Search: depreciation | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

319 results for “depreciation”+ Section 65(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,707 Delhi1,441 Bangalore581 Chennai471 Ahmedabad413 Kolkata319 Hyderabad180 Pune167 Jaipur157 Chandigarh152 Raipur83 Visakhapatnam70 Indore69 Surat65 Amritsar58 Cochin49 Cuttack46 Karnataka45 Lucknow40 Ranchi35 Rajkot35 Guwahati28 Nagpur24 SC19 Jodhpur17 Telangana12 Agra10 Allahabad8 Calcutta5 Dehradun5 Panaji4 Patna4 Varanasi4 Punjab & Haryana3 Rajasthan3 Orissa1 ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1 Jabalpur1 Kerala1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)90 Section 14A89 Disallowance58 Addition to Income49 Section 80I46 Section 115J44 Depreciation43 Section 26333 Section 14729 Deduction

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S DEEPAK INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue and CO of the assessee in A

ITA 264/KOL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 80ISection 92C

1,65,65,143/- under the relevant assets and allow depreciation as per the provisions of section 32 of the Act. Cosequently

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S DEEPAK INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue and CO of the assessee in A

ITA 263/KOL/2020[2014-15]Status: Disposed

Showing 1–20 of 319 · Page 1 of 16

...

27

ITAT Kolkata

23 Jun 2022

AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 80ISection 92C

1,65,65,143/- under the relevant assets and allow depreciation as per the provisions of section 32 of the Act. Cosequently

EIH LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-8(1)KOL., KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 117/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2012-13 Eih Ltd V/S. Dcit, Circle-8(1), 4, Mangoe Lane, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Kolkata-700 001 Chowringhee Square, [Pan No.Aaace 6898 B] Kolkata-69 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Ravi Sharma, Ar अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri P.K. Srihari, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 27-02-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 16-05-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Dispute Resolution Panel-2, (Drp For Short) Dated 17.10.2016. Assessment Was Framed By Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata U/S 144C(13)/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 29.11.2016 For Assessment Year 2012-13 & Grounds Raised By Assessee Read As Under:- “1.0 Determination Of Arm'S Length Price For Corporate Guarantee Fees 1.1 On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Transfer Pricing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld, Tpo") & Accordingly Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld. Ao") Erred In Treating The Corporate Guarantee Extended By The Appellant To Its Associated Enterprise (Ae) As International Transaction & Dispute Resolution Panel (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld, Panel") Erred In Confirming The Same As An International Transaction Without Appreciating The Fact That It Does Not Fall Within The Ambit Of "International Transaction" U/S 92B Of The Act. 1.2 The Ld.Ao/Tpo & The Ld. Panel Failed To Appreciate The Fact That Corporate Guarantee Has Been Advanced By The Appellant As A Matter Of Commercial Prudence To Protect The Business Interest Of The Group By Fulfilling

Section 14Section 144C(13)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 92B

depreciable assets can be set off against long term capital loss u/s 74 of the Act. 5.3. Respectfully following the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble Bombay High Court supra, we hold that the assessee is indeed entitled to set off the brought forward long term capital loss of Rs 9,77,54,843/- against

M/S MEDI DRIPS CARRIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-12(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 471/KOL/2014[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Mar 2017AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.471/Kol/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2008-2009) M/S Medi Drips Carries Pvt. Ltd Vs. Ito, Ward-12(4), 8Th Floor, R.No.818, P-7, Chowringhee Square, 4, Synagogue Street, Aayakar Bhawan, Kolkata-700001 Kolkata-700069 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcm 8139 Q .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ashish Rustogi, Aca Revenue By : Shri Saurav Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 01/03/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 08/03/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year 2008-09, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-Xii, Kolkata, In Appeal No.490/Xii/12(4)/10-11, Dated 11.11.2013, 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 28.12.2010. 2. The Said Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Time Barred By Four Days. The Assessee Filed The Petition For Condonation Of Delay & Expressed The Reasons Of Delay. After Verification Of Petition We Found That There Was A Reasonable Cause For Four Days Delay In Filing The Appeal. Even Ld Dr Did Not Object To Condone The Delay. Therefore, We Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal For Hearing. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessee Company Filed Its Return Of Income On 30.09.2008. Subsequently The 2 M/S Medi Drips Carries Pvt. Ltd. Assessee Company Filed Its Revised Return Of Income On 9-12-2008

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Rustogi, ACAFor Respondent: Shri Saurav Kumar, JCIT

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)

depreciation and expenditure are not allowable deduction while computing book profit under s. 115J of the IT Act, 1961, rlw s. 205(1), proviso (b) of the Companies Act, 1956. Same ratio was laid down in the Gilt Pack case discussed in detail above. iv) CIT vs Harprasad & Co. Pvt Ltd 1975 CTR (SC) 65 "From the charging provisions

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

65,18,756 – 39,11,254). Accordingly on the WDV of ₹26,07,502/- assessee would have claimed depreciation @ 60% i.e.₹15,64,501/- only. Whereas assessee is entitled for depreciation @ 25% of ₹26,07,502/- which comes out to ₹6,51,876/- only. Accordingly, the AO further observed that assessee has claimed excessive depreciation

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

65,18,756 – 39,11,254). Accordingly on the WDV of ₹26,07,502/- assessee would have claimed depreciation @ 60% i.e.₹15,64,501/- only. Whereas assessee is entitled for depreciation @ 25% of ₹26,07,502/- which comes out to ₹6,51,876/- only. Accordingly, the AO further observed that assessee has claimed excessive depreciation

