assessee in relation to PRP does not represent the uncertain liability