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.

416 results for “depreciation”+ Section 43(6)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,160Delhi1,987Bangalore888Chennai686Kolkata416Ahmedabad397Hyderabad196Jaipur171Raipur140Chandigarh136Pune111Karnataka93Indore91Surat78Amritsar74Visakhapatnam46SC45Cuttack44Lucknow42Rajkot39Cochin39Nagpur26Guwahati22Jodhpur21Telangana21Ranchi20Dehradun16Kerala12Patna11Allahabad11Agra10Panaji9Varanasi6Calcutta4Orissa2D.K. JAIN H.L. DATTU JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1Punjab & Haryana1Jabalpur1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Rajasthan1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)106Section 14A56Disallowance54Section 80I49Addition to Income49Depreciation42Section 115J41Section 14732Deduction32Section 43B

M/S. EVEREADY INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT-4, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 805/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

6), the term ‘monies payable’ had the same meaning as contained in Explanation below Section 41(4), according to which the said term meant “the price for which it is sold”. We note that in the present case the assessee’s transaction involving sale of factory building being a depreciable asset, was governed by the specific provisions of Section 43

I.T.O WD - 2(3),KOLKATA., KOLKATA vs. M/S LAST PEAK DATA PVT LTD., KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Showing 1–20 of 416 · Page 1 of 21

...
29
Section 25023
Section 26323
ITA 154/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: Disposed
ITAT Kolkata
30 Oct 2015
AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ]

For Appellant: Shri Vasant SubramanyanFor Respondent: Shri Niraj Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 10ASection 10BSection 115JSection 14

section. 38. The next issue that arises for is with regard to disallowance of a sum of Rs.1,05,060/- which was expenditure incurred to increase the authorized share capital of the Assessee from Rs.49,00,000 to Rs.1,99,00,000/-. The AO held that the expenditure so incurred was capital expenditure as it has been incurred to increase

TATA CONSUMER PRODUCTS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed

ITA 373/KOL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2014-15 & Assessment Years: 2015-16

For Appellant: Sriram Sashdari, ARFor Respondent: Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, DR
Section 250Section 43(6)Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 928

Section 43(6)(c) read with Section 32 of the Act, and therefore Section 50C is not applicable, reliance in this regard is placed on the following- -Decision of the jurisdictional Tribunal in the case of Eveready Industries India Ltd. -vs.- PCIT (2020) 181 ITD 528 (Kolkata Trib.) wherein the Hon'ble ITAT has held that while computing

TATA CONSUMER PRODUCTS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed

ITA 372/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2014-15 & Assessment Years: 2015-16

For Appellant: Sriram Sashdari, ARFor Respondent: Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, DR
Section 250Section 43(6)Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 928

Section 43(6)(c) read with Section 32 of the Act, and therefore Section 50C is not applicable, reliance in this regard is placed on the following- -Decision of the jurisdictional Tribunal in the case of Eveready Industries India Ltd. -vs.- PCIT (2020) 181 ITD 528 (Kolkata Trib.) wherein the Hon'ble ITAT has held that while computing

DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. THE SUN ROLLING MILLS PVT. LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 333/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am] I.T.A. No. 333/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2012-13 D.C.I.T. Cir 3(1), Kolkata..............................…………………………...........................Appellant P-7, Chowringhee Square, Aayakar Bhawan, 4Th Floor, Room No. 19, Kolkata – 700 069 M/S. The Sun Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd....................…….........................................Respondent P-2, New Cit Road, Kolkata – 700 073. [Pan: Aabct 2647 N] Appearances By: Shri P.K. Mondal, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri Naresh Kumar Goyal, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 16, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 18, 2018 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Am This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(Appeals) – 1, Kolkata Dated 29.11.2017 & The Solitary Issue Involved Therein Relates To The Deletion By The Ld. Cit(A) Of The Addition Of Rs. 1,07,65,892/- Made By The A.O. On Account Of Disallowance Of Assessee’S Claim For Depreciation At Higher Rate On Rolls.

Section 32(1)

section 43(6), the written down value in case of assets acquired before the previous year is defined to mean the actual cost of the asset less all depreciation

INFINITY INFOTECH PARKS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-1, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 32/KOL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Apr 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am ]

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32Section 43(6)Section 50Section 72

43(6) read with Section 50 of the Act. Accordingly, when the block of asset ceased to exist, the excess/gain arising, after adjustment of the premium received from long term leases from the WDV of the asset, was computed and shown by way of deemed 'Short Term Capital Gain' u/s. 50 of the Act. (iii) According to the assessee, these

GLOSTER LIMITEDN (FORMERLY KNOWN AS GLOSTER JUTE MILLS LIMITED ),KOLKATA vs. CIT-1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 828/KOL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jan 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] Assessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Saumen Adak, FCA & Shri Harish Agarwal,ACAFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Chaube, CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 263Section 43(1)

depreciation invoking the provisions of Explanation 10 to section 43(1) of the Act. The assesse in its reply to the notice u/s 142(1) of the Act has clearly set out that the subsidy in question need not be reduced from the value of fixed assets. We have extracted the reply of the assessee in the earlier part

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

section 43B(f) of the Act in the remand proceedings.” 3.1. The Revenue is in appeal before this Tribunal raising the following grounds: Assessment Year 2011-12: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred by allowing the claim of balance additional depreciation of Rs.1,43,97,535/-. 2. Whether