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

65,18,756 – 39,11,254). Accordingly on the WDV of ₹26,07,502/- assessee would have claimed depreciation @ 60% i.e.₹15,64,501/- only. Whereas assessee is entitled for depreciation @ 25% of ₹26,07,502/- which comes out to ₹6,51,876/- only. Accordingly, the AO further observed that assessee has claimed excessive depreciation

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

65,18,756 – 39,11,254). Accordingly on the WDV of ₹26,07,502/- assessee would have claimed depreciation @ 60% i.e.₹15,64,501/- only. Whereas assessee is entitled for depreciation @ 25% of ₹26,07,502/- which comes out to ₹6,51,876/- only. Accordingly, the AO further observed that assessee has claimed excessive depreciation

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

65,18,756 – 39,11,254). Accordingly on the WDV of ₹26,07,502/- assessee would have claimed depreciation @ 60% i.e.₹15,64,501/- only. Whereas assessee is entitled for depreciation @ 25% of ₹26,07,502/- which comes out to ₹6,51,876/- only. Accordingly, the AO further observed that assessee has claimed excessive depreciation

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

65,18,756 – 39,11,254). Accordingly on the WDV of ₹26,07,502/- assessee would have claimed depreciation @ 60% i.e.₹15,64,501/- only. Whereas assessee is entitled for depreciation @ 25% of ₹26,07,502/- which comes out to ₹6,51,876/- only. Accordingly, the AO further observed that assessee has claimed excessive depreciation

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

65,18,756 – 39,11,254). Accordingly on the WDV of ₹26,07,502/- assessee would have claimed depreciation @ 60% i.e.₹15,64,501/- only. Whereas assessee is entitled for depreciation @ 25% of ₹26,07,502/- which comes out to ₹6,51,876/- only. Accordingly, the AO further observed that assessee has claimed excessive depreciation

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

65,18,756 – 39,11,254). Accordingly on the WDV of ₹26,07,502/- assessee would have claimed depreciation @ 60% i.e.₹15,64,501/- only. Whereas assessee is entitled for depreciation @ 25% of ₹26,07,502/- which comes out to ₹6,51,876/- only. Accordingly, the AO further observed that assessee has claimed excessive depreciation

EIH LTD.,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIR-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 110/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 153/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Eih Limited [Pan: Aaace 6898 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 110/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S Eih Limited -Vs- Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaace 6898 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Kanchun Kaushal,Ar For The Department : Shri G.Mallikarjuna, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.01.2018 Order Per Bench:

For Appellant: Shri Kanchun Kaushal,ARFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT DR

Section 14ASection 14A(2)

65,397,301 The Oberoi Mumbai/Tident Nariman Point 35,607,111 Trident Bandra Kurla, Mumbai (Operations) 9,260,223 Oberoi Flight Services, Mumbai 1,081,847 Oberoi Airport Services, Mumbai 169,761 The Oberoi, Bangalore 9,805,671 The Oberoi Vanyavilas, Ranthambore 2,113,523 Maidens Hotel, Delhi 3,806 OFS New Delhi (New Project) 63,794,695 Oberoi Centre

DCIT, CIR-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S EIH LTD., KOLKATA

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

ITA 153/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 153/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Eih Limited [Pan: Aaace 6898 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 110/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S Eih Limited -Vs- Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaace 6898 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Kanchun Kaushal,Ar For The Department : Shri G.Mallikarjuna, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.01.2018 Order Per Bench:

For Appellant: Shri Kanchun Kaushal,ARFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT DR

Section 14ASection 14A(2)

65,397,301 The Oberoi Mumbai/Tident Nariman Point 35,607,111 Trident Bandra Kurla, Mumbai (Operations) 9,260,223 Oberoi Flight Services, Mumbai 1,081,847 Oberoi Airport Services, Mumbai 169,761 The Oberoi, Bangalore 9,805,671 The Oberoi Vanyavilas, Ranthambore 2,113,523 Maidens Hotel, Delhi 3,806 OFS New Delhi (New Project) 63,794,695 Oberoi Centre

D.C.I.T CIR - 10(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S EUREKA FORBS LTD, KOLKATA

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 1247/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 92C

65,406/- under Repairs and Maintenance without there being any justification of as to why such disallowance should be restricted to 10% and not more or fully disallowed. 3. That on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in correct in law as well as facts in deleting the disallowance of excess depreciation

D.C.I.T CIR - 10(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S EUREKA FORBS LTD, KOLKATA

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 2037/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 92C

65,406/- under Repairs and Maintenance without there being any justification of as to why such disallowance should be restricted to 10% and not more or fully disallowed. 3. That on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in correct in law as well as facts in deleting the disallowance of excess depreciation

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

ITA 154/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Oct 2015AY 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

depreciation and not allowing set off of brought forward business loss. We will first deal with the issue with regard to deduction u/s.10AA of the Act. 3. The facts and circumstances under which the issue with regard to claim of the Assessee for deduction u/s.10AA of the Act arises for consideration are as follows: ITA Nos.154&155/Kol/2013 – M/s. Lat Peak

ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. WEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CO. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, while the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 386/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri A.T. Varkey

Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)

depreciation under section 32(1)(iia). Ground no 1 & 2 of the assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2011- 12 are accordingly allowed”. 4. It is also observed that the issue relating to the deletion by the ld. CIT(Appeals) of the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of ERPC charges was also decided by the Tribunal dated October

WEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CO. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 2(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, while the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 150/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri A.T. Varkey

Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)

depreciation under section 32(1)(iia). Ground no 1 & 2 of the assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2011- 12 are accordingly allowed”. 4. It is also observed that the issue relating to the deletion by the ld. CIT(Appeals) of the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of ERPC charges was also decided by the Tribunal dated October

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