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

section 43B(f) of the Act in the remand proceedings.” 3.1. The Revenue is in appeal before this Tribunal raising the following grounds: Assessment Year 2011-12: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred by allowing the claim of balance additional depreciation of Rs.1,43,97,535/-. 2. Whether

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

section 43B(f) of the Act in the remand proceedings.” 3.1. The Revenue is in appeal before this Tribunal raising the following grounds: Assessment Year 2011-12: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred by allowing the claim of balance additional depreciation of Rs.1,43,97,535/-. 2. Whether

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

section 43B(f) of the Act in the remand proceedings.” 3.1. The Revenue is in appeal before this Tribunal raising the following grounds: Assessment Year 2011-12: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred by allowing the claim of balance additional depreciation of Rs.1,43,97,535/-. 2. Whether

DCIT, CIR-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S AKZO NOBEL COATINGS INDIA (P) LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 743/KOL/2014[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jun 2017AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2008-09

Section 143(3)

depreciation actually allowed in that year have reached finality and cannot be changed in the assessment year under appeal. They could have been changed only if the assessment of that or earlier years could be re-opened. Such an action was barred by limitation. Further, as per section 43(6

DCIT, CIR-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S EVEREADY INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 159/KOL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Oct 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी वसीम अहमद, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

depreciation was allowed. The property in question was sold during the relevant year for Rs 500 lacs. In terms of Section 43(6

RAJATGIRI OIL INDUSTRIES,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-28/KOL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 475/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Banerjee, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 22Section 32

depreciation in respect of this property. 9.1. Ld. AO also noted that assessee has obtained the said property under development agreement. According to him, no cost of acquisition has been incurred by the assessee for acquisition of asset since deprciation is to be allowed on the actual cost incurred as mandated u/s. 32 read with section 43(6

RAJATGIRI OIL INDUSTRIES,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 336/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Banerjee, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

depreciation in respect of this property. 9.1. Ld. AO also noted that assessee has obtained the said property under development agreement. According to him, no cost of acquisition has been incurred by the assessee for acquisition of asset since deprciation is to be allowed on the actual cost incurred as mandated u/s. 32 read with section 43(6

RAJATGIRI OIL INDUSTRIES,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 337/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Banerjee, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

depreciation in respect of this property. 9.1. Ld. AO also noted that assessee has obtained the said property under development agreement. According to him, no cost of acquisition has been incurred by the assessee for acquisition of asset since deprciation is to be allowed on the actual cost incurred as mandated u/s. 32 read with section 43(6

RAJATGIRI OIL INDUSTRIES,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 335/KOL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Banerjee, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

depreciation in respect of this property. 9.1. Ld. AO also noted that assessee has obtained the said property under development agreement. According to him, no cost of acquisition has been incurred by the assessee for acquisition of asset since deprciation is to be allowed on the actual cost incurred as mandated u/s. 32 read with section 43(6

RAJATGIRI OIL INDUSTRIES,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 334/KOL/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Feb 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Banerjee, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

depreciation in respect of this property. 9.1. Ld. AO also noted that assessee has obtained the said property under development agreement. According to him, no cost of acquisition has been incurred by the assessee for acquisition of asset since deprciation is to be allowed on the actual cost incurred as mandated u/s. 32 read with section 43(6

D.C.I.T CIR - 1,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S AVERY (INDIA) LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue, is dismissed

ITA 980/KOL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Apr 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.980/Kol/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2006-2007) Dcit, Circle-1, Kolkata, Vs. M/S Avery (India) Limited, Aayakar Bhavan, 7Th Floor, 28/2, Waterloo Street, P-7, Chowranghiee Square, Kolkata-700069 Kolkata-69 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacca 4694 B .. (अपीलाथ" /Assessee) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, Jcit Assessee By : Shri Manish Sheth, Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 08/03/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 26/04/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2006-07, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xx, Kolkata, In Appeal No.85/Cit(A)-Xx/Circle-1/2011-12/Kol, Dated 16.01.2013, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 29.12.2009. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income Disclosing Total Income Of Rs.3,88,68,115/-.The Return Of Income Was Processed U/S 143(1). Later On, The Assessee’S Case Was Selected For Scrutiny U/S.143(3) Of The Act & The Ao Has Completed The Assessment By Making Addition On Account Of Short Term Capital Gain At Rs.65,81,000/-. The Assessing Officer Observed That The Assessee’S Claim In Respect Of Surrender Of Tenancy Rights Is Not Accepted Because As Per M/S Avery (India) Ltd. Section 43(6) Of The Act, Written Down Value Of A Particular Block Of Assets

For Appellant: Shri Manish Sheth, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, JCIT
Section 1Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 28Section 43Section 43(6)Section 50

6) of the Act, written down value of a particular block of assets includes only the ‘actual cost’ of the asset acquired during the previous year. The term actual cost for the purpose of section 28 to 41 is also defined in Sub-section 1 of Section 43 which says actual cost means the actual cost of the assets

DCIT, CIR-10(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S S & IB SERVICES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1401/KOL/2015[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Dec 2017AY 2012-2013

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

For Appellant: Shri Kalyan Nath,Addl.CIT, ld.Sr.DRFor Respondent: None appeared

6. The CIT-A after considering the above case laws and submissions of assessee directed the AO to apply the depreciation @ 30% as claimed by the assessee and to delete the addition made in this regard. Relevant portion of the CIT-A order on this issue is reproduced herein below:- “5.2 I have considered the contention